Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies

[Andor]

So, by your definition, it's not actually creative to do this, because, it's covered by the character sheet

You seem to be ignoring what I say, you also seem unable to distinguish between a character sheet and the dmg, and you seem to feel that all DMs in 4e would resolve that action in exactly the same way and that none would think it's an immobilization effect, or a knockdown, or that maybe you need to roll damage against the stalactite.

A universal resolution mechanic does not prohibit creativity, I never said it did. You are puncturing arguments no one is making. I'm not sure why.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. Just because its in the DMG it suddenly becomes more creative? Not buying it. Sure different Dm's might adjudcate it differently. That still doesn't somehow make it more creative. You made the argument that having more options on your character sheet somehow makes players less creative. I disagree.

 

[JonWake]

Meh. Just because its in the DMG it suddenly becomes more creative? Not buying it. Sure different Dm's might adjudcate it differently. That still doesn't somehow make it more creative. You made the argument that having more options on your character sheet somehow makes players less creative. I disagree.

It's not IN the DMG, that's the point. A very general system is, but there is nothing there that covers all the eventualities.

Compare this with a player having a "Pin the Wing" daily power. One requires creative solutions, the other requires tactical thinking.

Having a codified solution to a problem is pretty much the working definition of 'in the box' thinking.

 

[Mattachine]

Codified solutions do, however, provide guidelines.

For instance, if some character actually had a power to cover a given situation, then that is the best case scenario. Other players may attempt something similar, but it wouldn't be as good (the specialist does it best, others may try).

The 4e DMG certainly discusses this, and the 4e DMG2 has a whole section on adjudicating stunts in combat.

 

[JonWake]

The 4e DMG certainly discusses this, and the 4e DMG2 has a whole section on adjudicating stunts in combat.

Which will never be as effective, have a far greater chance of failure, and in short do everything they can to encourage the player to stick with his character sheet.

Page 42 is good. It's a well designed system. But taken in context of the rest of the powers system, it's a withered, vestigial limb.

 

[Incenjucar]

Which will never be as effective, have a far greater chance of failure, and in short do everything they can to encourage the player to stick with his character sheet.

Page 42 is good. It's a well designed system. But taken in context of the rest of the powers system, it's a withered, vestigial limb.

Eh?

You should only be doing wacky stuff when wacky stuff is advantageous. You don't throw a pillow at someone unless throwing a pillow at them is, because of a special circumstance, more useful than feeding them an Acid Arrow.

 

[Scribble]

It's not IN the DMG, that's the point. A very general system is, but there is nothing there that covers all the eventualities.

Compare this with a player having a "Pin the Wing" daily power. One requires creative solutions, the other requires tactical thinking.

Having a codified solution to a problem is pretty much the working definition of 'in the box' thinking.

I think though it's not an issue with the rules creating a style vrs not creating a style, because that would mean that people who played spellcasters in earlier editions were most likely less creative then non spell casters (because the spell casters had more codified rules on their sheet to deal with situations.)

I would say the above is false, as I saw the same people try to use spells outside of the box, that also tried to use powers outside of the box.

As someone upstream said, it's a system neutral phenomenon. There are some people who will just naturally always try to accomplish more then the rules specifically say they can, and there are some that won't.


Sometimes a poor DM out there on his/her own making calls on the fly can get overwhelmed and either say yes to something way overpowered and then regret it, or they end up saying no to everything in an attempt to keep things flowing properly, or they just sit there paralyzing the game trying to determine if it's ok or not.

All Page 42 does is attempt to give DMs something to fall back on to help them arbitrate. It doesn't seek to replace creativity, or squelch it, it just tries to help the DM deal with it.

 

[JonWake]

Eh?

You should only be doing wacky stuff when wacky stuff is advantageous. You don't throw a pillow at someone unless throwing a pillow at them is, because of a special circumstance, more useful than feeding them an Acid Arrow.

Which is exactly my point. Rather than interacting with the fictional world first, then figuring out what rules are applicable, you are interacting with the rules first and coming up with a fictional justifications after the fact.

Page 42 is all about the fiction first. The other 1,000 pages aren't.

 

[Mattachine]

Which is exactly my point. Rather than interacting with the fictional world first, then figuring out what rules are applicable, you are interacting with the rules first and coming up with a fictional justifications after the fact.

Page 42 is all about the fiction first. The other 1,000 pages aren't.

Since you only reference p. 42, I assume you have never the relevant part in the DMG2.

PCs cannot always fall back on their listed abilities, because those abilities can't cover every situation. Sure, the improvised actions aren't as good as the ones they are specialized in. That's a problem?

 

[Incenjucar]

Which is exactly my point. Rather than interacting with the fictional world first, then figuring out what rules are applicable, you are interacting with the rules first and coming up with a fictional justifications after the fact.

Page 42 is all about the fiction first. The other 1,000 pages aren't.

So you think that wizards should spend MORE time swinging from chandeliers than throwing fireballs?