Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[Garthanos]

Need inspires creativity more than anything else... if you dont "need" to do something different the tried and true gets used. I find that incredibly obvious so a self induced limit which will not occur in practice... is not an inducement to creativity.

 

[jgbrowning]

Need inspires creativity more than anything else... if you dont "need" to do something different the tried and true gets used. I find that incredibly obvious so a self induced limit which will not occur in practice... is not an inducement to creativity.

Restrictions don't create creativity, they're just restrictions. Utility increases creativity. That's why we continue to have so many creative new things coming out of metallurgy and so few creative new uses for flint knapping.

Don't bother responding. I won't respond to you. Just assume I'm wrong and move along.

joe b.

 

[Mark]

Restrictions don't create creativity, they're just restrictions. Utility increases creativity. That's why we continue to have so many creative new things coming out of metallurgy and so few creative new uses for flint knapping.

That's a great analogy for the difference between a game that assumes players can do anything then gives a facilitator some guidelines for how to adjudicate and a game that just gives rules for the things anyone is allowed to do then a few more suggestions for how a facilitator is to deal with anything else that wasn't covered.

 

[Garthanos]

Restrictions don't create creativity, they're just restrictions. Utility increases creativity. That's why we continue to have so many creative new things coming out of metallurgy and so few creative new uses for flint knapping.

If something is more useful when it is used creatively it will be even more useful... but its usefulness does not induce more creativity it establishes more conditions under which it doesn't need to be creatively used.

 

[jgbrowning]

That's a great analogy for the difference between a game that assumes players can do anything then gives a facilitator some guidelines for how to adjudicate and a game that just gives rules for the things anyone is allowed to do then a few more suggestions for how a facilitator is to deal with anything else that wasn't covered.

Yep. Rules are wave function collapses. Not that a I'm a quantum physicist )), but before a rule is stated there are more possibilities than there are after a rule is stated. Each rule may create new possibilities, but those tend to wave function collapse as well by the creation of even more rules.

That's why a good GM is better than good rules, IMO. Even a poor game can be fun with a good GM, but the reverse is rarely true.

joe b.

 

[Fifth Element]

Well then, think of a situation in which casting waterbreathing in under 10 minutes (in a creative manner) is possible if you find my off-the-cuff example lacking. Use that situation as an example of creativity.

My point is that the fact that you couldn't cast water breathing in under 10 minutes forces you to be more creative in your solutions. Casting the right spell at the right time is not creativity.

I agree with Garthanos that a spell's potential for creativity is much less important than a player's need for creativity in determining how creative players get. If I have water breathing available I don't need a creative solution to the problem. If I lack water breathing (or more generally, solve problem X), or if it takes 10 minutes to cast, then I need to get creative to save that character from drowning, or whatever problem X might be.

 

[Reigan]

I can tell the same tales and present the players with the same sorts of challenges using 4e as I've always been able too. If I hadn't, I probably wouldn't have liked 4e either. Now the solutions to those challenges have changed, you can't scry, teleport in, teleport out and rescue the princess from the impenetrable fortress any more but you can rescue her another way, involving everybody, not just the wizard snapping his fingers three times.

Concerning the drowning fighter, I'm sure the player would have relished finding out all those points invested in the swim skill (one of the few class skills) were wasted.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

The rule of "This game is played with a DM" influences the creativity of a rules set, does it not? Is your argument that all rpgs are equally creative? If that's not what you mean, you agree with my saying that rules-sets do influence creativity and that some are more creative-inducing than others.

I think rules-sets massively influence creativity - that's one of the reason why there are so many different types of them, IMO.

joe b.

Rules are not creative nor are rpgs, it is players and DMs that are creative. Some systems may encourage creativity more than others because they faciltiate the DM in coming up with ad hoc ruling on the fly that are conscistent. Though I am not sure we both mean the same thing by creativity.
To me the example of using waterbreathing spell to save the drowning character is not creative.

 

[Mort]

I don't think I need an argument for the obvious.

Two exact spells: one cast in 1 round, one cast in 10 minutes. Which one allows for more creative uses?

This is the disconnect. It's not which spell allows for more creative uses, it's which spell allows for more creativity from the players. If water breathing takes one round then any time someone is drowning or needs to go under water that's the thing to use. If on the other hand, it takes 10 minutes the players have to think of some other way to save the victim (like use that swim skill for example, or lower a pole in or, well, be creative). water breathing stops being the default no-brainer option and just becomes an option to use, to be weighed by the time factor ("well we could use water breathing or we could risk the swim to the bottom without it, it's faster but has more risk").

You could argue that the swim skill has infinite uses while water breathing is limited use, but really, how often is the DM going to pull the "save drowning victim" or "retrieve something under water" shtick per adventure?

In what situation could the 10 minute version be more creative than the 1 round version. Even if one says, "With the added time restraint, the 10 min version means that people have to be more creative to find it useful," I'd reply with, "The guy with the 1 round version can say 'I'm going to wait 9 minutes and 9 rounds before casting the spell so I'll be as exactly as creative as the longer cast variety in my using of the spell."

It's the gaming equivalent of "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you."

Again the 10 minute version promotes creativity by not being the default obvious option. As for "Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better than you." - that's exactly why 3e mages can be irksome at mid levels and above.

The more utility something possesses, the greater probability it will be creatively used.

joe b.

But also the greater the probability it becomes the obvious default option thereby stifling actual player creativity.

 

[jgbrowning]

My point is that the fact that you couldn't cast water breathing in under 10 minutes forces you to be more creative in your solutions. Casting the right spell at the right time is not creativity.

I agree with Garthanos that a spell's potential for creativity is much less important than a player's need for creativity in determining how creative players get. If I have water breathing available I don't need a creative solution to the problem. If I lack water breathing (or more generally, solve problem X), or if it takes 10 minutes to cast, then I need to get creative to save that character from drowning, or whatever problem X might be.

Perhaps we could Harrison Bergeron the players as well to get more creativity out of them. It's obvious that those who are hampered are more creative than those who are provided a wider array of useful tools.

The guy with scotch tape has to be more creative than the guy with duct tape because duct tape is more useful! Oh, come on. I'm bored with this. Its ridiculous.

joe b.