D&D General Creativity?

[Lanefan]

Really good post Lanefan!

I think we actually have a fair amount of agreement here (eg Clerics should get folded in with M/Us...particularly in 2e...and it gets worse in 3.x and 5e) while the disagreements are pretty nuanced. So to get to that:

* I see where you're going with the "Obstacles/Problem Areas generally need to become increasingly multidimensional as you go up in level." And I agree (generally). The issue with this approach is "contact with the enemy." The "enemy" here is two-fold; very clever Wizard players and the potency of higher level spells (or a single “big gun” matched with a level 1 supplementing spell to achieve a particular gambit) and their ability to neutralize that multi-dimensionality by fundamentally rewiring/reorienting the fiction.

Which is fine, as there's some inherent limitations that mean the wizard (or cleric) isn't going to be able to pull it off every time and their being able to pull it off some of the time is quite OK, and is a large part of what makes playing those classes fun.

The limitations:
- the caster's player won't always recognize or realize that the situation could be solved with a particular spell, and-or won't connect the dots to the point of finding that spell in time for it to matter. Usual result: either someone else solves the Obstacle/Problem by other means or it remains unsolved
- the character might not have the key spell prepared, or (less commonly but is still happens) might be in one way or another out of gas, or in some cases might not know the spell at all (e.g. the adventure is written on the assumption someone in the party has Knock as a spell, but no-one does). Usual result: either a delay in solving the Obstacle/Problem until the caster can re-load spells, or it gets solved by other means, or it remains unsolved
- the enemy might take action to prevent the caster from casting, or to interrupt it. In the systems we're talking of, spell interruption is a thing; so a wise enemy might make use of archers or other disruptive effects to hinder casting

* The problem with "the magic item solve" for the disparity between martials and casters is that the use-cases of sudden jumps in utility prowess are quite limited and focused (like Flying Boots) and its a rather fine line when balancing via magic item usage. The game is extremely sensitive to it...and the game is sufficiently fragile such that the other side of that fine line often equals broken.

The other issue with that "the magic item solve" is the default game already involves too much (and increasingly so as levels pile on) cognitive workload and handling time for GMs. Adding more isn't a great answer!

Personally, I don't often find either of these issues to be a major problem. The game IME isn't as fragile as you seem to be making it out, and frequently has to handle sudden and massive changes in PC power both up and down. Just last night, for example, my party got hit by a couple of lightning bolts and after a series of unfortunate rolls both front-liners now have no armour left! The party's resilience and combat ability just took a serious kick in the you-know-wheres, but the game can handle it without me-as-DM having to change anything about the adventure as written. (whether the PCs can handle it remains to be seen, but the game itself has no problem with it!)

Same thing if they find some really powerful item - almost without exception the game can handle that sudden increase in capability quite well; or so I've found over time, at least.

As for the cognitive-load issue, I figure that just comes with the territory of trying to run high-level games. That said, it's on the players to worry about their characters' items, not on me.

 

[Lanefan]

There are at least two ways the mechanics can facilitate resolution of, or even flat-out resolve, the question of who gets to add new truths to the fiction. One is by brining the participants closer in to the fiction, focusing on its details, making imaginative action declarations that play on those details and thus lead to everyone at the table accepting new truths about them.
The other is by bringing the participants to focus on the mechanics themselves as those operate independently of the fiction, to work out the mathematical, logical, conceptual or similar sorts of relationships between them, and from that to deduce a new state of the fiction.

Thing is, unless the game is or becomes rules-invisible or freeform, the first paragraph above nearly always requires reference to the mechanics in the second unless the scene is purely social and can be solved by nothing other than at-table roleplay.

Also, spells and their use are every bit as much a part of the fiction as anything else; I don't see any reason to split them out this way.

The Rope Trick/Wall of Force scenario is an example of the second thing. All the recent climb checks that I've adjudicated (actually Dungeoneer checks in Torchbearer) have been examples of the first.

I'm going to guess there's one big difference here, that being that in the scenario I posted there was no "climb" option; and even if there was, the force walls went from floor to ceiling thus there was no way over. Remember, this was a death trap - they're not supposed to find their way out easily if at all. (and some old-schoolers here might even recognize the trap I'm referring to: it's from Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, which is what I was running when the posted scene occurred)

Some ways the 3E D&D skill system operates - the ones I'm thinking of a are Diplomacy and Perception - operate in the second way. This is in my view a weakness of the 3E skill system.

