D&D General Creativity?

Which is fine if you're playing with non-stubborn people who are sometimes willing to concede arguments or positions.

I run with some rather stubborn people, and even the non-stubborn ones now and then dig in their heels on something. In a system like this, any time anything contentious came up we'd spend half the night arguing how to resolve it, then spend the other half of the night arguing over what that resolution would be.
As people may have noticed I'm cranky, stubborn, and don't like conceding arguments or positions. But not being able to is ridiculous and a friendship ruiner. And don't you guys actually enjoy the game itself? We have a simple rule; if it takes more than a few seconds then the DM's call goes and you work out what was right after the session.

Also IMO any game where you can plausibly spend that much time arguing over what the rules are is either badly written, a bad fit for the group, or both. (And one of 4e's many strengths was that other than the Monster Manual we literally never had to refer to the rule books during play after about two months).
That, and IME and IMO it's pure human nature to try and gain an edge. Even though the game is cooperative, it's still seen as a competition; much like on a sports team where you're all working toward the same goal there's still competition as to who's the best player on the team.


I would certainly hope so; as in any game where the rules are not hard-coded and-or a referee's judgment is involved, it's the duty of a player to push against those rules until and unless the rules or the referee push back. That right there makes the second claim above true.
Agreed
Most players are just doing their job as players of a game, that job being to access the "win condition" by the most efficient means available; and accessing that 'most efficient means' often requires pushing the envelope of the rules if not outright breaking it. If you think doing that makes players abusive, coercive, and all the rest then I think I got some bad news for ya.
Partially agreed. Definitely agreed for old school D&D and any game where there is a set win condition (which includes most D&Ds)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Again: Do you have to "enforce limits" on conversations? Do you have to have someone threatening you with expulsion in order to productively and respectfully spend time with friends, or go bowling, or whatever else you do socially? If you have a partner, do you need a third party to "enforce" the "rules" of your relationship?

First, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China, or running a game?

Second, yes. If someone is being abusive or out of line I would push back. I occasionally have to tell my wife to use her inside voice because she gets carried away.

You also seem to be trying to have it both ways. You just said "Anyone trying to exploit my goodwill, or trying to twist the letter of the rules against the spirit thereof or otherwise abuse the system I have agreed to abide by, is liable to find themselves with an express ticket out the door. I will not be used."

Either you set limits or you don't. You apparently do. So what's your point?
 

Again, I'm still waiting for evidence that the types of games you decry are anything other than strawmen invented by you out of your imagination to criticise. Dungeon World is based very closely on Apocalypse World which might not be the founding Storygame (that would be My Life With Master) but is probably the single most popular
Again, I am not talking about your favorite published game <insert name here>. I'm talking about a play style. Something done outside the game.

Again, the first example I used was the classic one: The DM, players, or both decide there will be no character death. So the whole game is altered in that way. Another common one is skipping role playing, so the game is all action and combat.



Seriously, you need a new hobby. Not that D&D isn't fun but eight times a week?
It's not all D&D, it's all RPGs.......but why? Why would I need a new hobby?
First bending things is not actually a problem by itself and frequently working with it can lead to the most fun experiences. Second a lot of people care about the fun of others - and most players can be encouraged to care about the fun of others if they learn that they themselves will find it more fun if they do. Third few people have ruining the fun of others as the most fun (and most of those play online games) and some can be drawn to better fun.
I'm not saying that there are not some good players/people.....but there are plenty of bad ones.

A few do. A LOT of people respond to a leader who wields authority hard with negative behaviour and a LOT of people live both up to and down to expectations so if you assume they will be a problem they will. This is just human nature.
I accept that: everything about me...and for an RPG even more my perfectly crafted House Rules, are designed to drive people I don't like away.
Yes, but it is a "story" game. And you were speaking of "story" games as though essentially all of them are like that.
Again, I'm talking about a game where the DM, players, or both are doing a Storytelling game. Not <insert your favorite game here >.

