D&D 5E Aversion to Creativity?

[pemerton]

actually talking about your current game on the boards is pretty much a fools errand.

I wish there was more actual play discussion on the boards. (Not 'story hours'. Actual play reports.)

I often post my own, and they sometimes lead to interesting discussions, other people talking about the way they handled something similar in their own game, etc.

When it comes to how a game plays, what can be done with it, etc, I find actual play tends to beat theorycraft, or mere assertion, every time.

 

[Eric V]

Wow. Well, if you really think the game is either this:

if you (generic "you", btw) are a DM and are any good at your 'craft', you create rules, spells, monsters, etc. all the time during game.

or this:

A DM who just up and closes his books, and says "I guess we have to quit guys...there aren't any rules for fixing up a smashed galleon...sorry"

then we play radically different games and there was no point in participating in your thread.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Wow. Well, if you really think the game is either this: ...
or this: ...
then we play radically different games and there was no point in participating in your thread.

It isn't an either/or thing at all. It's simply a matter of what a DM is expected to do; create stuff on the fly. There is no getting around that in an RPG, no matter the RPG. An RPG is a game of "cops and robbers, with rules". The choices of what to do are limitless, and a rule book is limited. So a DM is constantly improvising.

A DM does create rules, spells, monsters, etc. all the time because he has to. Its in the nature of the game. A DM who refuses to create rules, spells, monsters, etc. during a game session is missing out on the prime reason for RPG's...group collective imaginative play.

Now, I can understand some DM's need to come out of their shell a bit, and this takes time. It builds confidence and skill at running a game. So I actually do "get" why some DM's are adverse to creating 'too much' on the fly and in stead would much rather just turn to a book. I get that. What I have a hard time understanding is why some DM's (and players) seem to prefer "just buying books to tell them what to do" over actually being creative....in a game that is based almost entirely on being creative. It's just....odd....

So far I've gotten a few responses that I can understand, like a DM who has limited time and likes spending that time on creating stories, plots and interesting NPCs and doesn't want to spend that limited time creating new rules, races or classes. That I get. But some other posts about not having time to create a new sub-race of dwarves or something....no, I don't get that. With 5e's design, it's really simple to do that. It would take roughly an hour to do up a dwarven sub-race to a playable level...yet some people will outright refuse to do so and in stead happily wait months for a new $40 "Book of Races" (or whatever) to come out. I just don't get that. Anybody who has a life so packed to the brim with stuff they have to do that they can't spend a total of an hour on a hobby...over the course of a week or even weeks... I don't buy it. The only reason I could think of was that they just had an aversion to creating stuff. Hence, the thread.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[jayoungr]

Forgive me if I repeat what someone else has already said, but:

Reading over the various threads of complaint about not having enough supplement books for 5E, I've come to the conclusion that they're mostly not really about needing more to play or run the game. I think the concern underlying most of them is the fear that that 5E is being abandoned and will die out if there aren't more releases to keep it in front of people's eyes. Also, more publications are seen as evidence that Hasbro/WotC are solidly committed to the success of 5E, and fewer publications are seen as evidence against that idea.

 

[KarinsDad]

It isn't an either/or thing at all. It's simply a matter of what a DM is expected to do; create stuff on the fly. There is no getting around that in an RPG, no matter the RPG. An RPG is a game of "cops and robbers, with rules". The choices of what to do are limitless, and a rule book is limited. So a DM is constantly improvising.

A DM does create rules, spells, monsters, etc. all the time because he has to. Its in the nature of the game. A DM who refuses to create rules, spells, monsters, etc. during a game session is missing out on the prime reason for RPG's...group collective imaginative play.

So far, I have created about 10 house rules (most of them out of game), 0 spells, and 1 monster (I averaged two different aged same color dragons to get one somewhere in between, also out of game).

I guess I'm missing out on the prime reason for RPG's and having badwrongfun.

 

[Zak S]

Reading over the various threads of complaint about not having enough supplement books for 5E, I've come to the conclusion that they're mostly not really about needing more to play or run the game. I think the concern underlying most of them is the fear that that 5E is being abandoned and will die out if there aren't more releases to keep it in front of people's eyes. Also, more publications are seen as evidence that Hasbro/WotC are solidly committed to the success of 5E, and fewer publications are seen as evidence against that idea.

My advice (and the advice of most creative people, I suspect) has always been:

Less modules and supplements--but spend more time and money making them better. Maybe they've decided to follow it.

 

[Sailor Moon]

When it comes to how a game plays, what can be done with it, etc, I find actual play tends to beat theorycraft, or mere assertion, every time.

During 4th edition and Pathfinder, I used to keep track of all the numbers during the games. 9 times out of 10, I never came across all those DPR numbers that always end up in the theorycraft discussions. The numbers just weren't what people were claiming.

 

[Greg K]

My advice (and the advice of most creative people, I suspect) has always been:
Less modules and supplements--but spend more time and money making them better. Maybe they've decided to follow it.

Of course, better is subjective. Anyway, nice to see you here. It 's been a while since RPG.net.

 

[Hussar]

So when do you publish your own RPG? Or are you averse to creativity?

Wow, now the only way to be creative is to publish your stuff? That's just sad.

Look, you're the one claiming that unless WOTC gently holds you by the hand and guides you every step of the way through every single aspect of the game, they've released an unfinished game. I'm saying that given the basic baseline that they've provided, you can do pretty much anything you want, with a bit of effort and a bit of creativity. See, unlike most in this thread, you're not talking about adventures. You're talking about stuff like building castles. They didn't provide an itemised, step by step list of castle creation, therefore, the rules are unfinished. They didn't provide detailed economic simulation rules for running businesses, therefore the game is unfinished.

I'm saying that quick and dirty rules like they have provided are perfectly fine. I neither want nor care about detailed simulation rules in my D&D. If you want that sort of thing, do it yourself. Stop trying to force your play style on everyone else.

 

[Zak S]

Of course, better is subjective. Anyway, nice to see you here. It 's been a while since RPG.net.

Of course "better" is subjective but "had enough time to make sure I did all the things I was trying to do and had enough money to hire the artists and graphic designers I thought would be best at putting it together" are not.

Either you put out the best thing you thought you could or you go "This is the best we could do with constraints".

The fewer products WOTC puts out, the more resources they can devote to any given one (at least int he short term).

I once asked a high-up guy at DC Comics why they didn't do that: all long-deadlines, most respected creators, only stuff the editors thought was the best they could do rather than just flooding the market . Was that not economically viable?

He said: I've run the numbers--it totally is. We sell more Watchmen and Dark Knight than any of this stuff. The only problem is this is how it's always been done and we're set up to do it this way, so we keep doing it.

WOTC isn't as dug in as comic companies--they might be able to switch to a different model and take no hit.