Do Shorter Lists Make Players/GMs More Creative?

[Reynard]

I was thinking about the idea that games with long lists of game elements, from feats to magic items to gun, etc.., might actually serve to trap players and GMs more than shorter and more vague lists. I feel like if (for example) a fantasy game says that the world is full of weird and wonderful magic items, and then only gives a list of 10 such items, it is implicit to the players and GM that they are free to create more such tiems. As opposed to a list of 351 such items, which feels more exhaustive and thus suggests that "this is it".

The place where I think this is most evident in D&D is spells. It seems very rare these days for players and GMs to work up their own spells, and most people seem to treat the PHB spell list as exhaustive. I don't remember that being true when we played Basic with its very limited spell list.

What do you think?

 

[Xamnam]

I'll start by saying your point's fair, and I understand the argument! I think it's a very worthwhile goal to make sure the text of the book does not come across as final, complete, and limiting.

However, to treat your example too literally, 10 is far too short of list to serve as compelling inspiration, and I would see that as a stumbling of the system if it had the stated premise. (And then there's the potential system concern of balance.)

The other perspective that I have to bring up here is that if a text's ideas are truly inventive and exciting in their uniqueness, I tend to feel that what I can bring to the table is always going to be clearly of a different caliber, especially if I'm spinning them up on the spot, and that is an awful feeling to wrestle with. Big issue I've run into in playing Wildsea.

Honestly, I'd much rather have a long list I'd never exhaust than a short list I'm forced to create more of while not measuring up to. Now, if a book has text and resources for instruction on making your own and sparking inspiration, I can get far more behind the idea.

 

[Reynard]

I'll start by saying your point's fair, and I understand the argument! I think it's a very worthwhile goal to make sure the text of the book does not come across as final, complete, and limiting.

However, to treat your example too literally, 10 is far too short of list to serve as compelling inspiration, and I would see that as a stumbling of the system if it had the stated premise. (And then there's the potential system concern of balance.)

The other perspective that I have to bring up here is that if a text's ideas are truly inventive and exciting in their uniqueness, I tend to feel that what I can bring to the table is always going to be clearly of a different caliber, especially if I'm spinning them up on the spot, and that is an awful feeling to wrestle with. Big issue I've run into in playing Wildsea.

Honestly, I'd much rather have a long list I'd never exhaust than a short list I'm forced to create more of while not measuring up to. Now, if a book has text and resources for instruction on making your own and sparking inspiration, I can get far more behind the idea.

Maybe the right balance is a moderate sized list and a robust section of tables to roll up new and interesting things. I feel like people inherently understand that they can re-roll or choose options from the tables, which leads directly to trusting themselves to make stuff up on the spot.

 

[payn]

I think a shorter list can promote creativity, but I really think a robust system needs to be in place for adding things. If folks have no road map than its gonna eventually be mechanical chaos as things break and it simply doesnt work well. Although, just because a finite list of 350 things exists, doesnt mean folks cant get creative within that framework.

I dont think short or long lists promote or impede creativity, I think the folks involved do. Players want to do it, or they dont. GMs want to facilitate and promote it, or they dont. The system can simply make that easier or harder depending on which way the wind blows.

 

[Reynard]

I think a shorter list can promote creativity, but I really think a robust system needs to be in place for adding things. If folks have no road map than its gonna eventually be mechanical chaos as things break and it simply doesnt work well. Although, just because a finite list of 350 things exists, doesnt mean folks cant get creative within that framework.

I dont think short or long lists promote or impede creativity, I think the folks involved do. Players want to do it, or they dont. GMs want to facilitate and promote it, or they dont. The system can simply make that easier or harder depending on which way the wind blows.

I'm not so sure. Shadowdark came out with 4 classes and as soon as it hit the community, classes were the #1 thing folks were homebrewing.

 

[Emberashh]

If you want emergent gameplay, you need interactive systems, and the more you add to those systems, the more emergent possibilities the game can foster.

