D&D 4E 4e death of creative spell casting?

[FireLance]

I have very mixed feelings about this thread.

Me too.

On the one hand, most 'creative spellcasting' involves the player telling the DM what the results of his action are. This is a player stance that I find very annoying, particularly when it involves going outside of the rules. I don't mind telling me what you intend to do, but don't decide for me whether its going to work. It's my job to decide that, and I don't want to hear, "Well, if I knew that was going to happen, I wouldn't have done it. Can we have a do over?", in terms that are usually more beligerant than that. Moreover, most of the time the player playing 'creatively' wants something for nothing. What they are really asking for is a lower level spell to emulate the effects of a much higher level spell.

On the other hand, one of my rules of thumb as a DM is 'Don't say 'No'.' I don't like to give the player nothing, especially when they are doing what they are supposed to be doing which is think inside the box. (No, really, imagining creative uses for a spell is inside the box, where the box is our little shared imaginary universe. Thinking outside the box would be thinking that because the rules say what a spell does, it can't ever do anything else.)

I think it's possible to have a balance between the player telling the DM what happens, and the DM saying no or adjudicating the result in a way that feels arbitrary to the player. Some time ago, I read a thread (either here or on CircvsMaximvs) about a player offering the DM a bet that if he successfully made an Intimidate check, he could grant temporary hit points and morale bonuses to the men his PC was leading. At the time, I wasn't keen on the idea, as I generally prefer to implement the rules as written.

However, thinking about it in the context of this thread, I think I'm going to change my stand slightly. I don't want the players in my game to change the basic rules of the game too often, but I don't mind giving them the option to bend the rules every once in a while. This might be a good alternative use for action/fate/hero points: to alllow the player the chance to make a "bet" with the DM that changes the way the rules normally work. With a limited pool of action points, the players won't be able to change the rules often, and because the use of an action point already marks it as an exceptional case, players won't expect the rules to work this way normally. The player and the DM should also work out the specific details of the "bet": the stakes, the payoff or consequences (if losing the stakes is not enough), and the success condition/probability of success before the dice are rolled, so that both sides are aware of the potential upsides and downsides.

So, if a player wanted to blind an opponent with a 0-level light spell, I might offer him the following bet: spend an action point, cast the spell, and if the opponent fails a Fortitude save, he is blinded for 1 round.

Once again, speaking as a programmer, I can't help but think that the driving force here is to make everything easily implementable on a computer. 'Creativity' really means 'needs a DM's input', and you can't program that into a computer.

I think that the basic rules of the game should require as little creative interpretation as possible, possibly to the extent that a computer could run a game of D&D. However, I also think that some limited scope to creatively bend the rules of the game should be made available to the player, and the possibility of doing this is one thing that will distinguish a game with a human DM from one run by a computer.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Once again, speaking as a programmer, I can't help but think that the driving force here is to make everything easily implementable on a computer.

I remember that was a criticism laid at 3e when it was in the pre-announcement leaks phase.

 

[wedgeski]

Oh Hong, it's been so long since I had to deal with crazy balance obsession. It remains a fact that to achieve balance you must sacrifice differentiation and potential "creativity" with abilities, stunts, etc. How far are you willing to go down that road?

This is a 'fact'..? Good design achieves game balance, and there's nothing inherently contradictory about good game design and player creativity. At least, not in my experience, and yes, I've been playing D&D as long as you have Ruin.

 

[ptolemy18]

It remains a fact that to achieve balance you must sacrifice differentiation and potential "creativity" with abilities, stunts, etc. How far are you willing to go down that road?

Agrees with Ruin Explorer times one zillion.

 

[ptolemy18]

So play Ars Magica and Amber.

So play a wargame, and let me keep my weird-ass, Wand of Wonder, illusions-and-polymorphs, Major & Minor Creation, Fly, Teleport, customizable, occasionally-DM-adjudication-requiring crazy fantasy elements in D&D.

