D&D General Creativity?

[Oofta]

I don't agree with this. Good RPG rules can handle that stuff. An RPG that struggles with it is, in my view, at real risk of not being a good one!

That doesn't mean "a rule for everything" - it means a resolution framework which makes it straightforward to input unexpected fiction and generate meaningful consequence both in mechanical and fictional terms.

I would say that D&D does handle this well. Or at least well enough. It's called rulings over rules, the details are covered in the DMG under Role of the Dice and different DMs will handle things differently. I think that flexibility is one of the things that makes D&D work.

 

[Oofta]

You know we have been around this bush an infinite number of times, so you know my reply, which is that the notion that players are just mindless self-aggrandizing actors who's only concern is amassing giant loot/xp piles is an EXTREMELY limited position. In fact I would say it is just plain an extreme position! There's certainly a need for a Process of Play in order to lend the activity the character of a game. It need not be anything like the one D&D chooses! Thus I don't find this point convincing at all. In fact I play in games all the time which, according to this rubric are not possible!

Further upthread I gave real world examples. Actual statements and declarations by people I've observed in games. Things where people wanted an "I win" card for their character. Maybe you've never had some (just to pick on one example) that thought their monk could run as fast as The Flash and recreate a superhero "tornado" to defeat an enemy. I have.

First of all, every RPG (I guess someone could invent an exception to this) has a genre, and thus genre conventions, and has fictional position, which the participants acknowledge dictates what sorts of statements about what characters do are legal and which are not. The decisions as to what falls in and out of bounds can successfully be decided by MANY different possible mechanisms. Games, in my direct and extensive experience, do not fall apart merely because players may be making some of those declarations. Nor should we neglect the Czege Principle, which we have discussed many times before (whomever is challenged by a situation should not be the one adjudicating when and how it is resolved). Thus I find all these 'bugbears' you quote above to be little more than fairy tales certain GMs seem to tell their players to justify a certain type of game play.

Nonsense. I mean, yes, if you set up a classic dungeon crawl and then have the players take over the GM's role as arbiter of the environment and actions, then that game process will go wonky. Not really because the players CANNOT be trusted to handle adjudications, but simply because Czege won't be satisfied and the games built-in incentives will act in a perverse way. However its perfectly possible to run a dungeon crawl in Dungeon World, in fact it is basically meant for EXACTLY THAT, yet the GM has very constrained options and authority in Dungeon World, and players can most certainly assert what it is that their characters CAN do, for example, as well as making declarations which impose constraints on the fiction the GM is able to put on the table (IE by searching for a secret door in some location and finding it, for example). Now, the GM might be perfectly within her rights to then constrain the utility of said door, making it locked, leading into a very narrow passage, etc. but only in concert with the rules on making GM moves.

As we have many times discussed, all this works perfectly well, and the notion that there has to be some sort of GM who 'rides herd on the players' is merely a reflection of the specific way you trad/neo trad people play! It certainly isn't a design constraint on RPGs, at all!

So you agree that TTRPGs have rules and limitations? I've never disagreed with that. There has to be some balance or certain people will take advantage of the game to the point where their character is all powerful. If you don't do that it becomes story hour contest of who can come up with the craziest powers.

D&D just does it using a different structure from some other games so I fail to see what the issue is. We have different preferences. I happen to like D&D's approach no matter which side of the DM's screen I am.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, if a player wants to pull a creative stunt, then my overall rule is, "You can do that but the risk you are taking is going to be at least proportional to the desired reward." In other words, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Usually this gets resolved as, "Roll a dice to try something hard, and if it succeeds you get a small bonus. If it fails you get a penalty proportional to just how crazy and dumb the thing you were trying actually was." So sure, you want to try to deflect a lightning bolt with a handheld mirror? Ok, that's something that might happen in a cartoon and there is precedent for lightning bolts in D&D bouncing off of solid objects, but I'd be like, "Ok, so instead of trying to jump out of the way of the lightning bolt, you are going to try to get in front of it AND catch it with your metal mirror and then hope it bounces? Ok, then." The idea would be yes it will be dramatic and cool if it works, but you better have a really good reason for doing that because if it fails - and it will likely fail - you are going to get fried.

