Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[jgbrowning]

If water breathing the ritual takes 10 minutes to cast, then it cannot be used in a situation where you need to save your fighter from drowning right now. That option is gone. You need to get creative, think on your feet. You still have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively, but the solve problem X spell is not one of them.

This issue isn't that having the solve problem X right now and then using it is creative.

The issue is that since you don't have the solve problem X right now spell right now you can't solve problem Y right now through a creative use of the solve problem X right now.

The issue of creativity has never been about using solve problem X right now to solve solve problem X right now. It's been about since you no longer have solve problem X right now you can't be creative with solve problem x right now to solve problem Y in a creative manner using solve problem X right now.

Seriously guys, this is why I'm starting to get irked here. I've said it several times and it's like no one's listening. It's not that using a spell do do what it's supposed to do is creative, its that now that one doesn't have those spells one cannot use them to do things that they weren't explicitly designed to do. That's the creativity I'm talking about.

That's the creative reduction. The reduction in the tool box that allows for creative uses. When your tool box has nothing that can work in 10 minutes or less anymore - you can NEVER have any creative ideas using any of those tools in that box in under 10 minutes anymore - not just that you can't use the tools for what they were explicitly designed for in under 10 minutes - although you have lost that ability as well. You can NEVER have any under 10 minute creativity using that entire tool box ever again.

Any restriction placed via the ritual system isn't a benefit to creativity, it's a limitation. The way to argue against my statement of "the ritual system reduces creativity in combat compared to previous editions" is to say that allowing more than just casters to use rituals opens up more creativity than the previous editions outside of combat. Then you're arguing about a creative trade-off. A design decision based upon different goals in the two systems.

And that, IMO, is a good argument. It then becomes a question of preference, of genre emulation, of design goals. It doesn't mean that there hasn't been a reduction in creativity in combat, but it points out that there's been in increase in creativity elsewhere as a counterbalance.

Because seriously, if we pretend for a second that the "limitations make for more creativity" argument is a true one and that reducing the options available for players to use tools increases creativity, we then must think about the fact that now since anyone can use rituals (meaning that that limitation has been reduced from previous editions), the conclusion that those who've been arguing against me must reach is that 4e is less creative (as concerns magic use outside combat) because it doesn't have as many limitations on who gets to use that magic. That since rituals can now be used by anyone, there exists less creativity outside combat in 4e than in prior editions.

Is that really what you guys are trying to say? That all the options presented by 4e in combat, in ritual use, in skill challenges or in any other manner at all- that all those options touted by players and the designers as helping everyone be more creative to play the game they want to play - in reality actually means that those playing 4e are being less creative because they have fewer limitations than those playing earlier editions?

This is yet another example of how "limitations force creativity" is a poor argument when placed against "options allow for more creativity than limitations do." Every game system has limits to creativity and options to increase creativity - where those are placed highly influence the play of the game and appeal to different audiences.

The debate then, of course, becomes what is an option and what is really a limitation. That's also an interesting discussion.

But to say limitations create more creativity than options is pretty much bunk. If a guy has 1 tool, he's not going to be more creative than the guy with 100. If a cook has 1 ingredient, he's not going to be more creative than the one with 100. The guy with 100 doesn't have to be more creative, but he does have the ability to be more creative.

joe b.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If (1) the utility of magic is a primary factor causing imbalance in pre-4e D&D, and

if (2) the ability to cast spells creatively increases utility, then either

(A) the ability to cast spells creatively in 4e must be reduced, or

(B) the imbalance in 4e must be relatively similar to that of pre-4e D&D.

Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.


RC

 

[Mark]

I completely understand your point.

The problem arises when (You have a multitude of options available, if you think creatively) ---> (No, you can' t do that. Or that. Or that. Or that...)

Reducing the number of possible solutions and forcing the player to "think creatively" in order to eventually arrive at a permissible solution is not particularly creative, either.

Yup. There's a difference between telling someone to think alternatively and telling them to think creatively, particularly when some of their solutions are pre-emptively rejected no matter how creative they might be.

If you are locked in a box with a crowbar, a piece of paper, and a pen then I tell you that you can only use the crowbar to tap, only use the pen to write, and can only use the piece of paper after an hour . . . telling you to think creatiively is misleading. What I am really doing is steering you toward only particular solutions while telling you to think alternatively. The creativity is both stunted and shunted.

 

[Mark]

So. . . would it be fair to say that, using this model of gameplay / game design, only those who utilise 'magic' can go beyond known (or, perhaps, 'reasonable') human limits?

At a certain level of magic and only insofar as to also say that only those with the highest strength can lift the largest loads and only those with the greatest sleight of hand will be able to pick a pocket. Of course, magic can enhance strength and skills but so, too, can great strength seem magical and great skill emulate the miraculous.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yeah. I agree.

Something like arcane lock to seal off a group is cool, but without that option, you can instead conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock (can you buy them? *shrug*), get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door... I don't know. This could be an example of creativity stifled by having the perfect tool for the job, like arcane lock.

I'm glad it's termed the tyranny of fun instead of the tyranny of creativity. I'm so tired of creativity.

I wasn't aware that there was something about the existence of arcane lock as a tool that prevents the above from happening. I'm very surprised to find that when arcane lock existed that no one ever could (or did) conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock, get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door...

