D&D General Creativity?

[Neonchameleon]

Agreed it's a bad idea - it's called something like the Czege principle if memory serves, though I've no idea who or what Czege was.

Paul Czege wrote a few indie RPGs, most notably My Life With Master which was the RPG that was so controversial that a group of reactionaries on RPG.net jumped up and down and shouted it couldn't be an RPG. Which is how we end up with the term Storygames. For what it's worth the original use of the term is nothing to do with player actions or GM authority; it's that the storygame isn't at least theoretically open ended and can't go on theoretically forever.

In MLWM everyone plays the minions of an evil overlord or Master (played by the GM) who keeps pushing them around and bullying them in part ensuring they can't escape until one snaps. Then there's a showdown between the minion that snapped and the master - and after that it's game over. What is the master and their minions? The igors of a mad scientist? Blowfeldt's goons? The kids of the old woman who lived in a shoe? Kylo Ren's stormtrooper bodyguard? Imps summoned by a demonologist? Any of the above or more. What causes the snap? Different every single game but it will happen. Very light and tightly written and worth playing two or three times - but it falls off fast after that.

A difference in scale, perhaps, but it still biols down to the same thing: loss of player control over one's character.

And a papercut and a limb amputation boil down to being cuts. There are huge differences between the two.

In a supers game I can see that - a key element of the genre is that they're well-nigh indestructible. Even there, however, characters die in the MCU (movies) and not all of them come back.

Just because there's no mechanical way to force a death doesn't mean there's never a heroic sacrifice Different genres have a different relationship to death.

And whether or not player skill is a big deal, detailed preparation is. I mean, even in the MCU (movies) the heroes spend time planning and preparing, even if half the time it all goes sideways three minutes in.

Planning, yes. Detailed, no. And how much (if any) they do depends a lot on who they are. The Avengers tend to do more than the Guardians of the Galaxy, and Iron Man does more than Thor. And even the planners tend to cook their plans very rare.

 

[Lanefan]

Paul Czege wrote a few indie RPGs, most notably My Life With Master which was the RPG that was so controversial that a group of reactionaries on RPG.net jumped up and down and shouted it couldn't be an RPG. Which is how we end up with the term Storygames. For what it's worth the original use of the term is nothing to do with player actions or GM authority; it's that the storygame isn't at least theoretically open ended and can't go on theoretically forever.

In MLWM everyone plays the minions of an evil overlord or Master (played by the GM) who keeps pushing them around and bullying them in part ensuring they can't escape until one snaps. Then there's a showdown between the minion that snapped and the master - and after that it's game over. What is the master and their minions? The igors of a mad scientist? Blowfeldt's goons? The kids of the old woman who lived in a shoe? Kylo Ren's stormtrooper bodyguard? Imps summoned by a demonologist? Any of the above or more. What causes the snap? Different every single game but it will happen. Very light and tightly written and worth playing two or three times - but it falls off fast after that.

Gotcha. Thanks.

And a papercut and a limb amputation boil down to being cuts. There are huge differences between the two.

And one very big similarity, that being that if given a choice most people would prefer to avoid the occurrence of either.

Just because there's no mechanical way to force a death doesn't mean there's never a heroic sacrifice Different genres have a different relationship to death.

Indeed, though I found the MCU's (in-movie) willingness to kill off some characters a refreshing change from the supers-are-indestructible conceit that otherwise largely underpins the genre.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Gotcha. Thanks.

And one very big similarity, that being that if given a choice most people would prefer to avoid the occurrence of either.

Fair enough. But I'll regularly risk papercuts. I almost never risk having my arm amputated.

Indeed, though I found the MCU's (in-movie) willingness to kill off some characters a refreshing change from the supers-are-indestructible conceit that otherwise largely underpins the genre.

You mentioned you hadn't read a comic in about 40 years. It shows Supers not dying changed almost forty years ago in 1986; that was the year both Watchmen and Crisis on Infinite Earths came out. The former was its own continuity of superheroes and was a bloody and violent tale the Comics Code Authority did not approve - but was also really good and is I think the best selling graphic novel of all time, and in the second as the climax to DC's mega-crossover they killed Supergirl. Yes that Supergirl. And she stayed dead until 2004.

