D&D General Creativity?

[bloodtide]

So the basic question is: What are your house rules for Player Creativity?

So this came in related to the new D&D movie trailer. In a scene the Red Wizard casts a Floating Hand spell at the heroes. One of the heroes casts Earthen Grasp and that hand rushed over to block the Floating Hand. It's a fine bit of CGI and in a generic fantasy movie it's just fine. Though really most movies just alter reality to do whatever they want on a whim anyway. Though a D&D movie is a bit different, as someone is looking in the D&D books for people, places and things. Though we know the movie makers utterly don't care about the D&D rules. They glance at a page and think a 'floating hand of energy' looks and sounds cool....then toss the book away and do whatever they want.

So this is fine for a movie. When you play the game of D&D you do, in a general sense, have to follow the rules. It's kind of the point of even playing a game with rules. Though as an Old School gamer, I'm right at the start of the line that says "the scribbles in the books are suggestions". A DM can do whatever they wish, though I have a hard limit on what players can do. It's not really a game if players can just alter reality at will.

Though I do love it when players get creative: When the players use things in the game world reality to accomplish some goal. I clever idea, trick or something like that. Though my hard limit must have things make sense in the game world and the relative power level. Like I would nearly never allow a mundane item, like a hand mirror, to deflect the spell lightning bolt. Or use Mage Hand to "wrestle" with another using the spell Telekinesis. Or the D&D movie example: 2nd level Earthen Grasp can stop 5th level Grasping Hand.

Though some posters disagreed. They commented that such a thing was just fine in their game. They might do such things often or do an "once in a while" allowance, that I guess they would do over and over and over again.

Hence this thread. How far do you go for Player Creativeness? Do you allow them to get away with near anything? If you have a limit, what is it? Do you just let the players have the effect of just casting a wish spell effect? Do you allow the players to alter reality to get out of a jam or sticky spot? Once you establish something that alters reality, like you don't want the PC to die so you let a daring halfling bard deflect a lightning bolt with a silver plate and take no damage. Do you then add that to your house rules? Anyone any time can automatically deflect a lightning bolt spell and take no damage with a mundane silver plate?

What say you?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So the basic question is: What are your house rules for Player Creativity?

I don't have any. "House rules" are changes to the fundamental rules substrate which we all agree to abide by.

If and when we discover that substrate is insufficient, we have a conversation, as human beings should. Generally, we don't need one (though that's partly because of the way Dungeon World is designed.) On the rare occasions we do need one, my mantra is: Always embrace genuine, non-coercive, non-exploitative player enthusiasm. Because enthusiasm is the most precious and delicate commodity. Lose it and it's extremely difficult to get it back.

Though as an Old School gamer, I'm right at the start of the line that says "the scribbles in the books are suggestions".

This, on the other hand, I cannot stand. At all. Ever. This attitude destroys the game aspect of a roleplaying game as surely as your convention against "if players can just alter reality at will." The rules have to be more than just suggestions, or else the whole thing is "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further." (There are other, pithier phrases I could use to describe my perception of this concept, but others find those phrases upsetting.) You're constantly on the lookout for how the rug will get pulled out from under you this time, even if you believe the DM is trying to be fair and consistent, because human beings are innately and unavoidably biased and inconsistent.

If the player cannot alter the game at will, the DM cannot alter the game at will either. This is the fundamental agreement behind playing a written game as opposed to Calvinball.

Hence this thread. How far do you go for Player Creativeness? Do you allow them to get away with near anything? If you have a limit, what is it? Do you just let the players have the effect of just casting a wish spell effect? Do you allow the players to alter reality to get out of a jam or sticky spot? Once you establish something that alters reality, like you don't want the PC to die so you let a daring halfling bard deflect a lightning bolt with a silver plate and take no damage. Do you then add that to your house rules? Anyone any time can automatically deflect a lightning bolt spell and take no damage with a mundane silver plate?

What say you?

If we (the player and I) have agreed that the rules--the established substrate that we agreed to--has failed us, then we negotiate. As long as the player is coming in genuine good faith, seeking only to have a more fun and engaging experience, I will move heaven and earth for them to deliver a satisfactory outcome. That does not mean I will simply give them what they asked for, however; there are many times where the thing asked for as it is simply can't be done, for whatever reason. So I dig down into what the player is looking for, what their heart's desire is, and look for whatever ways are available to make that happen. I have never failed to achieve this with my group, and we're a few months out from five years of play.