3e's social skills in general - Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, etc. - are IMO a very poor feature of that edition. Perception has proven a tough nut to crack despite numerous attempts across the editions; and 5e hasn't improved anything.

 

[pemerton]

Thing is, unless the game is or becomes rules-invisible or freeform, the first paragraph above nearly always requires reference to the mechanics in the second unless the scene is purely social and can be solved by nothing other than at-table roleplay.

The phrase reference to the mechanics is yours, not mine. I spoke about focus on the mathematical, logical, conceptual or similar sorts of relationships between the mechanics, from which a new state of the fiction is inferred. Your phrase is not a synonym of mine.

Here's an example to illustrate the point. In my last Torchbearer session, the PCs entered a chamber with a sarcophagus, and behind that, on the wall, a black tapestry that they wished to loot. They had reason to believe that something sinister was in the sarcophagus. Therefore, before opening it, one of the players had his PC bundle up the tapestry in a "harness" made from rope, so that if the PCs had to run he could pull it along by the rope.

I adjudicated that action in the following way: I told him that the tapestry was bundled, and this would mean that if the PCs had to leave in a hurry he could make a Labourer test to bring the tapestry with him.

The PCs then opened the sarcophagus, discovered the Barrow Wight inside, and temporarily subdued it long enough to put the lid back on and flee the chamber. At that point I called for the Labourer test: the player rolled the dice, equalled or beat the required difficulty (I can't remember which) and hence in the fiction it was established that the character was pulling the tapestry along with him.

At that final moment of resolution, there was reference to the mechanics: dice were rolled, and the number of successes compared to the obstacle in the chart of Labourer obstacles (hauling a tapestry is Ob 3). But for most of the time, the focus was on the fiction - bundling up the tapestry in rope, in order to permit it to be dragged out in a hurry should the PCs have to run.

Also, spells and their use are every bit as much a part of the fiction as anything else; I don't see any reason to split them out this way.

This is the fig leaf that I've mentioned a couple of times.

In the scenario I've just described, the player is reasoning about the shared fiction: there's a tapestry, there's a sinister sarcophagus, there is a likely need to flee, the PC is carrying rope, the player has been a truckie in real life and knows how to tie knots, the player describes the PC bundling up and roping the tapestry so its ready to be dragged out in a hurry.

At least as I understand the scenario with the Walls of Force and the Rope Trick, the reasoning is all about the spell descriptions as these are found in the AD&D rulebooks. I don't see any focus on the shared fiction at all.

 

[Pedantic]

The phrase reference to the mechanics is yours, not mine. I spoke about focus on the mathematical, logical, conceptual or similar sorts of relationships between the mechanics, from which a new state of the fiction is inferred. Your phrase is not a synonym of mine.

Here's an example to illustrate the point. In my last Torchbearer session, the PCs entered a chamber with a sarcophagus, and behind that, on the wall, a black tapestry that they wished to loot. They had reason to believe that something sinister was in the sarcophagus. Therefore, before opening it, one of the players had his PC bundle up the tapestry in a "harness" made from rope, so that if the PCs had to run he could pull it along by the rope.

I adjudicated that action in the following way: I told him that the tapestry was bundled, and this would mean that if the PCs had to leave in a hurry he could make a Labourer test to bring the tapestry with him.

The PCs then opened the sarcophagus, discovered the Barrow Wight inside, and temporarily subdued it long enough to put the lid back on and flee the chamber. At that point I called for the Labourer test: the player rolled the dice, equalled or beat the required difficulty (I can't remember which) and hence in the fiction it was established that the character was pulling the tapestry along with him.

At that final moment of resolution, there was reference to the mechanics: dice were rolled, and the number of successes compared to the obstacle in the chart of Labourer obstacles (hauling a tapestry is Ob 3). But for most of the time, the focus was on the fiction - bundling up the tapestry in rope, in order to permit it to be dragged out in a hurry should the PCs have to run.

This is the fig leaf that I've mentioned a couple of times.

In the scenario I've just described, the player is reasoning about the shared fiction: there's a tapestry, there's a sinister sarcophagus, there is a likely need to flee, the PC is carrying rope, the PC has been a truckie in real life and knows how to tie knots, the player describes the PC bundling up and roping the tapestry so its ready to be dragged out in a hurry.

At least as I understand the scenario with the Walls of Force and the Rope Trick, the reasoning is all about the spell descriptions as these are found in the AD&D rulebooks. I don't see any focus on the shared fiction at all.