I don't think you can cover every situation that can come up with a single rule and for me there are always going to be exceptions where appeals to drama and narrative trump realism to some extent. But the main thing to me is to not give anything away for free because if you do then it stops being a creative and dramatic stunt and becomes a routine tactic that will be engaged in over and over again. If you give things away for free, you are just letting the player invent new class powers for themselves and that will ultimately ruin everyone's enjoyment, including the player doing it. At the same time, you want to minimize the times you just say, "No" because if a player is exercising their creativity that's a good thing and probably a big part of that player's aesthetic of play.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't agree with this. Good RPG rules can handle that stuff. An RPG that struggles with it is, in my view, at real risk of not being a good one!

That doesn't mean "a rule for everything" - it means a resolution framework which makes it straightforward to input unexpected fiction and generate meaningful consequence both in mechanical and fictional terms.

I think a lot of us are arguing the same point in general terms, and mostly quibbling about the degree of adherence to rules.

Sure, you can have a "rule for everything" if your input mechanism is broad enough. Dread has players pull a jenga block for any kind of significant test. With basically one rule, it can cover most any situation. Though even there, it is up the DM to decide if the situation mandates a pull.

What I am talking about is sweating the details too much. Some folks on this forum argue for more and more granular detail so that there is, as much as possible, a rule for everything. I think the game should go the other way, making rules broad enough so that we are able to keep the story moving and can handle most anything that happens. I don't think there is a perfect solution - at the extreme of Dread at one end and a rulebook the size of an old-school encyclopedia at the other, each player is going to find their sweet spot.

For me, going back to the premise of this thread, I think rules are there to facilitate the story, and when they feel like they are getting in the way of the logical, natural flow of the action, then they've gotta give. If the players or DM come up with a a creative idea that makes sense in the narrative yet isn't perfectly accommodated by the rules, then that's a problem with the rules. Example: I needed a situation where the players were all unconscious in order to set-up a major story beat at the start of a campaign. I didn't sweat how to make that happen with the RAW, I just made it happen.

 

[bloodtide]

Okay. How do you prevent it then? When the DM has the latitude to change the fundamental agreement between player and herself at any time, for any reason, without notice or justification, what else is it?.

I'm not sure what your question is here?

How do I prevent players from changing the rules and altering game reality? Well, I don't let them do it? Should a player say "my character does 1000 damage to the dragon becasue I say so", I would just ignore it...and likely boot the player from the game forever.

So they're flimsy nothings which one should not only not be relied upon, bit which one should expect to be violated? Because literally the only reason to say a rule is only a suggestion is to make explicitly, abundantly clear just how ready one is to violate it at any time and for any reason or no reason at all.

Well, the first part is accurate, but not the second. The reason is in and around to make the game/gameplay better.

Weird. I've found the exact opposite. It's the older gamers, especially those with a few years of "system mastery" under their belts, who tend to avoid creative shenanigans. It's the younger players and/or the less experienced players who get more creative.

Weird back at you.

For me, going back to the premise of this thread, I think rules are there to facilitate the story, and when they feel like they are getting in the way of the logical, natural flow of the action, then they've gotta give. If the players or DM come up with a a creative idea that makes sense in the narrative yet isn't perfectly accommodated by the rules, then that's a problem with the rules. Example: I needed a situation where the players were all unconscious in order to set-up a major story beat at the start of a campaign. I didn't sweat how to make that happen with the RAW, I just made it happen.

My wonder was how much it happens and the limit.

I've watched hundreds of games where younger gamers (under 21) that just flt out refuse to do anything creative. And lots of other gamers are always going for Epic effects with like rocks and sticks. They want to throw a rock and have the guards run off for a whole hour to 'try and find the noise'.

So I wondered what others did...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not sure what your question is here?

How do I prevent players from changing the rules and altering game reality? Well, I don't let them do it? Should a player say "my character does 1000 damage to the dragon becasue I say so", I would just ignore it...and likely boot the player from the game forever.

No, that's not what I said. I wasn't talking, even the tiniest bit, about player behavior. I was talking about the absolute and unrelenting latitude you demand as DM. The power to upend anything and everything whenever you feel like it. How do you prevent the fact that nothing exists except "DM says" from becoming mere Calvinball?