Twenty years ago it used to be said that "No one in comics stays dead except Bucky, Uncle Ben, and Jason Todd". Bucky of course being the Winter Soldier who came back in the comics in 2005. Batman readers voted for the then Robin Jason Todd's death in 1988 - and he came back in 2006. And Jean Grey's died often enough that they make jokes about it in canon.

 

[bloodtide]

"Calvinball" is a fictional game from the comic Calvin and Hobbes, though the term is usually used in a looser sense than what was used in the comic itself. Formally, Calvinball is a "sport" where the rules are made up by the players as they play; it's explicitly intentional that no two games of Calvinball will be the same. However, TVTropes uses the term in a broader sense: games where any "rules" are fluid, ever-changing, and (usually) never explicitly spelled out anywhere. This is the sense I intend: a game where the only rule is "DM says" is a game where the rules (other than "DM says") are fluid, ever-changing, and never explicitly spelled out anywhere. There is nothing to rely on, no decisions to make (other than "will this be what the DM says?"), and no strategy to learn (other than learning to read the DM's mind.)

Well, even if you are locked into "using the rules" D&D is still "DM says", so what is the point.

And if a player might think they are targeted by "DM Says", then they are they type of player I don't want in my game: so it all works out.

So, you are more intelligent, self-aware, and understanding than your players? I assume this isn't what you meant, but it is what your reply means in the context of the question I asked.

Eh, I think the important part is the DM does not have a character in the game and the DM is the only one that (should) care about the both the game and all the players.

And yet the style you are explicitly advancing is one that requires a group that all thinks the same and is agreeable. That's literally the argument I'm making here: unless the whole group is of one mind, and thus no mind-reading is required (because everyone consistently agrees on what should happen), things necessarily devolve toward nothing more than "DM says." How do you prevent that slide? What do your players have that they can make use of, rely upon, or reason from which isn't just another way of saying "DM says"?

Well, I see what your talking about here.

Except my style, the players are not overly agreeing to anything set. They are agreeing to "let the DM run a fun game" with little or no details

When I talk about other games, I'm addressing the things like "anyone in the other game can just alter reality at will", often this is PART of the game rules...but it does not have to be as it's often a social agreement. And when a player can alter reality, all players must be on the same agreeable page. Like:

Example 1: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player C just randomly says "Oh we find a secret escape tunnel and get away!" All the players high five and say "great game" and that happens. It ONLY works are all the players have agreed to massive harsh limits on "they can do anything" to make the game work. Everyone must always agree to make this game work.

Example 2: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player Z randomly says "My character shoots out ten 100d100 lightning bolts!" And THAT is what happens when you don't have a group of toned down players. Players will do wacky all powerful, and most often only for their character and their ego. And THAT is why D&D does not let players alter reality and had DMs there to stop such shenanigans.

 

[damiller]

I am running a Super Hero 5e game at the moment and outside of combat I have them use their abilities like Fate Aspects. If they can convince me that Power "x" could do that, I generally allow it with a power roll. Even in combat I will often say "yes" to this kind of thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When I talk about other games, I'm addressing the things like "anyone in the other game can just alter reality at will", often this is PART of the game rules...but it does not have to be as it's often a social agreement. And when a player can alter reality, all players must be on the same agreeable page. Like:

Example 1: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player C just randomly says "Oh we find a secret escape tunnel and get away!" All the players high five and say "great game" and that happens. It ONLY works are all the players have agreed to massive harsh limits on "they can do anything" to make the game work. Everyone must always agree to make this game work.

Example 2: The characters get caught in a trap with foes closing in. Player Z randomly says "My character shoots out ten 100d100 lightning bolts!" And THAT is what happens when you don't have a group of toned down players. Players will do wacky all powerful, and most often only for their character and their ego. And THAT is why D&D does not let players alter reality and had DMs there to stop such shenanigans.

Out of curiosity which tabletop games are you talking about that let the player do this? Because none come to mind. I mean both those are outside the realms of both Fate and Mage: the Ascension. Are we talking Toon here with Bugs literally painting the secret escape tunnel onto the wall?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The sort of scene-framing model presented by the MHRP quote above literally asks the players (in the bolded bit) to cede some agency in order to allow scenes to be framed.