The problem is, almost all of them are like Dungeon World. Sure, they have their differences...but almost all of them have the very restrictions you're saying don't exist. They do not allow players to just invent reality whenever they want, however they want, with zero costs or consequences. They may, in fact, allow players to alter reality under limited circumstances, or for specific purposes, or with approval, or after a successful roll, or because a valuable resource was spent, but none of them (to my knowledge, which I recognize is limited) allow the utterly insane things you specifically called out.
They are? Well, I can see the appeal for some. I don't know how old DW is, but it sure looks like it was made to be an "alternative" D&D for people that did not like the way D&D is played. For DW, most of all, I can see the more hostile anti-DM gamers loving the harsh limits on a DM in the DW game. Players can sit back happy and say "ha, DM, you can ONLY do these things...not 'anything'". I'm sure that offers happiness and comfort to many.

And when I say 'alter reality' in a game I am NOT talking about Dungeon World....I had NEVER EVEN READ the game rules until yesterday(and my first post was days before that).

So: Name a game that DOES do this. Just one! Give me just one game to talk about here. Just one "story" game that allows players to "alter reality" with no limitations or restrictions or caveats. That's all I ask: one system I can dig into and attempt to find out what on Earth went so horribly wrong with it.
Again, this is a meta game thing, not a <insert your favorite game> thing.

In a game of D&D, each player makes a prince character...then are sent on a quest to find the High Crown. Both the DM and Players WANT only one outcome: One prince will become king. No matter what. So they all alter reality all game long to make that happen.

Then you are simply, fundamentally wrong. 50% of people do not suddenly break out into infantile, rolling-on-the-floor, fist-beating tantrums because their character took damage or they failed a skill roll.
They don't do it suddenly....that just are that type of person.
The vast majority of people are just people. Not particularly good, not particularly bad. They don't begrudge others having fun, but they probably wouldn't completely sacrifice their own fun just so someone else could have fun instead. But if they can do something that will be fun for them and for someone else, well sure, why not?
Just saying "they" would not sacrifice thier fun for anyone is a good example of the difference between a DM and a Player. I DM would and does do that.....a player never would.
 

Again, I am not talking about your favorite published game <insert name here>. I'm talking about a play style. Something done outside the game.
In short you can not point to anything that exists outside your imagination.
Again, the first example I used was the classic one: The DM, players, or both decide there will be no character death. So the whole game is altered in that way. Another common one is skipping role playing, so the game is all action and combat. #
Those are playstyles, yes. But one
I'm not saying that there are not some good players/people.....but there are plenty of bad ones.
If you treat them badly, yes.
I accept that: everything about me...and for an RPG even more my perfectly crafted House Rules, are designed to drive people I don't like away.
Driving people away almost invariably takes jerk behaviour. So what you are saying is that you deliberately behave like a jerk. This explains why you meet so many people who match your behaviour and behave like jerks or respond to your behaviour in an entirely appropriate way when someone is being a jerk who designs their persona and their house rules to drive people away.

Thank you. Mystery solved. Now please stop being a jerk.
Again, I'm talking about a game where the DM, players, or both are doing a Storytelling game. Not <insert your favorite game here >.
The only "storytelling game" I am aware of is the one you are playing on this thread where you make up something that doesn't exist. Is your insistence on this existing and being relevant yet another thing you are doing to drive people away?
, I can see the more hostile anti-DM gamers loving the harsh limits on a DM in the DW game.
Again this is something you are pretty much inventing.
Players can sit back happy and say "ha, DM, you can ONLY do these things...not 'anything'". I'm sure that offers happiness and comfort to many.
Amazing! You have invented yet another group of people. This is not something I have ever seen happen or dealt with anyone I can imagine it happening with.
Again, this is a meta game thing, not a <insert your favorite game> thing.
And you have yet to show any shred of evidence that this meta game exists in the space of GM'd tabletop roleplaying.
They don't do it suddenly....that just are that type of person.
Or they are that type of person if provoked into it. Possibly by "perfectly crafted house rules" designed to drive people away.
Just saying "they" would not sacrifice thier fun for anyone is a good example of the difference between a DM and a Player. I DM would and does do that.....a player never would.
Get down off that cross; we need the wood. This is simply a falsehood. I have players who put the group before themselves.

