What if D&D was written around problem-solving
- Thread starter Ry
- Start date
D&D is an FRPG where the players assume the role of the characters to the same level as if they were real (in their imaginations at least). In that way, the game is about problem solving (just like real life). In order to advance in levels (or just escape to fight another day) the characters constantly have to defeat foes greater then themselves through thinking, as well as luck and working together.
To fail to think first often results in death. In 1E (at least) each class had a function that when utilized properly could keep the group alive. Fighting a troll head on required just as much problem solving then answering some riddle or getting past some complex trap. Just because its a "hack n' slash" part of the game, doesn't mean there isn't strategy involved. Infact, its when proper strategy is employed by the fighters that this class shines its brightest.
Now if you want to make the game "less violent" sure you could do that. But I wouldn't count on many wanting to play something that boring. 
To fail to think first often results in death. In 1E (at least) each class had a function that when utilized properly could keep the group alive. Fighting a troll head on required just as much problem solving then answering some riddle or getting past some complex trap. Just because its a "hack n' slash" part of the game, doesn't mean there isn't strategy involved. Infact, its when proper strategy is employed by the fighters that this class shines its brightest.
Now if you want to make the game "less violent" sure you could do that. But I wouldn't count on many wanting to play something that boring. I think that it already does support, if not require, that mindset. It's just a question of how easy it is for the PCs to see that.
Thinking purely of combat:
Everyone in the party goes on the same Initiative count.
Increase the overall party benefit of attack spells. For example, a Fireball now does 1d6/2 levels, but it also leaves anyone damaged by it flat-footed until their next turn. Every rogue now loves the party wizard.
Flanking is more forgiving and more powerful -- it works for anyone in the normal flanking position, plus one square to either side, and it provides +4 to hit, not +2.
Fighters get more use from ordinary combat feats, and it all benefits everyone in the party. If a Fighter has Combat Expertise, his shouted combat orders give everyone in his party a +1 Insight bonus to AC -- this goes to +3 if the Fighter uses a move action to shout specifics. Same deal with Power Attack and damage.
Rangers give everyone in the party 1/2 their favored enemy bonuses.
Anyone with Evasion gives the rest of the party a +2 Insight bonus to Reflex saves. Anyone with a save-boosting feat does the same thing (Iron Will helps you AND the rest of your party).
Each time a rogue gains another d6 of Sneak Attack damage, he picks a new ability that goes with that Sneak Attack damage. The abilities benefit the party -- for example, losing 2d6 damage but causing a monster to lose its first attack per round, or losing 3d6 but causing the monster to take a -4 penalty on all saves, or even losing 5d6 but causing the monster to lose an entire turn.
Most buff spells work on the entire party now, not one person.
All detection or interaction rolls now use one roll. For example, only one Spot check for the entire party, using the best available Spotter's bonus, with an automatic +2 for each additional person in the party with at least 5 ranks (and an additional +4 for each additional person in te party with at least 10 ranks).
Wizards and clerics lose some of their big damage spells but gain unlimited medium-damage abilities (like the warlock's eldritch blast) as well as the class ability to make a limited number of magical items that can be distributed to the party. In an ordinary D&D game, this is most of the magic the party gets -- monster magical items are cursed and evil and must be destroyed, although a wizard can observe the magic and learn to copy it. This removes the big looting issue, and also removes the XP penalty for magic-item creation that aggravates wizards.
All these abilities dramatically increase the party's power, and so the flip side is that the DM alternates between increasing the power of the opposition or having the opposition use similar tactical powers. This makes it a bit like World of Warcraft, where realistically, you can't solo past a certain point -- the game is designed assuming that it's you and your friends working together well, because if you aren't, they paste you all over the floor.
This is all off the top of my head, and I'm sure a lot of it would be horribly broken in play. This is just to get the ball rolling.
Thinking purely of combat:
Everyone in the party goes on the same Initiative count.
Increase the overall party benefit of attack spells. For example, a Fireball now does 1d6/2 levels, but it also leaves anyone damaged by it flat-footed until their next turn. Every rogue now loves the party wizard.
Flanking is more forgiving and more powerful -- it works for anyone in the normal flanking position, plus one square to either side, and it provides +4 to hit, not +2.
Fighters get more use from ordinary combat feats, and it all benefits everyone in the party. If a Fighter has Combat Expertise, his shouted combat orders give everyone in his party a +1 Insight bonus to AC -- this goes to +3 if the Fighter uses a move action to shout specifics. Same deal with Power Attack and damage.
Rangers give everyone in the party 1/2 their favored enemy bonuses.
Anyone with Evasion gives the rest of the party a +2 Insight bonus to Reflex saves. Anyone with a save-boosting feat does the same thing (Iron Will helps you AND the rest of your party).
Each time a rogue gains another d6 of Sneak Attack damage, he picks a new ability that goes with that Sneak Attack damage. The abilities benefit the party -- for example, losing 2d6 damage but causing a monster to lose its first attack per round, or losing 3d6 but causing the monster to take a -4 penalty on all saves, or even losing 5d6 but causing the monster to lose an entire turn.
Most buff spells work on the entire party now, not one person.
All detection or interaction rolls now use one roll. For example, only one Spot check for the entire party, using the best available Spotter's bonus, with an automatic +2 for each additional person in the party with at least 5 ranks (and an additional +4 for each additional person in te party with at least 10 ranks).
