D&D General Creativity?

[Oofta]

No, we have a FUNDAMENTALLY different understanding of what this is about. Who cares if 'Monk' decides to do a 'Flash Move'? As long as it has genre appropriateness, and the player is following the process of play, then its fine! (I mean, it may not be possible for it to happen in the fiction of a given game, obviously). What does the player accomplish, they 'beat' some situation? There's just going to be another situation, and presumably it also will be challenging to them, even with this new move. It just doesn't matter. As long as the fiction addresses what is interesting to the participants (agenda) then its all FINE! Yes, it is fine for the players to want to play low level D&D PCs and follow a set of rules that makes goblins dangerous in challenging, but to think that is NECESSARY is simply too limited a view of RPGs.

Except it's not genre appropriate, nor is it even rules-adjacent for a monk to create a Flash tornado.

I mean, in comics Superman is an interesting character, despite being virtually invincible, because it isn't simplistically about what he can defeat (yeah, sometimes the writers cheaped out and invented 'kryptonite' or whatever, but that's not a requirement to make a Superman story). RPGs are the same, no matter how much stuff my Dungeon World character accomplishes (because I said he would and then rolled a 10+) there's always the next GM hard move, and it DEFINITIONALLY puts him right back in the frying pan!

Sure. If I were playing a high power supers game. Superman has effectively godlike powers, but I'm not playing a supers game.

This is also essentially my answer to @Lanefan, there simply is no such thing as a hard RPG game design/play principle that there must be any specific constraints on player action declarations or outcomes. The only constraint is that the player is somehow sharing the decisions on those outcomes with some other participants and/or processes which allow the conflict inherent in drama to emerge, happen, and come to resolution. And given all that, there's no reason to think, and my experience bears this out in general, that players are any less capable of deciding how the tone/genre of the game goes.

Yet some people will push the boundaries far beyond the established parameters.

Try this, run a D&D campaign and put the players completely in charge of how much XP everyone gets, and all agree beforehand that the players are entirely free to use this to play in whatever they all feel is the level sweet spot for the style of play they feel like having. If they all want to play 15th and up level PCs, so what? They can just grant themselves a lot of XP and get to 15th level and have fun, they're adults (probably) and can decide for themselves, they don't need daddy GM telling them they have to flog it hard through 14 levels to 'deserve' to play how they want! lol.

I run campaigns up to 20th level (I did 30th in 4E). It's not a problem with PC power level. It's people trying to make an end-run around the rules in order to achieve or gain something that is outside of the shared genre concept. This can be small "I had brunch with Odin" in a campaign where the gods are distant and unreachable and it's been clearly established that travelling to most other planes (especially Valhalla) is nigh impossible for most planes and Plane Shift is unavailable. It can be bigger as in someone who wanted all the abilities of a dragon and those of a vampire without paying any penalties when everyone else is running a standard character. It's doing things that isn't even close to the agreed upon nature of the game or what the characters should be able to do.

Put it this way. Let's say you're playing checkers. Someone decides to replace their tokens with chess pieces and use chess moves. If people want to play checkers, that's uncool. Want to play chess? Cool. Go ahead and play chess. Want to play a supers game? Awesome, write up a speedster. If you want to play a gonzo, anything goes game, awesome. Go for it. I'm not interested, but that shouldn't stop anyone. When I play D&D I want to play in the realm of D&D. There will always be things the rules don't cover, things the DM just has to rule on the spot which is a lot of the fun.

But those rulings? That on-the-spot creativity? It still needs to fit the style, theme and shared expectations of the game and the group.

 

[Oofta]

...

Ah, but did they? Or did they cast a counterspell that looked like earthen grasp?

I gotta say, counterspell is one of those spells that I grudgingly accept but it's one the most boring spells in the game. If someone described their counterspell to a floating hand to be an earthen grasp it would be awesome.

 

[delericho]

I gotta say, counterspell is one of those spells that I grudgingly accept...

Likewise. Though there's a big part of me thinks that it shouldn't be a spell at all, and that the game would be better off if some alternative mechanism was found for handling it.

Ideally, I think it wants to be something all casters can at least try, but needs also to be changed so that it isn't a really easy way to effectively shut down the one DM-controlled caster in the encounter. (And I find the 'fix' in MotM, whereby most of those 'casters' now have a not-quite-spellcasting trait, to be rather feeble.) But I guess all that is another topic.

 

[Oofta]

Likewise. Though there's a big part of me thinks that it shouldn't be a spell at all, and that the game would be better off if some alternative mechanism was found for handling it.

Ideally, I think it wants to be something all casters can at least try, but needs also to be changed so that it isn't a really easy way to effectively shut down the one DM-controlled caster in the encounter. (And I find the 'fix' in MotM, whereby most of those 'casters' now have a not-quite-spellcasting trait, to be rather feeble.) But I guess all that is another topic.

I played in a game with multiple casters to high levels and after a certain point the DM just stopped using enemy wizards because we had 3 PCs that could counterspell. So bad guy wizard would cast a spell, PC 1 would counterspell, bad guy wizard would counterspell the counterspell and then PC 2 would counter that counterspell. If there was a bad guy wizard 2, we'd go to PC 3.