 

[Jhaelen]

Things like this can be cool the first time a player does them. But after that, you're stuck with letting a wizard blind every enemy he fights using a level 0 spell with no save. And if you let them do it once, they're going to cry bloody murder if you try to rule against it later on.

QFT. There's one other factor that makes matters worse in our days, imho:

The internet kills creativity. As soon as someone discovers a hole in the rules or does something clever, it's going to be posted on the internet. Players reading the boards think 'Wow, cool, I'll try that!' and you've got the beginning of the end.

That's part of the reason why the rules have to become as water-tight as possible, that's why everything needs tons of errata, and why so many people are arguing about RAW and balance.

 

[Nebulous]

But the mention of "siloing" from the quote above makes me think that creative, unusual uses of magic will possibly be *increasing* in the upcoming edition. I don't think 4e will be the death of anything, except some of the more cumbersome, nonintuitive and simple WTF aspects of the current game incarnation.

I also don't think that 4e is necessarily killing the creative use of spells. If anything, i think they need to take a step back and look closely at what the plethora of magic has become in 3.x: basically, just dealing damage by various energies/materials. That's an over-simplification of course, the game can do much more, but my "feeling" with the core books is that the magic is not as much fun as it used to be. Now, Arcana Evolved IS fun, mostly because it offers great flexibility, and forces the player to think of how he will juggle his spell selection. On top of that, AE offers some really interesting spells (such as Object/Location Loresight).

I'm just happy to hear that they're actively trying to prevent the mage from being useless once his magic runs out. That to me is a huge step forward, and something even Arcana Evolved suffered from.

With all that said, i do have a fondness for 2nd edition magic, it's inconsistencies and loopholes included. Spells were often long and complicated, and while 3rd edition did a good job of stamping out some of the problems, at the same time, sometimes those very problems were fun to exploit and wrap your head around. Even if it did take a Physics book.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I think it will be the death of vague and cryptic spells that lead to abuse and DM headaches.

Finally we can shed the crap cut & paste magic/spell system that dates back to the basic set/1st edition AD&D etc…

 

[sidonunspa]

I think it will be the death of vague and cryptic spells that lead to abuse and DM headaches.

Finally we can shed the crap cut & paste magic/spell system that dates back to the basic set/1st edition AD&D etc…

I just have a feeling that in that process spells may become too formulated.

Think about this, when you play a caster in a video game, how creative can you be? For example, in world of warcraft, you know how the warlock is going to hand you your butt. And playing a warlock becomes an exercise in one of three or so routines… You cast X, Y, Z, do something then repeat till target is dead. Creativity is squashed, in the sake of “balance” and “ease to understand”.

Personally I love the magic system from Mage: The Ascension, I just wish there was a way to make it playable in d20. Mage is the most creative and flexible yet controllable magic system I ever played with. It just required the GM to assign a TN that he would think the “stunt” would require.

Now that I have been thinking about it, I think the formulation of d20 has taken away a some of the creativity from all aspects of the game. I really hope that the Iron Hero’s skills in combat system finds it way into 4e.

 

[Rakin]

I think Teleport could do with some more debilitating (and less "random death") consequences

I have to disagree! I'm all for having insanly powerful spells with a chance of something just as insanen happening for casting it, it's fun!

It gives you that moment like "Uh, crap guys there's no way we can do that in time"
"I have teleport..."
"But you've never, been there..."
"I know...but do we have any other options"
*The DM sits there with a giant grin on his face "so, what do you guys do"
"Lets do it"
"you sure?"
*hearts start racing*
DM:"You're running out of time"
"ok, I cast it!"
*Everyone closes their eyes and starts praying as the DM's dice rolls out of his hand*
*Everyone looks up as the dice falls to the table, waiting for what happened, hearts beating*
"You're all standing in a dark room..."
*Deep breathing and the patting on the back of the wizard commences*