I honestly do not understand how these things are different. They're just a different set of actions players can declare. I could just as easily announce I'm casting Rope Trick, to create a fallack point in reaction to serving a sinister sarcophagus we're about to open. The mechanical reasoning is precisely the same, the tool is just different.

This seems to be a lot about when a call to a game mechanic is made for resolution? Or more specifically, to dice. I'd probably be looking at weights and encumbrances in your tapestry example, to see what a PC can lift/drag, it's a mechanic that generally doesn't require a roll to resolve. I'm partial to a treasure parcel structure for inventory management that separates goods by container, or in the car of large bulky things like a bundled up tapestry, they take up an entire slot a container could fit in.

I don't see this distinction you're drawing between engaging with the fiction and making function calls to mechanics. You're talking about a system that seems to route more actions through fewer mechanics, which is fine, but I generally expect players to interact with the fiction by making function calls to whatever actions they want to declare, then we run that action and reevaluate the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I honestly do not understand how these things are different.

The difference is between thinking about how I could get a tapestry out of a sinister and probably dangerous burial chamber in a hurry, and then working out an answer to that question by further thinking about fictional details (like using rope to create a "harness"); and thinking about the rule book description of the Rope Trick spell and the Wall of Force spell, and how those descriptions interact.

One is about the fiction we are creating together at the table. The other is about the rulebooks.

 

[Pedantic]

The difference is between thinking about how I could get a tapestry out of a sinister and probably dangerous burial chamber in a hurry, and then working out an answer to that question by further thinking about fictional details (like using rope to create a "harness"); and thinking about the rule book description of the Rope Trick spell and the Wall of Force spell, and how those descriptions interact.

One is about the fiction we are creating together at the table. The other is about the rulebooks.

I don't really see why that's in tension. A well-designed system should generally let you get away with both (i.e. you should be good at the things the game suggests you're good at), but when there's doubt, I'm generally fine with players using the rules to do what they want to do.

That's what makes it a game. A series of interesting decisions created by navigating a complicated system. The fiction layer exists primarily when resolution breaks down (a rarer scenario than everyone insists) or at the level of player goal setting, when they determine the victory conditions they're going to take actions to try and achieve.

 

[Lanefan]

The phrase reference to the mechanics is yours, not mine. I spoke about focus on the mathematical, logical, conceptual or similar sorts of relationships between the mechanics, from which a new state of the fiction is inferred. Your phrase is not a synonym of mine.

Here's an example to illustrate the point. In my last Torchbearer session, the PCs entered a chamber with a sarcophagus, and behind that, on the wall, a black tapestry that they wished to loot. They had reason to believe that something sinister was in the sarcophagus. Therefore, before opening it, one of the players had his PC bundle up the tapestry in a "harness" made from rope, so that if the PCs had to run he could pull it along by the rope.

I adjudicated that action in the following way: I told him that the tapestry was bundled, and this would mean that if the PCs had to leave in a hurry he could make a Labourer test to bring the tapestry with him.

In D&D a Strength check would pretty much serve the same purpose; the underlying mechanics are similar.

The PCs then opened the sarcophagus, discovered the Barrow Wight inside, and temporarily subdued it long enough to put the lid back on and flee the chamber. At that point I called for the Labourer test: the player rolled the dice, equalled or beat the required difficulty (I can't remember which) and hence in the fiction it was established that the character was pulling the tapestry along with him.

At that final moment of resolution, there was reference to the mechanics: dice were rolled, and the number of successes compared to the obstacle in the chart of Labourer obstacles (hauling a tapestry is Ob 3). But for most of the time, the focus was on the fiction - bundling up the tapestry in rope, in order to permit it to be dragged out in a hurry should the PCs have to run.

And nary a shred of magic to be seen. Very realistic.

However, now and then the game does involve magic...

This is the fig leaf that I've mentioned a couple of times.

In the scenario I've just described, the player is reasoning about the shared fiction: there's a tapestry, there's a sinister sarcophagus, there is a likely need to flee, the PC is carrying rope, the player has been a truckie in real life and knows how to tie knots, the player describes the PC bundling up and roping the tapestry so its ready to be dragged out in a hurry.

At least as I understand the scenario with the Walls of Force and the Rope Trick, the reasoning is all about the spell descriptions as these are found in the AD&D rulebooks. I don't see any focus on the shared fiction at all.