But you're right, it's a separate topic. Wizard battles should be cool and evocative, a fantastic battle of opponents not just a "Nah, you don't get to do anything this turn."

 

[pemerton]

The sort of scene-framing model presented by the MHRP quote above literally asks the players (in the bolded bit) to cede some agency in order to allow scenes to be framed.

As in the past you've been a fairly consistent and strident advocate for player agency, it seems a bit off-script that you'd be promoting a system that has denial of agency as a suggestion. What am I missing?

Further, you've also been an even more strident opponent of anything even resembling a railroad, yet forcing the PCs to start a scene unconscious (or captured, a la the start of module A4) is about as railroady as it gets*; as would be any scene that begins in medias res without any player input as to how things got to that point or any chance for the players to plan ahead. For example, in the X-men scene above, Cyclops and the rest would doubtless have known ahead of time they were entering into negotiations and thus would (one thinks) have wanted to come up with a negotiation strategy in advance and talk it over (which means the players coming up with the strategy and talking it over in character), along with some fallback plans if the negotiations go sideways. And yet the system asks the GM to dump them into the already-ongoing scene.

So again, what am I missing here?

@Neonchameleon has a sensible reply to this.

I have never been averse to interesting scene framing. This thread even named a technique after me! - D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

Your comments about Cyclops and friends also show that you're not very familiar with Marvel Heroic RP. There is no requirement in that game that players "come up with a strategy and talk it over in character" - the relationship between the characters is handled via the Affiliation die (Solo, Buddy, Team), and a player can make up an action all on their own while rolling the Team die (provided their character is acting as part of a team) or can get as much advice as they want from their friends while rolling the Solo die (provided their character is not acting as part of a team). Preparation and fallback plans are handled via the creation of Resources by spending a "plot point" to activate an Opportunity (typically a 1 on a die) rolled by the GM.

If the GM is framing boring, or undesired, scenes, the problem there is not "railroading". Is that the scenes are boring and/or undesired.

 

[Oofta]

Apparently. To repeat: D&D rulebooks have always been oddly coy about the authority of the GM to frame scenes, in various circumstances.
...

Then let me rephrase. First, I disagree. I think it's pretty clear. On the other hand, I don't think it matters. This is something that a DM should discuss with their players about what the boundaries are. Personally? I never really tell people what they're thinking or feeling but if you watch Critical Role, Matt does it on a fairly regular basis and the group is fine with it.

Just because you feel that the game doesn't address it with the specificity of other games does not mean that it's a flaw or an issue. If I was going to start a campaign with everyone in prison, I would let them know so they could come up with a backstory and ideally how they were captured. If an enemy wants to capture a PC, I'll figure out what resources the enemy has and we can either run it as an encounter if the outcome is uncertain or I'll just let the PC know that the forces are overwhelming and we'll narrate what happens.

But it's all up to the group how they want to handle these kind of things, we don't need explicit spelled out rules one way or another, we just need to discuss the social contract as a group and decide what works best.

 

[pemerton]

Then let me rephrase. First, I disagree. I think it's pretty clear. On the other hand, I don't think it matters. This is something that a DM should discuss with their players about what the boundaries are. Personally? I never really tell people what they're thinking or feeling but if you watch Critical Role, Matt does it on a fairly regular basis and the group is fine with it.

Just because you feel that the game doesn't address it with the specificity of other games does not mean that it's a flaw or an issue.

Just to be clear, you're saying that it's not coy, but even if it was it wouldn't matter?

But it's all up to the group how they want to handle these kind of things, we don't need explicit spelled out rules one way or another, we just need to discuss the social contract as a group and decide what works best.

Why do you use any rules at all then? I mean, anything can be punted back to the "social contract" if we like, can't it?

Framing scenes is one of the most fundamental moves in a roleplaying game. I think a good RPG rulebook will say something about how it is supposed to be done, and what the parameters are that apply to it.

Of course anyone can depart from any rule blah blah blah - no RPG rulebook exercises power in a literal sense over its readers. But good ones provide rules and guidance which are known to reliably produce desired play experiences. Analogously to rules for other games, to recipe books for cooking, to instruction manuals for vacuum cleaners, etc.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Neonchameleon has a sensible reply to this.

I have never been averse to interesting scene framing. This thread even named a technique after me! - D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

Your comments about Cyclops and friends also show that you're not very familiar with Marvel Heroic RP. There is no requirement in that game that players "come up with a strategy and talk it over in character" - the relationship between the characters is handled via the Affiliation die (Solo, Buddy, Team), and a player can make up an action all on their own while rolling the Team die (provided their character is acting as part of a team) or can get as much advice as they want from their friends while rolling the Solo die (provided their character is not acting as part of a team). Preparation and fallback plans are handled via the creation of Resources by spending a "plot point" to activate an Opportunity (typically a 1 on a die) rolled by the GM.

If the GM is framing boring, or undesired, scenes, the problem there is not "railroading". Is that the scenes are boring and/or undesired.

