What if D&D was written around problem-solving

[Ry]

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).

You see, I'd like to know what D&D would look like if it actively discouraged this sort of thing. The current system discourages it, but not actively.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'd go even further: I think - in order to preserve a lot of problem-solving that gets easily solved in high levels - the level progression would cap somewhere around 12 (note that this is the upper end of the "sweet spot" range that's been discussed so much).

Given the bolded part of that quote, do you perchance mean 'mystery solving' rather than 'problem solving'? Those are two different things. Problem solving doesn't become all that much easier at high levels, since the problems are bigger. Mystery solving on the other hand, can go right out the window even at low levels with things like Zone of Truth, Charm Person, etc. Is that what you're talking about?

 

[Ry]

Isn't that what the "aid another" maneuver is all about?

One +2 named bonus does not a co-operative problem solving rules system make.

Also, and probably more importantly, I think D&D could have better guidelines for creating situations that lead to this. A poster above mentioned that "any DM worth his salt" would do this anyway, and that many DM-advice articles do this, but that's just shows that that approach is something the DM is supposed to add to the system (because the system is supposed to handle everything).

 

[Ry]

Given the bolded part of that quote, do you perchance mean 'mystery solving' rather than 'problem solving'? Those are two different things. Problem solving doesn't become all that much easier at high levels, since the problems are bigger. Mystery solving on the other hand, can go right out the window even at low levels with things like Zone of Truth, Charm Person, etc. Is that what you're talking about?

The problems can be bigger, but bigger problems (and puzzles) become significantly harder to construct as well.

But I think your point is a good one; if D&D was built around problem solving, including those prisoner dilemmas and the kind of logic-gate problems that present themselves as mysteries, then Zone of Truth / Charm Person wouldn't be as easily available.

 

[Ry]

I'm not trying ot attack D&D here, just trying to encourage thinking outside the box a bit about how you could target the play experience.

 

[GVDammerung]

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?

Check out Robin Laws Esoterrorists game that introduces the Gumshoe roleplaying system. Laws sets out to create the "anti-D&D" system that focuses on collaborative problem solving and, in part, includes a mini-essay on why D&D poorly models anything other that the aforementioned "problem solving with pointy sticks." Whether you agree or disagree with Laws' conclusions, Esoterrorists is a good read from a game design perspective, not even considering the background for the game (occult terrorists more or less, btw). It is $20 and was just recently released by Pelegrin Press (I believe, as I don't have my copy in front of me).

NB - As usual with Laws' games, it also has just a bunch of cool concepts that can be stolen for any game.

 

[Ry]

I'll definitely check it out - Robin Laws is one of my heroes of good game design.

 

[|)ar|{]

Just my thoughts, but if your players aren't working together than perhaps you need to up the hardness of your games. The barb and pally may not want to work together but given the right situation they sure will. Perhaps you've fostered a play enviroment that allows your players to put their own roleplaying ideas over that of the group. I've played in plenty of groups were that is the case. A couple sessions were monsters attack or mission objectives are missed while the group argues and things will start to turn around. But then again our games tend to be so hard that we often build our group, at least our basic roles, together as a group, before char creation.
I don't thing building CoOp into the rules is the way to go. I think clever DMing can get you the samething without it being so obvious.

 

[Ry]

Just my thoughts, but if your players aren't working together than perhaps you need to up the hardness of your games.

Don't worry - my players work together all the time, I've got no problem in my current game. I'm really trying to look at what a different game D&D would be if it were built around just the one play style.

I don't thing building CoOp into the rules is the way to go. I think clever DMing can get you the samething without it being so obvious.

Ah, but I'm trying to get people to think about what the game would be like if it was so obvious. i.e., what if you didn't need a clever DM to encourage this kind of play?

 

[|)ar|{]

Well then the game wouldn't work for those groups that want to play a group of individuals.