At least this discussion has brought some illumination, thank you. But you're making self-fulfilling prophecies and I was absolutely right about the cause.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
As people may have noticed I'm cranky, stubborn, and don't like conceding arguments or positions. But not being able to is ridiculous and a friendship ruiner. And don't you guys actually enjoy the game itself? We have a simple rule; if it takes more than a few seconds then the DM's call goes and you work out what was right after the session.
Thing is, the way I do it (and the way I prefer it done) the DM's call in the moment sets a binding precedent for the remainder of the campaign; thus it's sometimes worth taking a little longer to hash it out in order to get it right.
Also IMO any game where you can plausibly spend that much time arguing over what the rules are is either badly written, a bad fit for the group, or both.
Indeed, badly written rules (or worse, well-written rules that are either unclear or written with the wrong purpose in mind) are a source of arguments and have been since RPGs were invented.
(And one of 4e's many strengths was that other than the Monster Manual we literally never had to refer to the rule books during play after about two months).
Could that be due to 4e's general eschewment of granularity in play in comparison to other D&D editions? For example, when what would be half a session of exploration to get through a maze in 1e can be bundled into a single skill challenge in 4e, there's far less granularity...but also far fewer rules to have to remember and-or get into discussions over. Double-edged sword, I think.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
The whole it takes a perfect group to have any sort of collaborative play experience work take is just not true. What it takes is just a group of broadly compatible people who are willing to sometimes have tough conversations, but like not like much tougher than deciding between burgers or Chinese food.

I have pretty much been utilizing some degree of ongoing collaborative setting design since I started running games in around 2002. Roughly ~20 years or so. Sometimes there have been conflicts or incompatibilities at the table, but for the most part it works if you are willing to put in the work collectively.

There are plenty of reasons why a more callaborative approach to setting design might not work for your needs, but the idea that our games are so fragile or that players will take advantage by default is silly. To suggest otherwise requires flat out denying the experience of people who have been doing this stuff successfully for decades. Decades.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I have never met someone so stubborn that they would actually behave this way, and if they did, they would quickly be asked to leave the table and never come back. Standing one's ground and seeking benefit for oneself are perfectly good and healthy things. Being so stubborn that you literally refuse to let the game happen unless and until you get exactly what you want? Unacceptable. I wouldn't want to play checkers with a person like that. That sort of behavior is unbelievably rude, rude to the point of ruining friendships.
Meh, I'm used to it.

Thing is, with checkers there's hard rules for everything and no room for argument - you're either outright cheating or you're not. Another example is a video game - the game's programming sets hard limits on what you can and cannot do as a player; cheat codes notwithstanding (as those are also programmed in, using them by default isn't cheating)

In D&D - or pretty much any other RPG - there are three major differences with the above models:

1. There isn't a hard rule for everything, and nor can there (realistically) ever be.
2. The "enforcement mechanism" - be it the DM alone, the players as a whole, or whatever - is open to judgment, interpretation, and influence
3. The lines between good-faith play, bad-faith play, and outright cheating are much blurrier, and don't fall in the same place for everyone.
It is human nature to try to improve one's position or lot, yes. That is NOT the same thing as stamping your feet and refusing to let anything happen because you haven't gotten your way.
Indeed, there's a big spectrum between those two things.
Nor is it the same as intentionally and aggressively trying to pervert a shared social activity, especially when you know that doing so is disrespectful, hurtful, and counterproductive...which "grind every session to a complete halt because every single objection will take hours to resolve" absolutely is all three of those things.
And if the person (or people; it's not necessarily always just one person) is objecting from a position of themselves feeling disrespected and hurt, then what?

To use an example from miles upthread, let's say we're in a game where someone tries using the Earthen Hand (?) trick to stop (was it Binding Grasp?). The DM thinks it over and rules no, this won't work. The player (or maybe a few players) says wait a minute, it can and should work, and here's how-why. There's no middle ground on this one: the end result is either the trick works or it doesn't, meaning that ultimately one point of view has to concede to the other.

Now some would say the DM's ruling prevails simply because it's the DM-as-referee's ruling, and that's fair enough. But the player(s) might feel aggrieved by this, and dig in some heels. Result: an argument.