I have extremely few "bright line" limits I won't cross. One of them is that I don't run games for outright, actually evil PCs. PCs who suffer temptation, perhaps even give into it once in a while? Awesome. PCs who were evil and have begun a journey of recovery, full of pitfalls and backslides and the painful process of change? God in Heaven, give me ALL of that. But genuinely, no restrictions, no caveats, evil PCs? I can't run an entertaining game for them. It's not compatible with my interests and preferences as DM. It will be disappointing for both me and the player, so I don't do that. As noted above, the whole "player is being coercive or exploitative" is also a hard no. Apart from those things, though, it's very difficult to bring me an idea I simply can't tolerate.

As for your more specific questions, generally I will accept something as establishing a precedent, but I may note that a particular action was incredibly unlikely or risky. I don't think I would allow a mundane mirror (which is generally made of metal) to reflect a lightning bolt in the first place, though I do find the idea interesting. Perhaps some kind of specially-treated glass? Or a thing the players can look for in the future? Or perhaps just allowing the mirror to "absorb" some of the damage, but still passing a good portion on to whoever is holding the mirror (because, y'know, electrical conductivity.)

I tend to build into my world "outs" in case something unexpected happens. Not in the "and if they take action X, then Y will occur, so I can trigger plan Z" way. Rather, establishing that there is some kind of fictional support for something. The party has a gold dragon ally; he's busy and running incognito, so he can't just waltz around and do their work for them, but he has (at the players' prompting even!) promised to give them aid if they should find themselves in a desperate time of need. Likewise, I think about potential interactions, and when the players ask good questions, I include as much detail as possible (balanced against the need to be succinct, of course) so that there's usually something more they can dig into, more things they can declare or discover answers about.

Essentially, if the player can sell me on the action, I'm almost certainly for it. I make certain allowances for naturalness/physical phenomena (like the conductivity thing above), but I am very motivated by the Rule of Cool and, to a lesser extent, the Rule of Drama. Something being cool or dramatic isn't a guarantee that it will work...but if you can get me to see how cool or dramatic it is, most of the time, you'll probably get me to agree to at least part of what you're looking for.

 

[Tonguez]

PCs are heroes and sometimes doing heroic thinks like leaping in with a silver plate to deflect a lightning bolt are heroic enough to get an Inspiration point - so Roll dex saving throw with disadvantage and use this Inspiration point I’m awarding you to take no damage. ->Inspiration is RAW

the two hand thing Id allow as a Dispel with different special effects

 

[overgeeked]

So the basic question is: What are your house rules for Player Creativity?

When playing 5E I've had to bend over backwards to encourage it. I've had to beg players to try anything that wasn't specifically listed on their character sheet and literally bribe them (in game) to get them to try anything remotely resembling creative shenanigans. Skill check to do something awesome? Nope, chance of failure...won't do it. Just narrate the cool thing with no mechanical up or downside? Nope, no mechanical benefit and it wastes time at the table. Automatically grant advantage for anything even remotely resembling creative shenanigans? Nope, too arbitrary and not explicitly covered by the rules. Ugh.

So this is fine for a movie. When you play the game of D&D you do, in a general sense, have to follow the rules. It's kind of the point of even playing a game with rules. Though as an Old School gamer, I'm right at the start of the line that says "the scribbles in the books are suggestions". A DM can do whatever they wish, though I have a hard limit on what players can do. It's not really a game if players can just alter reality at will.

Nah. Just because you're sitting in the big chair doesn't mean the players don't get to be creative. There's an incredibly long spectrum from "doing something cool" to "alter reality at will". But yes, it would still be a game even if the players could alter reality at will.

Though I do love it when players get creative: When the players use things in the game world reality to accomplish some goal. I clever idea, trick or something like that. Though my hard limit must have things make sense in the game world and the relative power level. Like I would nearly never allow a mundane item, like a hand mirror, to deflect the spell lightning bolt. Or use Mage Hand to "wrestle" with another using the spell Telekinesis. Or the D&D movie example: 2nd level Earthen Grasp can stop 5th level Grasping Hand.

I'd do it as opposed Arcana checks with a bonus equal to the spell level. No reason not to let them try something cool. Strikes me as a classic wizard's duel.

Though some posters disagreed. They commented that such a thing was just fine in their game. They might do such things often or do an "once in a while" allowance, that I guess they would do over and over and over again.

There is, unfortunately, some credence to the notion of "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," though this is a game and it's meant to be a fun flexing of creativity.

Hence this thread. How far do you go for Player Creativeness? Do you allow them to get away with near anything? If you have a limit, what is it?

My limit is power gaming cheese. If someone's trying to use something in a creative way I will encourage that to no end. If they're just trying to optimize and min max and win with the minimal expenditure of resources, then no.

Do you just let the players have the effect of just casting a wish spell effect? Do you allow the players to alter reality to get out of a jam or sticky spot?

Again, there's a vast spectrum. Also see excluded middle.

 

[GreyLord]

They have more flexibility under AD&D and BX/BECMI than later editions for me.

