Do Shorter Lists Make Players/GMs More Creative?

[Theory of Games]

Depends on the system and the group. Like @payn noted, playstyle is an important factor.

Most ttrpgs that allows PCs to use magic usually have rules for players to create original spells. IME, the biggest obstacle for a player using their own homebrew grimoire is always going to be (1) the player's understanding of "game balance" regarding magic, and (2) the GM's preferences.

IMO, It would be cool to play a campaign of D&D using only original spells

 

[RenleyRenfield]

IMO, It would be cool to play a campaign of D&D using only original spells

Ohhh! Interesting idea! Here, how close does this get for giving that a try? I think with a little creative narration this covers about 70% of all wizard spells?



Dynamic Spells D&D
You get 1 Mana per level + 1 per INT bonus.
(Feats can give more, maybe +4 for a “spellmaster” feat. Staff or Wand or Talisman may give bonuses or auto-base options below)

= Spend Mana 1 for 1 on below = (may spend this much Mana every Action; as a Standard Action) =

Damage = 1d6 per (base: none)

Target = +1 to-hit per (base: base-attack-bonus+0)

Area = 5ft square per (base: 0ft/self)

Range = 100ft per (base: self)

Duration = 1 round per (base: instant)

Saving Throw = +1 per (base 10+level)

Effects = pick 1, may spend to get multiple: (base none)

• Senses(1 per: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell),
• Elements (1 per: Fire, Water, Acid, Lighting, Holy, )
• Telepathy,
• Telekinesis (100lbs base, +50 lbs per)
• Action (1 per: confuse, charm, rage, blind, laughing, etc)
• Gravity (1per: walk on water, walk on walls, fly, feather fall)
• Bonus (+1 to 1 attribute/skill/AC per)
• Control/Shape (1 per: water, ground, stone, fire)
• Movement Sped (10mph per, base walking/2mph)
• etc????

NOTE: I did not include “cleric” things such as heal or raise dead, talk to dead, etc.

NOTE: I did not include “summon” as that feels like it should be its own thing.

NOTE: You must roll to-hit for spells

NOTE: Saving throws are assumed to be required if the target would ‘resist’ or suffer harm

 

[overgeeked]

Yes, absolutely. I posted about this a while ago in another thread so I won't repost that all here. This also applies to the rules of the game.

In about 40 years of playing these games, they fall into a distinct pattern. The more rules you have, the more the players and referee will expend energy to follow them. Unless those rules themselves directly promote creativity, the players and referee will not typically be creative as a result of heavier rules. Regardless of the genre, players and referees tend to be far more creative with fewer rules. It's anecdotal, sure, but it is absolutely my experience.

Case in point. The exact same D&D group playing 4E, 5E, DCC RPG, and B/X...in that order from about 2008 until last week.

In 4E, the only thing that mattered was following the rules. All of them. Didn't matter how long it took to resolve something, we stopped play to find out how it should be done. We played that way from release day in 2008 to the first 5E playtest packet dropping. Most rules questions were answered with "On page 256, paragraph 3, line 2, it says..."

In 5E, once we got the gist of the rules down, we were a lot more loose with things. Sure you can improv an action, roll this. Sure you can make a new spell, here's the guidelines. Etc. Some variation there, of course. But we were a lot freer. Stuck to the rules for the most part, but ignored them when we needed to. Most rules questions were answered with "The rules say X, but..."

In DCC RPG, we cut loose. It didn't matter what the rules actually said 90% of the time. What the referee said goes. Is it more fun to improv a crit or check the tables? We went with what's fun. Improv a spell result as long as it's vaguely within the bounds of the rolled result? Sure, why not. Improvised actions all over, especially from the warriors and dwarfs with their mighty deeds. Most rules questions were answered with "It's more fun this way."

In B/X, we made characters and stopped looking at the books after that except to remind us what spells did. That's it. Can the thief do that? Sure, why not. Maybe make a roll to see if it's really iffy. Can the fighter do that? Sure, why not. Maybe make a roll to see if it's really iffy. Etc.

TL;DR: The more blanks you leave for the players and referee to fill in, the more creative they can be at the table.

 

[Autumnal]

They can. What I prefer games provide is a solid framework to hang participants’ inventions. Part of the problem is that a lot of things often found in mega-lists, like D&Doid spells and GURPS or Csll of Cthulhu skills, are badly designed. Frameworks like Ars Magica and Mage: The Awakening make funky customized magic applications straightforward; Over The Edge, Fate, QuestWorlds, and Sorcerer all provide ways to divvy up the things characters can know and do.

For myself, the feeling that there has to be a long list of something to keep people in sync is a sign that something has gone wrong. But then the absence of a list won’t guarantee good results either, if a good framework and good examples don’t replace it.

 

[Piperken]

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?

Pretty recently, I've been reading a few blogs that have been exploring the idea of stuff (tm) a character could conceivably have; mostly let's say equipment or tools, but applied granular to how those define the character, and how they're often not applied with benefit in the fiction.

Games in the OSR/NSR space tend to offer less stuff or have limits on what stuff you can carry in terms of equipment and/or magic; this is done primarily for design purposes (in OSR) because when you have less stuff, it encourages the player to contrive more uses (be creative) with what little you have.

Your ten foot pole, with a little jury rigging, could be used to spear fish.

You use your stuff to creatively solve the puzzle, to disarm the trap, to evade the challenge.

Also, in games like Cairn, the stuff you get with your background, serves as meat on the character as well.

But what I am beginning to see, and would like a more developed movement towards, is the idea of significantly constraining stuff one gets starting out, but having a couple of those things have genuinely deep, meaningful benefit fictively, that essentially defines, or depending, becomes the catalyst that transforms the character.

Mainly, so that trinket, momento or mundane thing has significant purpose beyond it being something you rolled on a random table. And makes you come back to it again and again to use.

Isn't that what we do with things we love; return to them over and over through the years?

e.g. This is your sword. You have polished it late in the hours and held it so long your grip knows its heft. It is a memento or heirloom, from your mother. Any other sword will serve in your hand. But when you draw it; it answers you (some bonus to any reasonable action when utilized, like a flourish to intimidate your foes).