I should also note that the Earthen Hand example also nicely falls under the mantle of players pushing against the rules in order to gain an edge, as does most "creative" play: let's take rule A and rule B and see if we can combine them to work in our favour via ruling C.
By whom? You make this assertion as though it is a universal truth but it emphatically is not. D&D books have been explicitly saying otherwise for decades, and Dungeon World is no different.
D&D books have been explicitly saying so for decades and have for just as long been roundly - and IMO rightly - ignored. Why? Because D&D has both win conditions and loss conditions scattered all over it, and a very large part of the players' objective is to achieve the former while avoiding the latter.

This can be both at the party scale (we win or lose together) or the individual character scale (everyone for themselves) or a combination of these.
Firstly: why? There are no prizes. Nobody gets rewarded for being "best on the team." Screwing over your teammates by, for example, wasting hours of their time every single night so you can secure every advantage, or intentionally and aggressively flouting decorum and respect for your fellow players, is a pretty $#!+-awful way to behave under any circumstances. To do so solely to "win" at a cooperative game is beyond the pale. I'm dead serious when I say if someone treated my game that way it would be grounds for ending a friendship.

Secondly, there's nothing automatic about any of that. There are sports teams where everyone on the team genuinely just wants to succeed, and they don't care about position. Professional teams are of course not likely to do that because they're being paid in part based on relative performance in many cases. Even then it's not some kind of guarantee of ravenous hunger for position, and there are other kinds of sports teams besides professional ones...and I would think non-professional sports would be a better comparison given D&D doesn't keep score and the players are not paid!
Pro sports teams are my usual go-to comparison, yes. And in D&D, while the players are not paid the game absolutely does keep score: experience points, treasure, and levels are some hard-numbered examples while in-game reputation, social standing, and in-party acceptance are examples of some "soft" metrics.
What? No. Absolutely not. The player does not have a duty to cheat and swindle and coerce and abuse unless the referee stops them. That's not just ludicrous, it's straight up logically suspect. Whence does this duty arise? You are committing an is-ought fallacy: there are rules, so you ought to exploit them. This does not hold.
Yes it does. I don't and never will condone outright cheating; but pushing the envelope by looking for loopholes in the rules - and attempting to exploit such loopholes once found - isn't cheating; in fact it's creative play - the topic of this thread! It then falls on the referee (DM) to either allow the exploit or close the loophole.

An example of this is Magic: the Gathering. There's a stupendous amount of hard-coded rules in that game and a great part of the point of high-level play is to find exploits and combinations within those rules that are better than the other player's exploits and combinations. And every now and then the DCI, acting as referee, have to step in and ban something because it's just too good.
The "job" (if one can call it that...) of a player is to play. It is up to them to decide why they play. Winning is only one possible goal, and you can't win D&D. (Or most TTRPGs.)
Overall you maybe can't win D&D; but smaller win-loss conditions within the game arise constantly - as in, maybe dozens of times per session! Every combat, every uncertain declared action, every check, and sometimes even the adventure or party's current mission - all of those have clear and obvious win-loss outcomes. Given that, as a player doesn't it just make sense to do what you can to achieve the win condition and avoid the loss?

Note here - and this might sound contradictory but bear with me a moment - I'm not at all advocating for over-optimizing or powergaming, mostly due to personal preference. I am, however, advocating for the sort of "creative play" stunts noted upthread - not for their automatic success every time (some are just plain over the top!) but for the player-side mentality and attitude of looking for those creative answers and rolling them out to see what happens.
It's not how the games are designed. You can "win" individual conflicts, but that's not the same thing at all, and conflating that with a more generic "winning" condition will lead to all sorts of problems.
It's the individual conflicts that matter, though, inthe here-and-now of playign the game.
Okay that is...a weird definition of "break" in context, but fair enough I guess.