Really, that's the argument? I'm glad we have one less tool because now we can have fun?

Am I talking to a bunch of Old-School Grognards telling me that you have to be more creative to play in a system that features no dwarven wizards and that has demi-human level limits because then you just can't rely upon the 12th level dwarf wizard to do everything for you?

joe "Old-School Grognard himself- but that's beside the point" b.

 

[AllisterH]

If (1) the utility of magic is a primary factor causing imbalance in pre-4e D&D, and

if (2) the ability to cast spells creatively increases utility, then either

(A) the ability to cast spells creatively in 4e must be reduced, or

(B) the imbalance in 4e must be relatively similar to that of pre-4e D&D.

Take your pick, but you can't have it both ways.


RC

No.

You're equating all of pre 4e D&D as the same thing and others have explictly multiple times that this isn't true.

1e/2e had limitations in magic namely the same thing as 4e. Prep beforehand since Waterbreathing came at the cost of fireball.

Players didn't say "oh, let's see, I'm a sixth level mage I'll just memorize Waterbreathing instead of fireball, just in case we need it".

They used the spell BECAUSE they knew they were going to need it.

The 3e method of having the right exact spell for the exact situation via scrolls is unique in D&D history since this isn't how magic was used by players before or AFTER.

As an aside, exactly what is "creative" about using Water breeathing to "water breathe"?

THe spell is EXPLCITLY designed to do this and is akin to using a sword to make an attack.

A creative use of a spell is more akin to I don't know Otiluke's Sphere maybe which IIRC allowed for the people inside to survive for a time with a limited air supply

 

[Raven Crowking]

AllisterH,

I've no idea how what you wrote is supposed to relate to what you are replying to.

RC

 

[keterys]

Rock, paper, scissors, dynamite must be a better game than just rock, paper, scissors. One more option, and one that is stronger than the rest, is always good!

I'd like it if there were a lot more 1 minute rituals. That's a serious limitation of 4e rituals.

 

[AllisterH]

I wasn't aware that there was something about the existence of arcane lock as a tool that prevents the above from happening. I'm very surprised to find that when arcane lock existed that no one ever could (or did) conjure something in the door's space, get the rogue to lock it with thievery, apply a padlock, get the fighter to put his back to it while he fights, get the barbarian to jam it, anybody and throw stuff in the way of the door, bar the door...
.

It depends on the edition you're talking about.

In 1e/2e, the other options listed are very good options since the opportunity cost is that it comes at the cost of a slot.

A slot that even a 20th level mage only has 5 of I might add.

It means that instead of preparing a more useful spell such as an Attack spell, the player had to guess beforehand that there would be a situation would come up where Arcane Lock would be good.

Sure, the more open ended the spell is, the more use one can get (Charm Person was wonderful like that) and thus the more likely a person in 1e/2e would memorize it.

The 3e designers mention that this is something they wanted to get away from, the limitation of choosing specific spells over more general purpose spells/attack spells.

The only problem is that Arcane Lock, without the limitation in 1e/2e and 4e is the BEST option by far. A wand of 50 charges of arcane lock is pocket change even for a 5th level mage, so all those other options become non existent.

It's like looking at car A and car B. If car A has everything car B has and EXTRA but it costs the same (the fully loaded option costs the same as the stock barebones model), nobody is going to buy option B and it no longer really becomes an option.

 

[jgbrowning]

That's an aspect of denial, though, isn't it? "There are common countermeasures to this popular tactic"? Just curious.

I honestly a bit confused. I don't think I know what you're meaning so if you could rephrase I'll try to answer.

Just not my experience, I guess. I've got the kind of group where there's always at least one player who's looking to achieve those extra objectives, and there they are. I see double moves, runs, skill use... all kinds of things crop up in combat. It's probably like the scry/buff/teleport thing; a non-issue for some groups because of the way they're inclined to play anyway, crippling for others.

I understand that such is possible, but I feel that the system was designed to put non-explicit actions as typically sub-optimal actions. That can be said for a lot of things though.

I don't think that's the case, at least from the impression I've gotten of the designers and their previous work. When ritual magic actually feels like something sword-and-sorcery, and you've seen stabs taken at that in 3e products, it seems like there's more of a foundation than "rigidity."

I have a rather different view-point of D&D. When playing D&D I want to play in the D&D genre, which I believe is distinct from S&W or high fantasy or, in fact, distinct from any literary genre.

I'm not looking for D&D to emulate an narrative. D&D is something different. I looking more for the latest edition of D&D to emulate the previous editions of D&D than for it to emulate something extra-game.

Of course, I've said before that I like themed games a lot. Combat as a punishment for not finding other options suits some themes, but there are some source materials where fight scenes are a reward for the viewer, be it a duel in a Dumas or Sabatini work, or an epic set piece in Red Cliff. It seems only appropriate to use games where combats are fun to play through on both a mechanical and visual level for that sort of thing.

As I said above, I don't view narratives as source materials which a game should attempt to emulate. Narratives aren't games, games aren't narratives, IMO. I think games are influenced by source materials, but I'm not looking for emulations. That said, I know my view isn't the common one and that most people play rpgs because they want to play in a world just like book x or movie A, or tv show C. And hell, emulate and influence may break down to something mostly semantic in the end, it's definitely a large gray gradient.

joe b.