Well, the first part is accurate, but not the second. The reason is in and around to make the game/gameplay better.

How do you KNOW that? When all is smoke and mirrors and the "rules" literally aren't even anything at all and the whole experience is "guess what the DM is thinking," it isn't a game anymore. It's barely even audience contribution--more like audience led-around-by-the-nose.

It's all well and good to say, "Well I'm doing it to make things better!" Certain roads being paved with good intentions and the like.

 

[pemerton]

I think rules are there to facilitate the story, and when they feel like they are getting in the way of the logical, natural flow of the action, then they've gotta give. If the players or DM come up with a a creative idea that makes sense in the narrative yet isn't perfectly accommodated by the rules, then that's a problem with the rules. Example: I needed a situation where the players were all unconscious in order to set-up a major story beat at the start of a campaign. I didn't sweat how to make that happen with the RAW, I just made it happen.

On your particular example: D&D rulebooks have always been oddly coy about the authority of the GM to frame scenes, in various circumstances. This creates (in my view needless) arguments, like whether or not the start of A4 or Out of the Abyss (ie all the PCs prisoners etc) is permissible and/or fair. It's not hard for a RPG to actually spell out the rules for this (the three I'm thinking of straight away are Burning Wheel, Agon and The Green Knight).

A more general example:

In Torchbearer, the GM has the authority to declare a player's declared action a "good idea", meaning that it works without a roll. This is a benefit to the player: they get a success without having to make a roll, thus avoiding (i) the risk of failure and (ii) the standard cost of performing an action (in time, or resources, depending on whether the game is in Adventure, Camp or Town Phase). It is also a detriment to the player: the only way to advance your skills and abilities is by making rolls (a little bit like RuneQuest), and so a "good idea" means the player loses that opportunity to mark a test for advacement.

The upshot of this is that the GM, in deciding whether or not something is a good idea, can have regard to pacing, and what makes sense in the fiction, without having to worry about whether they are softballing things. The game has its own built-in mechanism for making the players not want everything to be a "good idea", and hence not feeling like the GM is punishing them in calling for a check.

Burning Wheel is similar to Torchbearer in this respect, except the principles for deciding whether or not to call for a check are not based on what makes sense in the fiction as a good idea, but rather what is at stake in the fiction relative to a PCs' Beliefs, traits, relationships etc.

Apocalypse World is different from TB and BW: there is a discrete list of actions which trigger a roll ("if you do it, you do it") and any other action simply triggers a narration from the GM. There are rules that say how that narration is to be chosen (eg mostly it must be "soft" - ie stepping up the complications - rather than "hard" - ie narrating some irrevocable consequence); there are also clear rules about who gets to say what as the outcome of the dice being rolled.

Thus AW, like BW and TB, doesn't create a problem of "softballing" or "playing the GM" when it comes to adjudication of declared actions. And it's always clear who is entitled to say what, and what the principles are that govern that.

The idea we see in discussions of D&D, about "the rules having to give way to the story", as well as the issues we see that idea give rise to (eg in this thread various posters talking about the players trying to "get away" with things, or get "auto-wins"), arise out of particular design features of D&D, probably the core one being the lack of any general principles about how establishing consequences relates to whether or not a roll was made.

 

[Oofta]

On your particular example: D&D rulebooks have always been oddly coy about the authority of the GM to frame scenes, in various circumstances. This creates (in my view needless) arguments, like whether or not the start of A4 or Out of the Abyss (ie all the PCs prisoners etc) is permissible and/or fair. It's not hard for a RPG to actually spell out the rules for this (the three I'm thinking of straight away are Burning Wheel, Agon and The Green Knight).
...

This has me scratching my head. The DM doesn't have authority to establish scenes? What now? Am I just misunderstanding what you're saying? Where is that even coming from? It may not be a good idea, it may be bad DMing to force a specific narrative but I have never heard anyone say that they could not. The intro to the DMG is quite clear, the DM is the creator of their campaign world, they are in control of the environment. Obviously it can be a collaborative affair, but when it comes to the world and events external to the actions of the PC, there is no ambiguity. The DM makes the final call.