But like...why? Why make things grind to a halt when you could instead avoid it? Why not seek compromise or mutual agreement?
Two reasons:

1. Very often, the point in question is black-and-white; there is no compromise position possible (the stunt is allowed or it isn't; the declared action is impossible or it isn't, etc.) meaning that to move forward one side has to outright concede
2. There's often a larger issue of setting boundaries and precedents over who gets to do or determine what, unspoken at the time but underlying all of it; meaning that losing this argument today could set you up for a string of problems or headaches in the future.
It...doesn't though. I have never once had to "argue" with my players. They are polite, respectful, attentive, and positive basically all of the time. They know that as long as they approach a discussion in good faith, seeking an outcome that is in some way reasonable, I will do whatever I can to make that outcome actually come to pass. It might not take the form they originally intended, but they know I will do my level best to meet the spirit of their goals even if I can't (or am unwilling to) make the letter happen. And with the power of God and anime on my side, there is little I cannot do! :cool:

Do you seriously get into heated arguments with your players? Why? Why would you tolerate that from anyone? Just stop playing with them if they're going to be so rude!
In the past, certainly; but we got most of the real arguing out of our systems a long time ago. :)

That said, refusing to back down on a position or principle isn't necessarily rude.
But...why? I'm legitimately baffled here. You can only learn what a person is truly seeking by asking them. If they are able to answer, you can then look for ways that they can get what they want, or something sufficiently like what they want, without forcing something you as DM are opposed to or uncomfortable with.
That assumes those things - what the player wants and what the DM is comfortable with - aren't mutually exclusive. When they're not, sure, a way will be found. But often they are mutually exclusive: the player simply wants something the DM isn't comfortable allowing.

An example from my own past: I had a player who wanted to play a vampire PC and came up with reams of evidence as to how it could work (this was in the era when "Twilight" was a big deal). Problem was, the party at the time was pretty low-level and a vampire of any kind would have blown away the rest of the PCs in terms of power balance: not gonna happen, so I shut the idea down. This one didn't turn into an at-table argument, but I received an awful lot of out-of-game lobbying attempting to change my mind, and in the end the player wasn't very happy when I stuck to my guns.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The whole it takes a perfect group to have any sort of collaborative play experience work take is just not true. What it takes is just a group of broadly compatible people who are willing to sometimes have tough conversations, but like not like much tougher than deciding between burgers or Chinese food.
Even broadly compatible people aren't always going to get along. Just try getting agreement on pizza toppings and you'll quickly see what I mean. :)

Further, and perhaps more importantly, being to some degree stubborn is simply in some (or a lot of?) people's nature. And yes, it can go too far sometimes; but standing one's ground is IMO far preferable to letting oneself get pushed around.
 

One of the changes I'm thinking of making to counterspell and dispel is that there is always a contested spell casting check. Each caster adds the level of the spell to the casting check so that two wizards with +4 Int bonus, one casting disintegrate, the other counterspell at 4th level would make a contested check of +10 for the disintegrate spell and +8 for the counterspeller. Ties go to the counterspeller, or maybe they can both concentrate and make another check on their next turn as an action.
If your looking for an alternative rule, try this. If a wizard tries to counterspell, they first need to select the spell slot used. Then, DC 15 Arcana check. On a success, they dispel an effect of the same level as the spell used. Nat 20 or DC 25, they dispel an effect up to 2 levels higher than the spell used.

Now dispelling a spell of the same level isn’t guaranteed, but if you’re lucky (or stack bonuses), you can dispel much more powerful enchantments.
 

In this case they do in fact care about the rules. The writer-directors have stated that they regularly referenced DnD Beyond for rules questions. One of the writers is credited in a 5e book. Both have played for about 30 years.

Making a small change doesn't show a lack of care for the game, just like the house rules at my table don't indicate that I don't care about D&D rules
Yup, by the rules Max’s Earthen Grasp can restrain Bigby’s Hand. Bigby’s Hand will probably break out pretty quickly, but if you’re lucky, it’s effective clutch move.
 

The whole it takes a perfect group to have any sort of collaborative play experience work take is just not true. What it takes is just a group of broadly compatible people who are willing to sometimes have tough conversations, but like not like much tougher than deciding between burgers or Chinese food.
Well, you need to have a "perfectly'' compatible group. Even the food thing is horrible. Sure the standard is wasting huge amounts of time "deciding what they want" or other wise being annoying about getting food. For many people this is a way of life that they do everyday.

