D&D General Creativity?

[Manbearcat]

I'll also say that B/X's game layer and impetus for creativity is in pretty strong agreement (overall functionality, ease-of-use, table handling time) with its proto-ability check system of roll 1d6 and get a 1 (or a 2 if the conditions are right or racial) and modify with ability if its your class's shtick.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'll also say that B/X's game layer and impetus for creativity is in pretty strong agreement (overall functionality, ease-of-use, table handling time) with its proto-ability check system of roll 1d6 and get a 1 (or a 2 if the conditions are right or racial) and modify with ability if its your class's shtick.

It is pretty 'proto' if you ask me... I think the more default method of handling would be to simply get the player to describe what they did, and let the GM decide if it cuts the mustard.

 

[niklinna]

From my house rules handout in Roll20:

Spoiler: Critical Hits: Extra Damage, or Extra Flair

Critical Hits: Exra Damage, or Extra Flair?

When you score a critical hit on an opponent, you can deal extra damage per the rules in the Player’s Handbook. Or you can choose to do regular damage and perform some kind of stunt or trick instead. Maybe you want to knock the weapon out of your enemy’s hand, or you want to knock them prone, or shove them back 5 feet, or snatch their coin pouch from their belt.

If you want to do one of these stunts, just describe it to me in-character. I’ll maybe ask you to roll something, but for the most part, it’s really up to you to decide what happens. In all cases, these stunts and trick shots are all part of the attack action, so they don’t cost you your reaction or any extra movement.

Some examples:

• Blind: instead of dealing extra damage, your critical hit knocks sand or dust into your opponent’s eyes, blinding them until the end of their next turn.
• Disarm: instead of dealing extra damage, your critical hit knocks one item out of your opponent’s hand. The object lands at your opponent’s feet at the end of your turn, occupying the same space as your opponent.
• Distract: instead of dealing extra damage, you pull your opponent’s focus toward you and away from its surroundings. One ally of your choice gains Advantage on their next attack roll against that same opponent.
• Escape: instead of dealing extra damage, you Disengage at the end of your turn.
• Improved Grab: instead of dealing extra damage, you grapple your opponent at the end of your turn.
• Knockback: instead of dealing extra damage, you knock your opponent back 10 feet at the end of your turn.
• Knockdown: instead of dealing extra damage, you knock your opponent off his feet. Your opponent falls prone in his space at the end of your turn.
• Snatch: instead of dealing extra damage, your critical hit causes your opponent to lower their guard, allowing you an opportunity to snatch an unattended, visible item from their person (such as an amulet or pouch).
• Trade Places: instead of dealing extra damage on your critical hit, you trade places with your opponent at the end of your turn. Obviously this applies only to melee.)
• Something else: get creative!

These are just examples, feel free to come up with your own. Jump onto its back and konk it on the head? Handcuff the creature to a fence? Throw them out the window? Go wild! Whenever you score a crit, ask yourself: “Do I want extra damage? Or do I want extra flair?”

This list makes me wonder why I couldn't just declare one of those as my goal ahead of time, even giving up any damage for the benefit of the stunt. Some games do explicitly allow anybody to try those kinds of things, of course, but not D&D to my knowledge.

 

[Manbearcat]

It is pretty 'proto' if you ask me... I think the more default method of handling would be to simply get the player to describe what they did, and let the GM decide if it cuts the mustard.

Agreed! It is. But (as I said elsewhere!), while the proto ability check system of B/X isn't a "stunting system" in the formal sense (like 4e or Cortex+), in the informal sense, a system that has a fairly well unified action resolution engine with bounded possible results and genre expectations makes for relative (with D&D hardship as the standard!) ease-of-use! B/X has served me 2nd best for stunting in D&D land (low bar!) with 4e out in front of the heap by a country mile!

 

[Laurefindel]

A house rule? That would imply I have a plan! I’m just making it up as I go!

But seriously, I encourage creative shenanigans. There are encounters in my games that would be very hard to « win » otherwise. I’m kind of counting on players creative use of skill/spells/witty remarks/stalling techniques/inventory/environment.

I only try to stay consistant. If lightning has been established as something that can bounce and be reflected, then a polished silver platter would work. If it was established as something being attracted to metal, it might not. And if the pc fails the save? The platters would probably melt, leaving another opportunity for players to find a new use for it.

 

[niklinna]

Well now, silver is a better conductor of electricity than copper. I would not let it reflect a lightning bolt! If we're talking about that old version that bounces off walls, then if you can be carrying a stone tablet or something, then maybe. But metal reflecting lightning, no way. If anything, I'd be inclined to give a to-hit bonus!

How's that for creativity?

 

[Clint_L]

Oooh I like that counterspell idea.

I might keep the actual spell "counterspell" in as well, though, because it allows for the automatic success against its own spell level or lower, which might still be worth taking if you anticipate a battle against another caster.

 

[pemerton]

Can we talk about non-D&D games?

We played Torchbearer today. The PCs lifted the stone lid of a sarcophagus, fearing a lich or similar would be in it, but hoping to find treasure. This awakened the Barrow Wight inside. So the PCs tried to shut it back in. The Dwarven Outcast equipped the sarchophagus lid as his weapon (+1s on Attack). The Elven Ranger equipped the tools for performing rituals to the Darkness that he had taken from the altar in the sarcophagus chamber (+1D to Feint or Manoeuvre).