If I want to capture PCs I'll weave a story about being surrounded, perhaps a sleeping gas or just that the forces the PCs were facing were overwhelming and beat them into unconsciousness. Or I'll just set up an encounter so lopsided that I know they'll lose. It's something I have done maybe twice in my DMing career that I can think of (and I had contingency plans if someone did escape) in order to move the plot forward. Heck, even in the killer DM game that I played once where the DM had a hand come out of the wall and randomly kill someone I didn't question the DM's authority to do it. It was a bad idea and bad DMing that meant he didn't DM a second time, but he definitely had the authority to do it.

 

[pemerton]

This has me scratching my head. The DM doesn't have authority to establish scenes? What now? Am I just misunderstanding what you're saying?

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

The contrast with rulebooks which are not coy about this is pretty marked.

For instance, this is from Marvel Heroic RP (p OM34):

A pitched battle across the frozen wastes of Jotunheim and a tense diplomatic meeting between agents of the Shi’ar and Kree empires are both examples of Action Scenes. An Action Scene might begin in medias res, in the middle of the action - Thor and his Warriors Three are already in the midst of a titanic battle with Frost Giants, or Cyclops and the X-Men are already three hours into the middle of the diplomatic encounter. What’s important is that this is where the real action starts. . . .

If you’re the Watcher [= GM], you get things started by establishing who is present in a Scene and where. This is called framing the
Scene, and it’s your chief responsibility in the game - other than playing the bad guys, keeping the doom pool, and rolling opposition dice. You should ask directed questions of the players, encouraging them to describe what their hero is doing or how they plan to respond to something. Rather than asking, “Where are you?” try something like, “Are you in the middle of the rank-and-file, or are you with the officers near the rear?” You might even establish a particular fact at the same time: “You’re with the officers of the Imperial Force. How did you agree to this position?”

If you’re a player, you should allow for some relaxation of control over your hero for this purpose, because after this point everything you do and say is up to you and the roll of the dice. If the Watcher asks you, “How did you agree to this position?” use that as an opportunity to build on the story. You might say, “Cyclops wants to see the big picture, so he’s staying back to be sure his tactical genius is put to good use.” Or, “Cyclops doesn’t trust the Shi’ar officers, so he’s staying near them in case they decide to pull a fast one on his team.”​

That's a really clear statement of who has what authority in relation to framing scenes.

The intro to the DMG is quite clear, the DM is the creator of their campaign world, they are in control of the environment. Obviously it can be a collaborative affair, but when it comes to the world and events external to the actions of the PC, there is no ambiguity. The DM makes the final call.

Is Cyclops's decision about whether to be at the front with the troops or in the rear with the officers external to the actions of the PC, or not?

The MHRP text is clear about this. (And other bits of the text make it clear when and how the GM can starts a scene with the PCs unconscious.) Is the D&D text comparably clear?

 

[bloodtide]

No, that's not what I said. I wasn't talking, even the tiniest bit, about player behavior. I was talking about the absolute and unrelenting latitude you demand as DM. The power to upend anything and everything whenever you feel like it. How do you prevent the fact that nothing exists except "DM says" from becoming mere Calvinball?

What is a Calvinball? If your asking how the game works, well, the players don't complain and then we all play and have fun.

How do you KNOW that? When all is smoke and mirrors and the "rules" literally aren't even anything at all and the whole experience is "guess what the DM is thinking," it isn't a game anymore. It's barely even audience contribution--more like audience led-around-by-the-nose.

It's all well and good to say, "Well I'm doing it to make things better!" Certain roads being paved with good intentions and the like.

How do I know what I do is making things better? Intelligence, Experience, Self-Awareness, Understanding.

I'd never tell the players to guess what I'm thinking. That would be a waste of time.
Sure, I there is a bad road....but any style has a bad road.

The idea we see in discussions of D&D, about "the rules having to give way to the story", as well as the issues we see that idea give rise to (eg in this thread various posters talking about the players trying to "get away" with things, or get "auto-wins"), arise out of particular design features of D&D, probably the core one being the lack of any general principles about how establishing consequences relates to whether or not a roll was made.

I think the big point is D&D is made to play with a group of friends or a group of strangers. All those other games are made for not only a group of friends, but a group that all thinks the same and is agreeable.