Jester David
Hero
I really do want to walk away... But I'm weak.
Okay, it was said somewhere by someone that D&D always required house ruling for creativity so there was no change between this and modern editions.
Which is true... with a catch.
1st Edition D&D didn't emphasise combat. Kinda. See, experience was award from treasure gained, not monsters killed. So players were rewarded exactly the same if they bypassed the monsters or tricked the monsters or did some sneaking thing so long as they received the treasure. If the party engaged in combat there was the risk of death, so this subtly incentivized PCs to avoid combat, as there was a better risk:reward ratio for combat avoidance.
The game mechanics themselves encouraged creative solutions.
2nd Edition changed this to xp from monsters, but included class based experience awards for non-combat activities such as crafting magic items, researching or casting spells, and (for the rogue) gold acquired.
It's the difference between colouring in the lines and making your own design. It's taking the Lego set and building what was on the box.
When you're making clever tactical choices and designing a solid build it's mathematically clever yes, but you're still playing the game solely within the confines of the rules. You're playing the game how it was meant to played. You can be tactically clever in a board game. And a miniature combat game. And a chess game. And yes, all of those examples are fun and good and shiny. But they're not creative.
D&D used to be more creative. Because there were giant gaps. You couldn't help but be creative because there was so little else. It was a Lego set in a blank box.
The rules are a crutch. They impose themselves in place of the creativity, taking up room that used to be occupied by nothing, leaving less room from the DM. It's one of those modern Lego sets that is 75% unique pieces and can really only build the one thing.
And to be frank, that IS a good thing. Because it makes it possible to have fun when you aren't feeling creative. It makes the game inherently fun rather than something you can use to basis for fun.
But it's not universally fun. Which is the catch.
Okay, it was said somewhere by someone that D&D always required house ruling for creativity so there was no change between this and modern editions.
Which is true... with a catch.
1st Edition D&D didn't emphasise combat. Kinda. See, experience was award from treasure gained, not monsters killed. So players were rewarded exactly the same if they bypassed the monsters or tricked the monsters or did some sneaking thing so long as they received the treasure. If the party engaged in combat there was the risk of death, so this subtly incentivized PCs to avoid combat, as there was a better risk:reward ratio for combat avoidance.
The game mechanics themselves encouraged creative solutions.
2nd Edition changed this to xp from monsters, but included class based experience awards for non-combat activities such as crafting magic items, researching or casting spells, and (for the rogue) gold acquired.
It's clever but not creative.You didn't answer my question. Why is casting Infravision on the thief so s/he can scout "clever" or "creative", but using Come and Get It to bunch up the enemies so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff not?
Why is using Rock to Mud to drop the cavern roof on a dragon "creative", but using the power of an idol of the Summer Queen to dispel a black dragon's darkness not?
Why is staying back and using archery against D&Dnext hobgoblins "clever", but using Parthian archery against hobgoblin infantry in a 4e game not?
It's the difference between colouring in the lines and making your own design. It's taking the Lego set and building what was on the box.
When you're making clever tactical choices and designing a solid build it's mathematically clever yes, but you're still playing the game solely within the confines of the rules. You're playing the game how it was meant to played. You can be tactically clever in a board game. And a miniature combat game. And a chess game. And yes, all of those examples are fun and good and shiny. But they're not creative.
D&D used to be more creative. Because there were giant gaps. You couldn't help but be creative because there was so little else. It was a Lego set in a blank box.
The rules are a crutch. They impose themselves in place of the creativity, taking up room that used to be occupied by nothing, leaving less room from the DM. It's one of those modern Lego sets that is 75% unique pieces and can really only build the one thing.
And to be frank, that IS a good thing. Because it makes it possible to have fun when you aren't feeling creative. It makes the game inherently fun rather than something you can use to basis for fun.
But it's not universally fun. Which is the catch.