As in the past you've been a fairly consistent and strident advocate for player agency, it seems a bit off-script that you'd be promoting a system that has denial of agency as a suggestion. What am I missing?

Further, you've also been an even more strident opponent of anything even resembling a railroad, yet forcing the PCs to start a scene unconscious (or captured, a la the start of module A4) is about as railroady as it gets*; as would be any scene that begins in medias res without any player input as to how things got to that point or any chance for the players to plan ahead. For example, in the X-men scene above, Cyclops and the rest would doubtless have known ahead of time they were entering into negotiations and thus would (one thinks) have wanted to come up with a negotiation strategy in advance and talk it over (which means the players coming up with the strategy and talking it over in character), along with some fallback plans if the negotiations go sideways. And yet the system asks the GM to dump them into the already-ongoing scene.

So again, what am I missing here?

* - this has always been my biggest complaint about the A-series, that it insists the whole party get captured at the end of A3 rather than allowing for the very real possibility that one or more characters might have a valid "getaway car" e.g. a device of teleportation or etherealness or whatever that allows a guaranteed avoidance of capture.

I've always disagreed entirely with this position. For example, suppose that your MHRP character is confronted with a choice, by a villain, to either surrender or have his fiance murdered. Is that out of bounds railroading? Is it such if no fiance was ever mentioned by the player and thus 'love for significant other' wasn't put on the table by the player? What if it was? What if it was even a key part of the PCs backstory explaining how they became a super?

See, I don't think if you give me this element of your character story that it is at all out of bounds for me to say "OK, well, Dr Badd captured Karen and forced you to surrender to him in order to free her. You're now chained to a gurney in his laboratory!" Sure, its a pretty strong setup, but clearly there's going to be action and drama here, you aren't just going to be dissected, roll up a new guy you sucker! No, you're going to escape, or learn something, or whatever. You, the player, opened up this door when you created your character, and from an overall mechanical standpoint, this starting point is NOT DISADVANTAGEOUS, the 'doom pool' is no different from if you were safe in your lair. Its not a 'railroad' at all, its just a starting off point for the action that gets things moving.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Eh, I think the important part is the DM does not have a character in the game and the DM is the only one that (should) care about the both the game and all the players.

And I can't believe I missed this on the way through. I absolutely and completely could not disagree more. Every single player at the table should care about the game and all the players. And the best players I have played with are the best precisely because they do care about everyone at the table. And both the players and the characters.

This in a step on up game means that they are better at teamwork. And in an emotion driven game it means they are caring about and supporting the other character for far better and more interesting scenes.

If you don't care about either the game or the other players then what are you doing there?

 

[Lanefan]

I've always disagreed entirely with this position. For example, suppose that your MHRP character is confronted with a choice, by a villain, to either surrender or have his fiance murdered. Is that out of bounds railroading? Is it such if no fiance was ever mentioned by the player and thus 'love for significant other' wasn't put on the table by the player? What if it was? What if it was even a key part of the PCs backstory explaining how they became a super?

See, I don't think if you give me this element of your character story that it is at all out of bounds for me to say "OK, well, Dr Badd captured Karen and forced you to surrender to him in order to free her. You're now chained to a gurney in his laboratory!"

That set-up is way out of bounds:

I've had no chance to determine for myself whether he in fact has Karen or is merely bluffing (e.g. by going to her house and seeing if she's there)
--- if bluffing, I've had no chance to call that bluff and see what he does
I've had no chance to determine or learn whether Karen is still alive or whether he's already killed her (or whether she's escaped on her own)
I've had no chance to roleplay through any negotiations and-or my actual surrender
I've had no chance to attempt to escape before or during the tie-me-to-the-gurney process

Nope, sorry, not gonna fly.

Sure, its a pretty strong setup, but clearly there's going to be action and drama here, you aren't just going to be dissected, roll up a new guy you sucker! No, you're going to escape, or learn something, or whatever. You, the player, opened up this door when you created your character, and from an overall mechanical standpoint, this starting point is NOT DISADVANTAGEOUS, the 'doom pool' is no different from if you were safe in your lair. Its not a 'railroad' at all, its just a starting off point for the action that gets things moving.

That the mechanics say I'm not in a disadvantageous position while the fiction clearly says I am is a disconnect in itself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except it's not genre appropriate, nor is it even rules-adjacent for a monk to create a Flash tornado.