...which you seem to want to call a fig leaf. Yet engaging with a cell of force via a spell in the fiction is no different than engaging with a tapestry via some rope: the players-as-PCs are using the abilities and resources they have available to overcome a challenge. The force-cell is, and the Rope Trick becomes, a part of the shared fiction.

It seems like you're saying (or strongly implying) that real engagement with the shared fiction can only occur if there's no magic involved; that my scenario would be "purer" had the means of escape been via the PCs somehow finding a way to physically dig their way out through the floor or ceiling using tools and ingenuity rather than via creative use of a spell.

I disagree. Engagement, ingenuity, and creative thinking can and do happen whether there's spells involved or not.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really see why that's in tension. A well-designed system should generally let you get away with both (i.e. you should be good at the things the game suggests you're good at), but when there's doubt, I'm generally fine with players using the rules to do what they want to do.

I'm missing how this is relevant to my point.

I'm talking about what the actual process of play involves - eg What things are the participants talking about and thinking about? What is their reasoning concerned with? I'm contrasting reasoning about the shared fiction (in my example, tapestries and ropes and probably needing to run away) with reasoning about the rulebooks (in the example I've borrowed from @Lanefan, this is reasoning about the interaction of spell descriptions).

This doesn't have any connection that I can see to whether or not PCs are good at things.

That's what makes it a game. A series of interesting decisions created by navigating a complicated system. The fiction layer exists primarily when resolution breaks down (a rarer scenario than everyone insists) or at the level of player goal setting, when they determine the victory conditions they're going to take actions to try and achieve.

You seem to be denying the following proposition: Roleplaying is negotiated imagination.

I regard that proposition as fundamental. It gets to the core of how RPGing is different from a boardgame.

 

[Lanefan]

The difference is between thinking about how I could get a tapestry out of a sinister and probably dangerous burial chamber in a hurry, and then working out an answer to that question by further thinking about fictional details (like using rope to create a "harness"); and thinking about the rule book description of the Rope Trick spell and the Wall of Force spell, and how those descriptions interact.

The two "thinking about"s are not equivalent. The tapestry one is the initial question that represents the problem/challenge, the force-cell one is determining whether an idea for solution of said problem/challenge has a chance of working.

In the force-cell example the initial question "how do we get out of this cell?" maps far closer to "how do I get a tapestry out of [here] in a hurry?".

One is about the fiction we are creating together at the table. The other is about the rulebooks.

Not quite. One is defining the challenge, the other is an attempt to solve it.

 

[pemerton]

engaging with a cell of force via a spell in the fiction is no different than engaging with a tapestry via some rope: the players-as-PCs are using the abilities and resources they have available to overcome a challenge. The force-cell is, and the Rope Trick becomes, a part of the shared fiction.

In this passage you are talking about what is happening in the fiction.

I am talking about what is actually happening at the table when the game is played. To repost:

What things are the participants talking about and thinking about? What is their reasoning concerned with? I'm contrasting reasoning about the shared fiction (in my example, tapestries and ropes and probably needing to run away) with reasoning about the rulebooks (in the example I've borrowed from @Lanefan, this is reasoning about the interaction of spell descriptions).

In the force-cell example the initial question "how do we get out of this cell?" maps far closer to "how do I get a tapestry out of [here] in a hurry?".

In the example with the tapestry, the player reasons about tapestries, ropes, knots, running away - all elements of the shared fiction.

In the example of the Rope Trick and Wall of Force, the player reasons about spell descriptions - ie the game rules, not the fiction.

That's the difference. The difference doesn't disappear by quibbling over framings of questions.

Engagement, ingenuity, and creative thinking can and do happen whether there's spells involved or not.

This doesn't bear upon my point at all. I'm not saying that no ingenuity is involved in parsing spell descriptions and identifying the conceptual and logical relations between them. I'm just saying that this is different from engaging the fiction, which for me is the core of RPGing. And I am relating this back to @Campbell's post about not reconceptualising the fiction in the course of a "unit" of play.

It seems like you're saying (or strongly implying) that real engagement with the shared fiction can only occur if there's no magic involved

No. I even posted an example upthread of how the use of magic can involve engaging the fiction: resolving your scenario in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.

Another example is one I've posted about in this thread: my player who had to decide whether or not his PC was performing a ritual before working out whether or not a bonus was applicable - this meant thinking about what is happening in the fiction, and how it relates to the way magic works as part of the shared fiction developed through play.