This post and @Neonchameleon ’s post covers pretty much everything, but I’ll add the following:

* Serial exploration of serial temporal continuity (in terms of tracking game engine artifacts like Turns et al) of map & key isn’t the only way to “skin the maximal agency cat.” Further, if you (a) aren’t tracking each of these components with scrutiny and integrity for (b) both Team PC and setting components (particularly threats), then, what you’re doing isn’t creating actual agency with respect to the gamestate…you’re creating merely the veneer of it.

* Scene-framed games, or games that elide moments of time and space, have different imperatives and prerogatives and procedures from Sim-games (or Sim-veneer games) with respect to maximal agency. You don’t achieve maximal agency by serial anything except (a) serial accounting for engine and principle specific inputs and outputs of play. That + (b) the table-facing conversation around prior scene outputs (gamestate and accumulated fiction) flowing to the framing of follow-on conflicts is how you achieve maximal agency in these games.

 

[Oofta]

Just to be clear, you're saying that it's not coy, but even if it was it wouldn't matter?

I'm saying that a major premise of D&D, especially 5E is rulings over rules. That flexibility is an asset, not a flaw.

Why do you use any rules at all then? I mean, anything can be punted back to the "social contract" if we like, can't it?

Most games have some level of house rules. That doesn't mean I want to write a game from scratch.

Framing scenes is one of the most fundamental moves in a roleplaying game. I think a good RPG rulebook will say something about how it is supposed to be done, and what the parameters are that apply to it.

Of course anyone can depart from any rule blah blah blah - no RPG rulebook exercises power in a literal sense over its readers. But good ones provide rules and guidance which are known to reliably produce desired play experiences. Analogously to rules for other games, to recipe books for cooking, to instruction manuals for vacuum cleaners, etc.

I just don't see an issue. Could the DMG be improved and include more examples? Sure. But it does talk about it, just not perhaps in the language or specificity you seem to want. In addition it's rarely, if ever, been a point of contention in a game.

 

[Lanefan]

One of the fundamental observations of trying to design GMless games is (and I can't remember who I'm quoting) that it's generally a bad idea to have the same player responsible for both getting a character into trouble and of getting them out of it.

Agreed it's a bad idea - it's called something like the Czege principle if memory serves, though I've no idea who or what Czege was.

That said, as we're talking D&D here we're clearly not talking about DM-less games, which are a different breed of animal. And it seems MHRP also has a GM.

As for player agency there's a stunning amount of difference between slapping a player's control of their character out of their hands during play so the DM is puppeting their character and doing it out of scene where it might jar slightly but at the point it can most be taken.

A difference in scale, perhaps, but it still biols down to the same thing: loss of player control over one's character.

Second there's a bright line in D&D. The DM completely controls literally the entire world other than the PCs. The only thing the players control is their characters. For a DM, not content with controlling the entire world other than the PCs to reach across the line and snatch the only thing the player actually has control of, therefore leaving the player with literally nothing is ridiculously unfair.

By contrast the line in MHRP is much blurrier. The players don't have as much control over the gameworld as Watchtower but they've a non-trivial amount; because MHRP doesn't have entitled DMs who are precious about their stuff and their exclusive control the players are also much more likely to share. And with certain characters it's entirely reasonable for them to be in a scene even if they aren't actually in a scene. (I've done this with Tony Stark. I mean yeah, sure, he was captured and wasn't actually there in person when the other characters were attacked. But he'd made preparations against other plans that were revealed as the scene unfolded). But even if the line is blurrier scene framing is part of the Watcher's control so it's both expected they use it as part of what people signed up for in a way it isn't part of D&D

Third there's the way death is on the line in D&D - and there's really no other long term failure state. And the XP track ticks upwards. Which locks the players into almost having to succeed. None of this is true for MHRP (I can't even remember if you can kill a character RAW).

In a supers game I can see that - a key element of the genre is that they're well-nigh indestructible. Even there, however, characters die in the MCU (movies) and not all of them come back.

Fourth there's how equipment-dependent most D&D PCs, especially the "classic" classes (i.e. not sorcerer, warlock, or monk) are. It's not so bad in 5e - but take an AD&D or 3.5 fighter's equipment away and force them to fight wearing just a loincloth and they are stuffed. And take a wizard's spellbook away and they don't even have the hit point buffer. Meanwhile the Hulk fights in just a ripped pair of purple shorts, Thor isn't the God of Hammers, and even Tony Stark is more than just his armour. And a captured Black Widow is probably exactly where she wants to be.

So, largely intrinsic abilities rather than abilities granted by equipment; and the origin story of each of them usually includes how those intrinsics came to be e.g. Spiderman, Black Widow, the Hulk, etc.

Fifth there are genre expectations. A comic book starting in media res? It's not quite as common as a heist appearing to go wrong but there's hidden information, but close. Meanwhile I think one Conan adventure starts in a dungeon. It exists - but is much less of a thing. And player skill and detailed preparation are much more of a thing.

I can't speak to comic books as it's been probably 40 years since I read one.

And whether or not player skill is a big deal, detailed preparation is. I mean, even in the MCU (movies) the heroes spend time planning and preparing, even if half the time it all goes sideways three minutes in.