What if D&D was written around problem-solving

[Ry]

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

Yeah, I know. As per my original post.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Problems SOLVED, d00z.

....hehehe, seriously, though, I think the game would have the same granularity we now have for combat, for personal interaction.

I mean, combat is basically one skill: a "weapons" skill that goes up at every level and compares against the "armor" skill of your enemy. Everything is a variation on how you hurt your enemy -- certain weapons deal more damage, certain armors protect better, certain tricks allow you to reduce or enhance your armor or damage...For more avid problem solving and group interaction, mental traits would be rolled into a similar system.

Imagine a Diplomacy system where, instead of simply rolling opposed checks, you need your Diplomacy to not only beat their Willpower, but also damage their Confidence, lowering it until your own Confidence score beats it, thus inflicting your will on the enemy.

Imagine a more group-based dynamic where the game *required* you to have certain people with you, that not only do you need the rogue for disabling traps, but the rogue also has exclusive access to the Thief's Guild that every party needs, and the fighter has exclusive access to the Fighter's College that will give the party certain items. If you tie advancement directly into the party, and give each member exclusive things that only they can do, you nurture interdependancy.

 

[Ry]

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.

I think this shows exactly what I'm saying, though - that you have to work the content (either player character selection or world design) around the rules in order to get to the playstyle I was talking about.

 

[Ry]

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).

I'm sort of looking at the difference between D&D as-is (broadly written with a playstyle that is implicit but not explicitly reinforced by the rules) and how it could be if it was written around the premise I put up (tightly written around one playstyle).

 

[tx7321]

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.

But why? Free will is the point of the game. Its an FRPG, a reality simulator...its cowboys and indians, but with dice and a DM to describe the world your in. Its fun because you can go and do whatever you like. Take away that choice, and its just another lame game. Players work together and fight to the end together because thats their best chance of success. Even assassins and thieves realize they won't be able to get to the main treasure without the rest of the group. And what little they have may be nothing compared to whats behind the next door. And then theres getting back to town after the adventure. And once you have a reliable team, you'd want to keep it together for the next adventure after you go up.

Also, I don't see how the current system (3E) discourages party members from screwing over their comrads in the heat of battle. How do you get that, in that way it seems identical to OD&D and 1E?

 

[Ry]

But why? Free will is the point of the game.

Free will is not the point of the game, any more than the clash of good versus evil is the point of the game. There are lots of RPGs that have different aims - Dogs in the Vineyard is built around dealing with moral dilemmas, Call of Cthulhu is about investigating dark portents and trying not to go crazy along the way. They are games which actively try to point both players and GMs towards a particular play style.

Think of it like this: The point of the game is set by a kind of agreement on expectations between players and GM. D&D implies that the GM and players should work it out between themselves outside of the rules of the game - other RPGs say "this is the point" and build everything around that.

Again, I'm not trying to go up against D&D, I just tried to ask what would that game look like. The thread now seems divided between people who want to think about the answer and those who want to attack the question.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

As you can see, thinking outside the box is generally viewed as attacking D&D around here.

If I wanted to engineer the game to further reward teamwork, I would further narrow what characters could accomplish on their own and expand how their powers and abilities might interact.

For instance, I might reduce the availability (i.e. increase the level) of direct-damage spells, so that spellcasters would get much more bang for their magical buck by helping the fighters dispatch foes.

To increase the problem-solving facet of the game, I might reduce the availability of general purpose "buff" spells and increase the availability of more specialized abilities, so the party wouldn't have a standard operating procedure going into combat.

 

[Ry]

I had another idea: What if characters had particular objectives that they could reach, kind of like the list of "honour points" - but when a PC achieved one of those objectives EVERYBODY in the party gets the experience. That would be an incentive to help the party hit those notes.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Again, sounds exactly like D&D. Hm.

 

[buzz]

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'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.