Most of the time for those, if they want to do something they just have to roll under something (say...and ability score).

For example, they might not be able to Move Silently...but they can try to Move Queitly. That also mean the theif who fails to move Silently MIGHT have moved Queitly.

Anything they want to try...they can try. The difficulty though is up to the whims of Fate (aka...the DM).

 

[Clint_L]

I love when players get creative. We use stunting rules in combat so players can just make stuff up to try and gain advantage (while risking disadvantage). And outside of combat, they can take an active role in world-building, for the non-essential bits. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, my next session is going to fuse D&D with Fiasco, so while I have set up the initial parameters for the adventure, during the evening all of us will be co-equal DMs, and I can't wait to see how it turns out. I have no idea where the story is going to go, and I couldn't be more excited for it!

 

[GMMichael]

So the basic question is: What are your house rules for Player Creativity?

Hence this thread. How far do you go for Player Creativeness? Do you allow them to get away with near anything? If you have a limit, what is it? Do you just let the players have the effect of just casting a wish spell effect? Do you allow the players to alter reality to get out of a jam or sticky spot? Once you establish something that alters reality, like you don't want the PC to die so you let a daring halfling bard deflect a lightning bolt with a silver plate and take no damage. Do you then add that to your house rules? Anyone any time can automatically deflect a lightning bolt spell and take no damage with a mundane silver plate?

Get away with near anything? I'd have to turn in my GM card!

A good D&D house rule might be: the answer is "try it" unless explicitly forbidden on the character sheet.

By the way...I'd expect silver to conduct electricity. Not reflect it.

When playing 5E I've had to bend over backwards to encourage it. I've had to beg players to try anything that wasn't specifically listed on their character sheet and literally bribe them (in game) to get them to try anything remotely resembling creative shenanigans.

NPC Squire: Please good knight! I beg of you! Nay, I will pay thee 3 silvers to try this creative shenanigan!

Skill check to do something awesome? Nope, chance of failure...won't do it. Just narrate the cool thing with no mechanical up or downside? Nope, no mechanical benefit and it wastes time at the table. Automatically grant advantage for anything even remotely resembling creative shenanigans? Nope, too arbitrary and not explicitly covered by the rules. . .

I feel your pain. But it's hard to avoid in a game with pass/fail rules and 400 pages of rules telling you what you can do (SRD). If the character sheet just said, "you're cool. Do stuff," players might be more creative.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't have house rules for creativity. But I'm likely to accept it and encourage it.

Recently in a Zeitgeist game run by the inestimable @RangerWickett we were trying to communicate with a group of resistance fighters on the other side of a well guarded portal to the Dreaming/Fae Realms. One of our party had the "Find Steed" spell and sent their elk mount through the portal to paw at the ground once for yes twice for no.

But then someone mentioned they had Call Woodland Beings prepared and they could summon a faerie of some kind to sneak into the portal to better convey our message.

I was like "Do they have a Faerie in the Resistance group you could specifically summon and then we could tell them everything and dismiss them back, so no one has to risk going through the portal and getting killed?"

The group was floored. The idea was put into action. It worked flawlessly.

There's nothing in the rules about summoning a -specific- fae being, but there's nothing against it, either. DM made the same call I would've made in the same situation.

Using one "Hand" spell as a specific "Counterspell" for another hand spell feels like one of those things.

 

[Redwizard007]

IME it's new players that come up with off the wall ideas, although I do have that one guy who still does it after decades. Crushing creativity because rules is rarely as much fun as letting something play out with dice and using advantage/disadvantage to play a role.

The reflected lightning bolt is not exactly grounded in physics, but neither is anything else that happens at the table, and it feels 100% in line with the bouncing lightning bolts of older editions. Just give them advantage on the save, or an instant evasion-for-this-save-only.

The dueling spell hands is just cool. It's exactly what I'd expect from my kids. That doesn't mean it has to work. Use description to illustrate the difference in spell levels as "the hand of stone is crushed in the grasp of Bigby's more powerful spell, but it still bought you a round..."

Aren't those more fun than just saying, "but actually... no."

 

[pemerton]

For me, different versions of D&D play out differently.

In AD&D, player creativity is about exploiting the fiction - eg using a heavy chest as a battering ram to force open a stuck door, or thinking up clever ways to avoid the traps and tricks in White Plume Mountain.

In 4e, on the other hand, player creativity is about leaning into the gonzo tropes - like using a Thunderwave to blast a demon through the wall of an upper story room onto the street outside; or permanently sucking the power out of a Diamond Cincture in order to restore a dead friend to life; or summoning the chaotic energy out of a dead dragon to imbue a horn with magic power, turning it into a Fire Horn. (Page 42 of the DMG is the centrepiece for adjudicating this stuff in 4e.)