The reason OSR games, for example, have a culture of player skill and creativity being emphasized over mechanics is because improv is a system, and the often minimalistic systems within the OSR scene leverage it out of necessity, because there's often not enough game otherwise.

But you can also go the other direction. DCC's ubiquitous table systems also drive emergent gameplay, because there's just so much balls to wall nonsense and it can all interact with everything else thats going on.

And as for DND's dysfunctions with its Spells, I'd make an analogy to pre-Switch Zelda. DND Spells are like the Key Items in the older Zelda games, except there's hundreds of them and they're not all that terribly useful, and in some cases are so niche in what they do they have even less potential interactivity than Key Items do.

Another apt analogy is to special abilities in certain games, where they intentionally have a niche effect and a low recharge time, because they're supposed to be special, and then normal combat uses whatever system, where you're not so limited. DND Spells are like that, and Cantrips basically came about as a way to circumvent that problem, but obviously aren't all that great.

But, I have to admit bias there too, as I obviously think an expressive and more frenetic magic system (like mine has grown into being) is a much better choice compared to the DND style, and even to DCC's style, as much as I still love it for its own sake.

 

[aco175]

I used to have a few 3pp spell books back in 3e days and treated those spells as more rare and the PCs could research them or find them in other spellbooks. . Today, I tend to just use the ones in the PHB. I could buy more stuff or make up stuff, but they serve as good enough. There is also a minor part about if someone wants to play using DDBeyond or at a game store or something that those spells will be not accepted, but for home play they are good.

I make up a lot of items and signature things such as weapons and armor. There are few +1 swords in my games, instead it is +1 (or even +0) but also has a cool property and usually allows a spell 1/rest or day.

Is there something to the point about the DM making items and the players making spells. Players might want to research making items and spells, but the DM seems to have more control in limiting item power. Also, a item might be more of a 1 campaign item, where allowing a spell might mean that it is in all the future games.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I was thinking about the idea that games with long lists of game elements, from feats to magic items to gun, etc.., might actually serve to trap players and GMs more than shorter and more vague lists. I feel like if (for example) a fantasy game says that the world is full of weird and wonderful magic items, and then only gives a list of 10 such items, it is implicit to the players and GM that they are free to create more such tiems. As opposed to a list of 351 such items, which feels more exhaustive and thus suggests that "this is it".

The place where I think this is most evident in D&D is spells. It seems very rare these days for players and GMs to work up their own spells, and most people seem to treat the PHB spell list as exhaustive. I don't remember that being true when we played Basic with its very limited spell list.

What do you think?

NO.

The problem has nothing to do with how big the catalogue of powers/feats/goodies is.

The problem lies in that people think D&D and Pathfinder are RPGs. They are Wargames with lipstick, and 5e is an example of someone putting even more lipstick on it...

Creativity comes from "room to create the results" of any given thing.

Players exhibit more creativity in PBTA style games, not because PBTA has less choices, but because its fundamentally "asking you to create".

D&D and others could be the same, if the core 90% of the book was not dedicated to highly exacting rules for combat and only combat. You can't be creative in how you attack in D&D = because there are rules to say "no, it does not matter if you narrate a uppercut feint then belly swipe. If you don't have the Feat, then you just can't do that."
That is why players are being held back from using their creativity.

 

[payn]

I'm not so sure. Shadowdark came out with 4 classes and as soon as it hit the community, classes were the #1 thing folks were homebrewing.

..and despite having a bajillion classes, folks are still making them for PF1. Im pretty sure list size has nothing to do with it. Its really on the play style of the player/GM, IME.

 

[bloodtide]

No.

Creativity has nothing to do with options. It has to do with being creative and wanting to add to the game.

There is a huge base of gamers that think and feel they should almost never add anything to the scared RPG. The RPG is perfect in their eyes, made by creator demigods, the average gamer at home is not worthy to add to the RPG.

And a lot of modern gamers have a limited view on games and even fiction in general. Many play limited games that have a tight set of rules that you "can't" add anything too without "breaking" the game.

And it does not matter if there are 1000 spells or 12. The uncreative person will just use the spells from the rule book like a drone.