Is it? What genre are we talking about here? I mean, there's a LOT of variability within D&D. Certainly the genre of stories that the Monk class is drawn from (Chinese Gong-Fu tales) contain stuff like that! A 4e Monk turning into a tornado? I can definitely see that! A 3.5 one? Yeah, no doubt there's some sort of crazy item or multi-class shenanigan or something that will let you have that outright as a thing. So, no, I don't think its outright genre-breaking in D&D at all! Beyond that, yeah, maybe at low levels it violates expectations of what sorts of 'powers' are in play, but I did say there could be reasons why it might not be possible. Just not ones associated with "this is too powerful."

Sure. If I were playing a high power supers game. Superman has effectively godlike powers, but I'm not playing a supers game.

Dude, would you like a gander at the character sheet of "Questioner of All Things", a sixteenth level AD&D wizard who can TRIVIALLY do "godlike things" for breakfast? Last I checked AD&D is definitely D&D!

Yet some people will push the boundaries far beyond the established parameters.

Who established the parameters? I mean, sure, its possible to have a player in a game who insists on trying to go far outside the conventions of that specific game and doesn't take the hint in terms of what kind of tone/genre is being established by the table (and presumably corresponds with one that the game supports). But this is just like saying that D&D is a bad game because you could have a DM who is arbitrary, capricious, and bullies the players. Anything is possible, and no game will entirely withstand enough malfeasance in play (or simple ineptitude perhaps).

I run campaigns up to 20th level (I did 30th in 4E). It's not a problem with PC power level. It's people trying to make an end-run around the rules in order to achieve or gain something that is outside of the shared genre concept. This can be small "I had brunch with Odin" in a campaign where the gods are distant and unreachable and it's been clearly established that travelling to most other planes (especially Valhalla) is nigh impossible for most planes and Plane Shift is unavailable. It can be bigger as in someone who wanted all the abilities of a dragon and those of a vampire without paying any penalties when everyone else is running a standard character. It's doing things that isn't even close to the agreed upon nature of the game or what the characters should be able to do.

Right, but again see above if you think that somehow makes a given type of game not EVER WORK. They work fine. Players decide how things work all the time. I do it every Wednesday (usually) in our BitD game, along with @Campbell, @kenada, @niklinna, and @Manbearcat. I mean, I literally just say, pretty often, "Takeo is doing X, Y, and Z, and such and such is coming down." Now, a lot of it will trigger some sort of mechanics, a Long Term Project, Acquire an Asset, Information Gathering, a full up Score, or maybe just some fiction being established. Since the thread is primarily about D&D, I am not going to fight with you about the EXPECTATIONS of how fiction and characters work in D&D. Sure, its not usual in most games for the players to just declare things. There isn't really a set of mechanics which handle that, and there's normally an expectation that there's some GM designed content that is supposed to be the focus.

That being said, a LOT of our high level AD&D play looked a heck of a lot like BitD! We would all just start shooting the naughty word on a Saturday afternoon sitting out at the table on my back porch and dream up something. I remember once we all decided that we wanted to find some anti-magic, and that evolved into a famous dungeon that Mike invented on the spot (mostly to screw us, lol) called "Mountain of the Beholders", not just a few beholders, THOUSANDS of the suckers! Needless to say we never were able to get what we were after, even with 5 super high level wizards. We did kill a vast number of beholders though! haha.

Put it this way. Let's say you're playing checkers. Someone decides to replace their tokens with chess pieces and use chess moves. If people want to play checkers, that's uncool. Want to play chess? Cool. Go ahead and play chess. Want to play a supers game? Awesome, write up a speedster. If you want to play a gonzo, anything goes game, awesome. Go for it. I'm not interested, but that shouldn't stop anyone. When I play D&D I want to play in the realm of D&D. There will always be things the rules don't cover, things the DM just has to rule on the spot which is a lot of the fun.

But those rulings? That on-the-spot creativity? It still needs to fit the style, theme and shared expectations of the game and the group.

Nobody is saying its cool to wreck a game. What I'm saying is, there's no such principle in RPGs as "the players cannot be in charge, they'll just wreck the game." Yet I hear some variation of that constantly in these sorts of threads.