What if D&D was written around problem-solving

I'm trying to imagine what D&D would be like if it were written with the following in mind:

D&D is a game where the players assume the role of fantasy characters who work together to solve problems and defeat threats.

What I mean is, what if it wasn't written as an RPG that could handle (theoretically) any kind of fantasy game? What if, instead, every rule had to help the players work together, solve problems, or overcome threats?

I think the first thing to go would be alignment rules, since they don't help players work together (Chaotic Neutral Barbarian and Lawful Good paladin, anyone?).

I think the first thing that would have to be added would be a phase of character creation that works out how the player-characters know each other and connects them to each other.

* I know some people will say "D&D's strength is the fact that it is so universal." and maybe so, but I'm interested in what it would be like if it was just focused on the play experience I wrote above.

Not enough violence.

rycanada said:

I think the first thing to go would be alignment rules, since they don't help players work together (Chaotic Neutral Barbarian and Lawful Good paladin, anyone?).

Click to expand...

I do not see why alignment would have to go completely by the way side. I could easily be used in this type of system. Just add something additional too the rules. Do away with character creation and replace it with party creation. For the cooperation from the moment characters are created. This way all the alignments are compatible or there is good motivation for the characters to work together.

Hmmmm LG Paladin and CN Barbarian. Maybe the campaign centers around a BBEG who is a NE Blight Mage who has been blighting the lands the barbarian is from. The LG Paladin needs only the motivation that the NE Blight Mage is E. So therefore these two work together to solve the problem of the blight mage. In future quests the fact that the barbarian likes the paladin is enough for him to work with the paladin since CN is a free spirit type.

rycanada said:

I think the first thing that would have to be added would be a phase of character creation that works out how the player-characters know each other and connects them to each other.

Click to expand...

This I will agree with. Actually I think that you would no longer have 'character' creation and instead would have 'party' creation. This would have all the players working together to develop a well rounded party with motivation to work together. OTOH, the GM may want to provide that instead of giving the players this much say in the over all campaign.

rycanada said:

* I know some people will say "D&D's strength is the fact that it is so universal." and maybe so, but I'm interested in what it would be like if it was just focused on the play experience I wrote above.

Click to expand...

There are systems on the market that have this focus, one is Gumshoe by Pelgrane Press Ltd. You may want to check that out. It actually takes your idea and turns it on its head. Instead of forcing the party to work together it forces the adventure designer to make sure players get the info they need to solve the problem.

I'm quite possibly not getting the joke here, but to me D&D is exactly the other way around.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

D&D is problem solving with pointy sticks!

joe b.

rycanada said:

* I know some people will say "D&D's strength is the fact that it is so universal." and maybe so, but I'm interested in what it would be like if it was just focused on the play experience I wrote above.

Click to expand...

D&D is universal?
D20 might be universal, you can do all kinds of things in a d20 system.

But D&D is not universal. There's lots of assumptions built into D&D that are very dear to my heart that make my heart very pained when people fondle and abuse them.

rycanada said:

D&D is a game where the players assume the role of fantasy characters who work together to solve problems and defeat threats.

Click to expand...

I fail to see evidence that this isn't already the default assumption for D&D.

For example, the class system essentiallyt forces characters into niches ... and guidacne to DMs for designing adventures covers a range of possible challenges that encourages cooperation from a variety of classes to meet a range of challenges. The default party assumption of fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue is the quintessential example of this.

Sure, the game can be played other ways -- but I see the default structure to be one of cooperation by "heroic-minded" characters to overcome challenges (i.e., earn XP and advance).

rycanada said:

I'm trying to imagine what D&D would be like if it were written with the following in mind:

D&D is a game where the players assume the role of fantasy characters who work together to solve problems and defeat threats.

Click to expand...

I think it already is this. Characters have to work together to defeat threats; the class/niche enforcement already makes sure that no-one can do everything well. Campaigns where the characters don't work together are typically very short and filled with arguements.

rycanada said:

I think the first thing that would have to be added would be a phase of character creation that works out how the player-characters know each other and connects them to each other.

Click to expand...

Any DM worth his salt does this. It's already mentioned in most GM-advice articles.

rycanada said:

I'm trying to imagine what D&D would be like if it were written with the following in mind:

D&D is a game where the players assume the role of fantasy characters who work together to solve problems and defeat threats.

Click to expand...

Marge Simpson said:

Hmmm... Oh! Couldn't Itchy share his pie with Scratchy? Then they would both have pie!

Click to expand...

Sounds dull.