My typical weekend game is 5 hours with a food break in the middle. Now, I wish to spend that time playing the game...NOT watching some slow idiot try to decide what type of food they might kinda want to order in the next half hour. You take more then five minutes to think about food, you will ejected from the game. I do not waste game time, and only want players that agree with this way of gaming. Once the food is ready, we break for 30 minutes to eat: if your a slow casual eater that likes to waste all night eating...you will be ejected from the game.
There are plenty of reasons why a more callaborative approach to setting design might not work for your needs, but the idea that our games are so fragile or that players will take advantage by default is silly. To suggest otherwise requires flat out denying the experience of people who have been doing this stuff successfully for decades. Decades.
It's not "fragile".... Like I said, as long as the DM and players all agree it all goes smooth. The player character has 10 hp, and takes 12 damage. The player looks at the DM and they say "oh, make that damage 9". Then the player and DM high five and the game goes on.....

Even broadly compatible people aren't always going to get along. Just try getting agreement on pizza toppings and you'll quickly see what I mean.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, being to some degree stubborn is simply in some (or a lot of?) people's nature. And yes, it can go too far sometimes; but standing one's ground is IMO far preferable to letting oneself get pushed around.
I'm already the DM with a LOt of House rules, written in perfect legalese. But I don't really want rules for every action, and a lot of the home brew rules are not shared with the players as they don't have pages of legalese protections: players just get the vague overview.

Does Earthen Grasp any way ever even slightly effect the Grasping Hand: Never. I'm not going to ever agree, in general, that a weak effect can do anything vs a powerful effect. And I don't agree with giving spells 'wish' functions to falsely make the players creative. The player sits there helpless and is like "oh the only spell I got is earthen grasp...can we say this spell can auto do whatever I want on a whim?" An Agreeable DM will be like "sure cast your reality altering spell to do whatever as you are so creative" They high five and the game goes on.

This is why I often get requests for such house rules: because players want to bend and break them.
 

Does Earthen Grasp any way ever even slightly effect the Grasping Hand: Never. I'm not going to ever agree, in general, that a weak effect can do anything vs a powerful effect.
That’s house rule. Which a DM can play with, and should definitely disclose before the start of the campaign, but it is still s house rule.

If I cast a 9th level Magic Missile, a 1st level Shield spell still blocks it.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
My typical weekend game is 5 hours with a food break in the middle. Now, I wish to spend that time playing the game...NOT watching some slow idiot try to decide what type of food they might kinda want to order in the next half hour. You take more then five minutes to think about food, you will ejected from the game. I do not waste game time, and only want players that agree with this way of gaming. Once the food is ready, we break for 30 minutes to eat: if your a slow casual eater that likes to waste all night eating...you will be ejected from the game.
Hey, some of us can eat and play at the same time... :)
I'm already the DM with a LOt of House rules, written in perfect legalese. But I don't really want rules for every action, and a lot of the home brew rules are not shared with the players as they don't have pages of legalese protections: players just get the vague overview.
As a player I'd find that somewhat annoying, I think. I mean sure, there's a lot of mechanical stuff that can go DM-side and nobody will care too much, but if you've pre-closed some rules loopholes and tightened up some wordings around things like character creation or spell interactions or other player-facing stuff it's only fair the players know up front what you've done.
Does Earthen Grasp any way ever even slightly effect the Grasping Hand: Never. I'm not going to ever agree, in general, that a weak effect can do anything vs a powerful effect.
Personally I'd give something like that a (maybe not high) chance of working, both to reward the creative thinking and because I'm not as hung up on the relative power level between spells; but by no means would it be guaranteed to work.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Even broadly compatible people aren't always going to get along. Just try getting agreement on pizza toppings and you'll quickly see what I mean. :)

Further, and perhaps more importantly, being to some degree stubborn is simply in some (or a lot of?) people's nature. And yes, it can go too far sometimes; but standing one's ground is IMO far preferable to letting oneself get pushed around.