It seemed pretty creative!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would not characterize AD&D as working in this mode. I mean, D&D itself is pretty primitive in terms of just barely HAVING rules, so its kind of its own thing, but classic D&D in the AD&D paradigm is much more of a "it is written thus..." kind of game. Certainly when it comes to casting it is intended for things to work in a pretty specific way, according to the spell casting rules and the text of the spell. You can create 'off label uses', for sure, and there are many ambiguities, but the 1e DMG pretty much makes it clear that the DM's job is to crush 'creative' uses that bypass usual game limits. OTOH I'd be more in agreement that the combat system and exploration rules are more amenable to such creativity.

The real problem with classic D&D (and I will include 3.x and 5e here as they aren't meaningfully distinct) is that the core paradigm is to put all the plot elements completely in the hands of the GM, with virtually no exceptions. This means any player creativity is basically always going to be asking to get something from the GM. When @Manbearcat talks about his 1, he's basically flat out saying "D&D as normally conceived need not apply here." 4e, or some very diligently self-policed techniques of running 5e (or I suppose AD&D though I never saw it happen in those days) CAN do it (4e rather well) but really you need to play other systems if you want to unleash everyone at the table to the highest degree.

I don't really agree. The 1E DMG may say that, and you can exclude it if you like, but the 2E DMG does not.

And the lack of rules means that in general this stuff can be interpreted pretty broadly - for example, in combat, doing basically anything which "isn't in the rules" with an attack is just an attack at -4. It is definitely subject to the DM, but in reality that's true for virtually all games, including very modern ones, except where the DM is eliminated entirely (including 4E, where the DM could just refuse to use page 42, or use it extremely ungenerously). To my mind in 2E at least, you were pretty much encouraged to interpret spells creatively, and we absolutely did.

Re: plot elements, I think that's a red herring in the context of creativity, because that's just saying "Either it's a narrative game, or it's not creative", which to me seems confused. If the DM doesn't let the plot change by player activity that's a problem, but the sandbox is an ancient tradition and the railroad is a later one.

I don't think technically "asking" the DM makes the player creativity less, either. I'm not sure what your logic is there. We have to assume a reasonably cooperative DM. This is on the D&D forum, not the other RPGs forum, so ruling out all forms of D&D just seems a bit silly. I agree that other systems are better for this - Dungeon World is an obvious one, but I don't see 2E or 4E having a big problem here. Indeed one of the major reasons my group liked 4E so much was that it reminded them of 2E because they could say what crazy thing they wanted to do and then we could work it out. Whereas 3E if you worked it out, there was a rule for everything, and the end result was typically you had to make 3+ checks (often with severe penalties) to gain exactly ZERO benefit (or a very small one) apart from looking cool, whereas in 2E/4E one check, occasionally two sufficed, and usually let you do something you couldn't otherwise do within the rules, and 4E's table was particularly good.

 

[Oofta]

I would not characterize AD&D as working in this mode. I mean, D&D itself is pretty primitive in terms of just barely HAVING rules, so its kind of its own thing, but classic D&D in the AD&D paradigm is much more of a "it is written thus..." kind of game. Certainly when it comes to casting it is intended for things to work in a pretty specific way, according to the spell casting rules and the text of the spell. You can create 'off label uses', for sure, and there are many ambiguities, but the 1e DMG pretty much makes it clear that the DM's job is to crush 'creative' uses that bypass usual game limits. OTOH I'd be more in agreement that the combat system and exploration rules are more amenable to such creativity.

The real problem with classic D&D (and I will include 3.x and 5e here as they aren't meaningfully distinct) is that the core paradigm is to put all the plot elements completely in the hands of the GM, with virtually no exceptions. This means any player creativity is basically always going to be asking to get something from the GM. When @Manbearcat talks about his 1, he's basically flat out saying "D&D as normally conceived need not apply here." 4e, or some very diligently self-policed techniques of running 5e (or I suppose AD&D though I never saw it happen in those days) CAN do it (4e rather well) but really you need to play other systems if you want to unleash everyone at the table to the highest degree.

I'm sure there are other, more shall we say cooperative games out there. But letting the player do whatever they want falls apart pretty quickly and can easily ruin the fun for everyone else at the table if there are no checks and balances. If you don't have some structure, it quickly becomes story time, with the person who wants to aggrandize their PC the most becoming super powerful.

Games need some sort of structure, something to balance things out. Some people would be okay with do whatever you want, others would create PCs that could make tornadoes like The Flash just by running super fast or have a PC that causes everyone in the room to quake with fear when they enter "just because". Others would be half dragon, half vampire with the benefits of both but no penalties. A player would take the noble background to mean that they had 2 henchmen that they ran that also had class levels that all went at the same time, basically tripling their capabilities. Some would just push rules so that their PC dominated the entire battlefield every combat while never being threatened themselves.

How do I know this? Because I've seen it or had players suggest it. I'm all for creativity. But while D&D is a game of make believe, it starts to fall apart if you color too far outside the lines. Maybe only a small percentage of players do this, but left unchecked they can harm the fun of everyone else at the table, not just the DM but the other players as well. If you want a gonzo anything goes game, that's cool. I don't see the point and at a certain point I think it would be incredibly boring. I think there has to be guidelines, if not hard and fast rules, to limit some players from just pulling out that "I win" button every time.