Wizards and clerics lose some of their big damage spells but gain unlimited medium-damage abilities (like the warlock's eldritch blast) as well as the class ability to make a limited number of magical items that can be distributed to the party. In an ordinary D&D game, this is most of the magic the party gets -- monster magical items are cursed and evil and must be destroyed, although a wizard can observe the magic and learn to copy it. This removes the big looting issue, and also removes the XP penalty for magic-item creation that aggravates wizards.
All these abilities dramatically increase the party's power, and so the flip side is that the DM alternates between increasing the power of the opposition or having the opposition use similar tactical powers. This makes it a bit like World of Warcraft, where realistically, you can't solo past a certain point -- the game is designed assuming that it's you and your friends working together well, because if you aren't, they paste you all over the floor.
This is all off the top of my head, and I'm sure a lot of it would be horribly broken in play. This is just to get the ball rolling.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Player cooperation can be wonderful in any RPG--even D&D.
Despite what several people suggest, D&D isn't built around this concept. Sure, it's a common assumption, but for every person who thinks it's essential you could probably find one who thinks it detracts from their style of play.
If you want a game like this, you'll probably have to run it yourself, or get your DM to explicitly state that working together is a good thing AND REWARD IT ACCORDINGLY. The DM would need to hand out goodies to players who cooperate to achieve their goals: extra XP, magic items, in-game rewards (fluff, like recognition by the mayor or something).
That said, you can't force players to do anything. The guy who wants to play the assassin and kill the other PC's is still going to do his own thing.
Edit: perhaps you can force players to follow your path, but they probably won't enjoy it and will either quit your game or make everyone's life more miserable.
Despite what several people suggest, D&D isn't built around this concept. Sure, it's a common assumption, but for every person who thinks it's essential you could probably find one who thinks it detracts from their style of play.
If you want a game like this, you'll probably have to run it yourself, or get your DM to explicitly state that working together is a good thing AND REWARD IT ACCORDINGLY. The DM would need to hand out goodies to players who cooperate to achieve their goals: extra XP, magic items, in-game rewards (fluff, like recognition by the mayor or something).
That said, you can't force players to do anything. The guy who wants to play the assassin and kill the other PC's is still going to do his own thing.
Edit: perhaps you can force players to follow your path, but they probably won't enjoy it and will either quit your game or make everyone's life more miserable.
Ry
Explorer
TarionzCousin said:
That's what I'm trying to get at. What changes like this would be built into the system in order to encourage the party to work together, and discourage them working against each other? Which rules are counterproductive or superfluous in light of the goal of encouraging this?
I tried to answer some of that, but maybe not well.
Here are the rules and concepts that hurt cooperative play, in my opinion:
Loot: It never divides quite evenly, even if the DM tries to make it happen. In a selfless group, it's not a problem, because people are already trying to work together. But a big loot haul is a problem waiting to happen in groups that aren't predisposed to work together.
Single-target or personal-range buffs and limited magical resources: You get hurt feelings because the cleric healed/buffed the ranger instead of you, and you get annoyed because the wizard used his big-boom spell of the day taking out the ogre attacking him instead of the balor attacking you.
Initiative: It doesn't actually hurt cooperation in theory, but in practice, it puts another bureaucratic layer between the party members, so that a player who wants to helpfully let the wizard fireball the bad guys has to delay his turn.
Multiple-party-member rolls: So many situations arise because the ranger or rogue spotted something that nobody else did. Maybe it's loot that they want for themselves, or maybe it's a creature that only they have time to attack in a surprise round, or maybe it's something else. Using one roll for things like Initiative, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive (in social situation, not regarding feints), and Search simplifies gameplay and more obviously rewards the player with the highest score. He becomes the official team representative in that matter.
Here are the rules and concepts that hurt cooperative play, in my opinion:
Loot: It never divides quite evenly, even if the DM tries to make it happen. In a selfless group, it's not a problem, because people are already trying to work together. But a big loot haul is a problem waiting to happen in groups that aren't predisposed to work together.
Single-target or personal-range buffs and limited magical resources: You get hurt feelings because the cleric healed/buffed the ranger instead of you, and you get annoyed because the wizard used his big-boom spell of the day taking out the ogre attacking him instead of the balor attacking you.
Initiative: It doesn't actually hurt cooperation in theory, but in practice, it puts another bureaucratic layer between the party members, so that a player who wants to helpfully let the wizard fireball the bad guys has to delay his turn.
Multiple-party-member rolls: So many situations arise because the ranger or rogue spotted something that nobody else did. Maybe it's loot that they want for themselves, or maybe it's a creature that only they have time to attack in a surprise round, or maybe it's something else. Using one roll for things like Initiative, Spot, Listen, Sense Motive (in social situation, not regarding feints), and Search simplifies gameplay and more obviously rewards the player with the highest score. He becomes the official team representative in that matter.
TarionzCousin said:
Right on. In the end for some players (depending on the PC their running) its going to be "did I survive" not did the group survive. Sometimes the wrong decision for the group is the right one for the individual (like you running with the mega magical artifact while everyone else deals with the ancient dragon and get waisted).
Last edited:
Particle_Man
Explorer
Isn't that what the "aid another" maneuver is all about?
D&D has always been about problem solving. The problem being, "Now that they're dead, how do we get their crap out of here?"
Similar Threads