It’s actually really easy to come to a group consensus. And it doesn't require anyone being pushed around. All it takes is discussion and compromise.

Yes, people can be stubborn. I think we’re seeing a good example right now. But they can also be reasonable.

People who have played the games and used the methods that you’re criticizing are telling you that your criticisms are not accurate. Reason would tell us that we should listen to people with actual experience instead of your imagined concerns.

Stubbornness would be continuing on as if you lack if experience gives your opinion more weight than those with actual experience.

Which do you want to be? Reasonable or stubborn?
 

Thing is, the way I do it (and the way I prefer it done) the DM's call in the moment sets a binding precedent for the remainder of the campaign; thus it's sometimes worth taking a little longer to hash it out in order to get it right.
Ah. We want it right for next time - but no one wants to hold up the game.
Indeed, badly written rules (or worse, well-written rules that are either unclear or written with the wrong purpose in mind) are a source of arguments and have been since RPGs were invented.

Could that be due to 4e's general eschewment of granularity in play in comparison to other D&D editions? For example, when what would be half a session of exploration to get through a maze in 1e can be bundled into a single skill challenge in 4e, there's far less granularity...but also far fewer rules to have to remember and-or get into discussions over. Double-edged sword, I think.
Not really. It's more the lack of random subsystems, the way the rules are written in functional rather than natural language removing both waffle and ambiguity, and the way literally everything you need is on the character sheet rather than needing to look up spells in the PHB - and is again concise rather than written in natural language.
 

Oofta

Legend
It’s actually really easy to come to a group consensus. And it doesn't require anyone being pushed around. All it takes is discussion and compromise.

Yes, people can be stubborn. I think we’re seeing a good example right now. But they can also be reasonable.

People who have played the games and used the methods that you’re criticizing are telling you that your criticisms are not accurate. Reason would tell us that we should listen to people with actual experience instead of your imagined concerns.

Stubbornness would be continuing on as if you lack if experience gives your opinion more weight than those with actual experience.

Which do you want to be? Reasonable or stubborn?

At a certain point, people are going to disagree. At that point, the person with the strongest personality may push others who don't want to make waves. Perhaps you take a vote to decide. But if there are multiple options, one person will likely suggest something that is not accepted, that's just kind of how it works. As a software developer I've always said that if you put 2 developers in a room they will likely come to 3 different conclusions on how to approach a problem. In a lot of cases, all 3 will be viable.

It's fine if you make it work for you. But don't pretend there will never be conflict or a difference of opinion. Heck, in our D&D game today we couldn't even decide what direction to go and ended up going 3 ways.

But I also don't really see what all of this has to do with creativity. D&D sets out different parameters, different ways of resolving conflicting ideas than some other games. By default the DM makes the final call. I prefer that, even when I'm playing and the DM makes a decision I don't care for because when I'm playing I just want to inhabit my character. I don't want to think about world building, I just want to focus on what my character would think, feel or do in the moment given what their options are. There's still plenty of creativity in what my character does, even if we stick pretty close to RAW.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
At a certain point, people are going to disagree. At that point, the person with the strongest personality may push others who don't want to make waves. Perhaps you take a vote to decide. But if there are multiple options, one person will likely suggest something that is not accepted, that's just kind of how it works. As a software developer I've always said that if you put 2 developers in a room they will likely come to 3 different conclusions on how to approach a problem. In a lot of cases, all 3 will be viable.

It's fine if you make it work for you. But don't pretend there will never be conflict or a difference of opinion. Heck, in our D&D game today we couldn't even decide what direction to go and ended up going 3 ways.

But I also don't really see what all of this has to do with creativity. D&D sets out different parameters, different ways of resolving conflicting ideas than some other games. By default the DM makes the final call. I prefer that, even when I'm playing and the DM makes a decision I don't care for because when I'm playing I just want to inhabit my character. I don't want to think about world building, I just want to focus on what my character would think, feel or do in the moment given what their options are. There's still plenty of creativity in what my character does, even if we stick pretty close to RAW.

Well, collaborative play was mentioned and was challenged on the ground that some people are stubborn and getting people to agree on things is impossible.

