What if D&D was written around problem-solving

[Ry]

I'm in the camp that D&D already pretty much does what you're asking. It does it w/r/t to the tactical combat thing, granted, but that's what D&D is about. If you're trying to ask about problem solving and team-building in another context, then the crux of your question is about that context, not the problem-solving issue itself.

I'd like to pose the question back at you. In the D&D games I've played, especially one long-running campaign I've been in for years, I can't think of a single situation where working against the party was the optimal choice. Ergo, I'd like to see you cite some examples of situations or rules that encourage working against the other players.

Mind you, I am not asking for examples of dickweed players waving "my guy" tomfoolerly in your face, because that's not a system issue. I'm asking about rules and/or scenarios in which the optimal choice was to ditch the team and not solve the problem at hand.

I think the alignment system is fuel for the behaviour you're talking about here. Also, I think the reliance on wealth and magical items can contribute to that behaviour as well. But think about the experience system - if I can sneak off and kill some goblins before the party gets involved, I get all the experience for that, even if I cause things to be messed up for the other players. Now I'm not saying that's SMART, but It's not something that D&D actively discourages with the experience system.

But my question isn't strictly negative - i.e. "what's wrong with D&D that it discourages people from working together?" - it's deliberately positive: "If D&D encouraged people to work together, what would that look like?"

 

[buzz]

I think the alignment system is fuel for the behaviour you're talking about here.

I don't see that as the case. How does it actively discourage teamwork and problem-solving?

But think about the experience system - if I can sneak off and kill some goblins before the party gets involved, I get all the experience for that, even if I cause things to be messed up for the other players. Now I'm not saying that's SMART, but It's not something that D&D actively discourages with the experience system.

The CR system, imperfect as it may be, assumes a default party of four PCs with the basic roles of warrior-guy, arcane-guy, divine-guy, and sneaky-guy all covered. A PC's odds of surviving a solo combat encounter that would provide enough XP to be worthwhile are drastically lower than they'd be with the full party present.

But my question isn't strictly negative - i.e. "what's wrong with D&D that it discourages people from working together?" - it's deliberately positive: "If D&D encouraged people to work together, what would that look like?"

I'd revise your question to be: "If D&D encouraged people to work together more, what would that look like?"

D&D is all about the team. Take a look at the chapter in PHB2 that talks about compensating for the absence of key class roles, and you'll see how vital it is that adventurers form groups as opposed to going it alone. The entire CR system is based around the assumption that each PC will have access to resources provided by other classes. You cannot run D&D with standard CR/EL with a party of less than four without challenge adjustment or resorting to solutions like gestalt classes.

Try being in a party with a cleric being run by an incompetent player sometime; everything gets more difficult without the healing and buffing clerics offer. Try being in a party with no arcane caster; everything gets more difficult without the effective ranged attacks sorcerers and wizards have access to. And so on...

I understand that you're not intending your query as a criticism. But D&D is already so team-focused that I honestly think the issue is moot. Loners break D&D... just look at any of the myriad complaints about players who have used incorrect interpretations of Chaotic Neutral to justify anti-party behavior.

Anyway, as a more direct answer to your question, I'd maybe take a look at the teamwork benefits rules in, iirc, DMG2.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Cooperation and Individuality in D&D

I'd revise your question to be: "If D&D encouraged people to work together more, what would that look like?"

D&D is all about the team.<snip>

Anyway, as a more direct answer to your question, I'd maybe take a look at the teamwork benefits rules in, iirc, DMG2.

The key difference is that the rewards of good teamwork are either optional or not explicit in the rules. Yes, players benefit from teamwork, but the solo players also benefit from actions that benefit their characters only (such as stealing from other PC's).

If their were more rewards, such as experience points, for teamwork, more players would cooperate. However, I wouldn't like to see individuality punished. I honestly think that this sort of thing should be agreed upon by the DM & PC's, not part of the rules for everyone.

I partially agree with tx7321 that free will is an essential element of D&D. When I want more cooperation in games I run, I tell the players up front how they will be rewarded for working together, or that they are all members of the same team and no loner/traitors are allowed in this particular game.

It's all good as long as everyone is having fun.

 

[buzz]

Yes, players benefit from teamwork, but the solo players also benefit from actions that benefit their characters only (such as stealing from other PC's).

But they don't benefit more from shafting their party members like this. The character may benefit in some subjective, in-SIS, way ("I'm richer than the cleric!"), but the player doesn't benefit in terms of accomplishing common game goals. Not that I can see, at least.

I can understand what you're getting at about making things more explicit. However, I still haven't seen a valid example of how D&D encourages, implicitly or explicitly, acting against the team over acting with the team. What I'm seeing are examples of dickweed players... and no system can prevent dickweeds from being dickweeds.

Anyway... besides what I mentioned above, the Affiliations rules in PHB2 could possibly be used in this regard. The PCs get Affiliation benefits for being in their own adventuring party, maybe.

 

[Ry]

However, I still haven't seen a valid example of how D&D encourages, implicitly or explicitly, acting against the team over acting with the team.

As I have already said, that's not the point. The point is how would the rules be different if they were written around teamwork for defeating threats and problem-solving as the sole point of play.

 

[Ry]

in my post above, you could use "fun-generating exercise." instead of "point of play"

 

[buzz]

The point is how would the rules be different if they were written around teamwork for defeating threats and problem-solving as the sole point of play.

Right. My answer is pretty much, "A lot like it does now." Possibly with more stuff like the teamwork benefits in PHB2 and DMG2, ritual spells, etc.