So I was simply pointing out that’s not remotely true. At least, not as anything other than an anecdote about a specific group of people.
 

Personally I'd give something like that a (maybe not high) chance of working, both to reward the creative thinking and because I'm not as hung up on the relative power level between spells; but by no means would it be guaranteed to work.
I see it a lot where the players are often very un- creative, so he DM will let anything work in an effort to get the players to be more creative. Though really this often just leads to more random stuff that is not all that creative. I want intelligent thinking players, not just ones that have a character "toss a rock".

That’s house rule. Which a DM can play with, and should definitely disclose before the start of the campaign, but it is still s house rule.

If I cast a 9th level Magic Missile, a 1st level Shield spell still blocks it.
It's not on the open house rules.

Yes, Shield is a good example: it's a spell made with the intention of blocking a specific spell: Magic Missie. Does Shield block any other spell in the book like that?

It’s actually really easy to come to a group consensus. And it doesn't require anyone being pushed around. All it takes is discussion and compromise.
How is it so easy? I don't find it that way at all. What good does a discussion do? And how can there be a compromise?

Maybe you could answer using this common one I run into often: The Game Rating. My game is "Unrated", NSFW, or otherwise "rated" beyond your worst nightmare. To play in the game you need to be able to accept this level of imaginative fantasy. A number of players have a problem with this rule, as they want a Disney Safe type game. There is no middle ground here.

Just a couple of weeks ago had this happen: the characters had got into an orc warlords dungeons up from the underdark. They come to a wide room, with prisoners chained to the walls every couple of feet. I give only the lite description of each prisoner and how they are dressed in torn clothing an they are all wounded and blood covered. Kelly had to run from the table to cry in the restroom, and then had to go home. She could never play in my game again because she would think of prisoners in chains around the world...or something like that.

No easy out here
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
How is it so easy? I don't find it that way at all. What good does a discussion do? And how can there be a compromise?

A discussion would allow for input from all people involved. I would expect both situations you go on to describe as likely to have benefitted from (or perhaps even been avoided by) discussion.

It’s easy because it’s already something that you’re doing. The game itself is a conversation. There’s nothing stopping you from having a conversation about the game.

Maybe you could answer using this common one I run into often: The Game Rating. My game is "Unrated", NSFW, or otherwise "rated" beyond your worst nightmare. To play in the game you need to be able to accept this level of imaginative fantasy. A number of players have a problem with this rule, as they want a Disney Safe type game. There is no middle ground here.

Of course there’s middle ground. A whole great big swath of it, I’d say. You’ve basically described two polar opposites. Do you really not see any options between a Disney cartoon and Texas Chainsaw Massacre?

Just a couple of weeks ago had this happen: the characters had got into an orc warlords dungeons up from the underdark. They come to a wide room, with prisoners chained to the walls every couple of feet. I give only the lite description of each prisoner and how they are dressed in torn clothing an they are all wounded and blood covered. Kelly had to run from the table to cry in the restroom, and then had to go home. She could never play in my game again because she would think of prisoners in chains around the world...or something like that.

I only have the minimal information you’ve shared to go on, which is far from complete, but all I can say is that if I was involved in a group activity of any kind, and something I did or said made someone run from the table and cry… I’m sure I’d feel at least partially responsible.

Again, discussion. Make it super clear ahead of time that your game contains troublesome elements. Offer examples of movies or other media that have similar elements. Leave as little room for doubt as possible.

Then during play, if someone shows discomfort, call a timeout and discuss it. If something does happen that makes someone flee from your table, maybe do more than shrug. Maybe have a discussion once they've calmed down and try and understand their point of view. Ask other players if they can offer any insight. Maybe consider these things going forward.

Maybe your game doesn’t need to be super ultra-NSFW. Maybe it’s not adding as much to the game as you think. Maybe it’s even something people don’t like.

But how would you know any of this if you don’t discuss it with your players?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Of course there’s middle ground. A whole great big swath of it, I’d say. You’ve basically described two polar opposites. Do you really not see any options between a Disney cartoon and Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
Can't speak for anyone else but "Disney Chainsaw Massacre" sounds pretty good from here. :)
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top