Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[AllisterH]

AllisterH,

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

RC

Sorry for being unclear.

To put it bluntly, I have no problem with magic being an option.

I have no problem with magic being the BEST.

What my problem boils down to is that I think when magic is the BEST with no limtations (or the very weak ones in 3e), it becomes the DEFAULT solution to every problem.

basically, if I have a scenario, there should be the following options.

1. Use Magic.
2. Use Skills.
3. Use a combination of the two (best solution by far).

However, for magic NOT to be the best option by far, it NEEDS limitations otherwise thanks to how the Vancian system works, it always gives the best solution to a scenario.

Which I think reduces creativety. Again, not picking on you specifically RC, but what makes using Water Breathing a creative solution if it's a std action to cast and the scroll cost is not an issue?

re: Time of rituals.

Ritual scrolls cut the casting time in half (10 minutes to 5 minutes). Do people still think that's too long.

 

[Mark]

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.

I always thought when I got older I would be the one railing against innovation and touting more restrictive gameplay as the way we used to do it and better. Now I find I have become the rebel.

All these kids with their old-fangled ideas and "you can't do this" and "you can't do that!" :waggles cane: (figurative but not a metaphor, thankyouverymuch)

The restrictions and limiting of options and homogenization all do have a purpose in that they make programing much easier, so they make the online tools (and ultimately the computer games) much easier to bring to market, but this sadly comes at the cost of many avenues of creativity. Freeform play, to some extent, cannot exist in tandem with the need for more unified formulas that make the tech possible. I think the problem is that the tech, itself, is not open. It is serving two masters, in that is is meant to help the gamer but it is also meant to provide for the bottom line. Perhaps inevitable and unavoidable, if the tech is to be available at all. We will see.

 

[Fifth Element]

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.

I'm sorry, I thought you had introduced the drowning fighter into the conversation. My mistake.

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.

Read my previous post. I see your point, but I'm suggesting that the subset of options being eliminated is miniscule compared to the total number of options remaining available, which are nearly infinite.

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.

That's a fallacy. Your tool box does not have nothing that works in under 10 minutes. Attack and utility powers can also be used creatively, and they take a single action to use. While technically it's optional to allow powers to be used against objects rather than creatures, a DM that would inhibit creativity by disallowing that would disallow creating use of 3.X spells anyway.

So you seem to be stuck on the idea that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I diagree. A DM that will allow creative use of rituals will also allow creative use of powers.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

They're different kinds of creativity.

Imagine that the goal is to build a functional bookcase, and Joe has access to a carpenter's workshop while all Bob has is a kitchen (filled with cooking supplies).
Joe, obviously, is enabled to be far more creative as to what type of case he builds (will he use nails or screws, should he engrave frolicking wood nymphs on the panels, etc).
Bob, on the other hand, is forced to be far more creative in order to build a functional bookcase in the first place (can he McGuyver the blender into a functioning screwdriver, can he cook some of the contents of the fridge into a binding glue, etc).
Suggesting that Bob is not as creative as Joe is, IMO, incorrect. Bob's case will almost certainly not be of the same quality as that which Joe built, but Bob likely had to draw on every last shred of ingenuity he had to build a bookcase that wouldn't fall to pieces at the first stiff breeze. Both guys display creativity, just in different ways.

Did (pre 4e) D&D really limit creativity by imposing an 8 hour casting time on Identify? Really? Or did player's generally come up with any assortment of ways to test the new mystic trinket that they'd found and were eager to understand? (Let's ignore for the moment your opinion as to whether or not that sort of activity gets old fast.)

I disagree with the idea that the ritual system limits player creativity. It won't satisfy the player's sense of instant gratification as often as the Vancian system did, and may require a different sort of creativity (McGuyver rather than artist), but to say that it limits creativity is, IMO, a mistake.

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

If by pocket change you mean 1/2 the wealth of the mage or 1/8th the total wealth of a group of 4, sure. If a party wants to do that, more power to them!

joe b.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry for being unclear.

To put it bluntly, I have no problem with magic being an option.

I have no problem with magic being the BEST.

What my problem boils down to is that I think when magic is the BEST with no limtations (or the very weak ones in 3e), it becomes the DEFAULT solution to every problem.

basically, if I have a scenario, there should be the following options.

1. Use Magic.
2. Use Skills.
3. Use a combination of the two (best solution by far).

However, for magic NOT to be the best option by far, it NEEDS limitations otherwise thanks to how the Vancian system works, it always gives the best solution to a scenario.

Which I think reduces creativety. Again, not picking on you specifically RC, but what makes using Water Breathing a creative solution if it's a std action to cast and the scroll cost is not an issue?

re: Time of rituals.

Ritual scrolls cut the casting time in half (10 minutes to 5 minutes). Do people still think that's too long.

A reasonable position, but one that has nothing to do with what I posted, which was a logical proposition.

If either (or both) of my two "If"s can be demonstrated to not be the case, then the conclusion drawn might be in error. Otherwise, the logical inference is clear.


RC

 

[jgbrowning]

I'm sorry, I thought you had introduced the drowning fighter into the conversation. My mistake.

I had as an example of something lost between editions, but not as an example of creativity using a spell. My example of creative use was continual light used not as a source of light for vision, but as a lure to get a big fish up from a deep river. Hey, I'm not that creative. *shrug* Continual light was not designed as "fish lure" but it can be used in such a manner.

Read my previous post. I see your point, but I'm suggesting that the subset of options being eliminated is miniscule compared to the total number of options remaining available, which are nearly infinite.

I disagree. The importance of the 10 minute time frame in a game heavily focused upon combat, to me, implies that time is of utmost importance. Hence, the removal of that time frame means that the options removed are not minuscule when compared to the options that existed prior to that removal.

I'm not focusing on the creativity available through other options. I'm focusing on the creativity lost from 3e to 4e in the translation of things that became rituals. My other comments about 4e subsystems are tangential and referential to my thoughts about rituals.

That's a fallacy. Your tool box does not have nothing that works in under 10 minutes. Attack and utility powers

Are not rituals. I'm talking about rituals.

My stance was, in general, rituals are not as capable of being as creatively used as the spells they replaced. My focus is specifically on combat, which is the obvious one since rituals cannot be cast spur-of-the-moment so one cannot use them, more the less use them creatively.

can also be used creatively, and they take a single action to use. While technically it's optional to allow powers to be used against objects rather than creatures, a DM that would inhibit creativity by disallowing that would disallow creating use of 3.X spells anyway.

That's a big assumption. Powers only affect creatures unless otherwise stated. Creative uses of 4e or 3e tools are only possible because they are not counter to RAW. A 4e GM breaking RAW to allow creative use is not equal to a 3e GM following RAW to allow for a creative use.

Even powers (in general again) are often not as able to be creatively used as the spells they replaced because the designers made powers fit into the damage/condition/move paradigm of the game and discarded other aspects in the fitting.

So you seem to be stuck on the idea that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I diagree. A DM that will allow creative use of rituals will also allow creative use of powers.

I've never said that only rituals have the potential to be used creatively. I'd prefer to discuss what I said.

joe b.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I agree with your argument, but I think you're selling 4E a little short.

Potential spells with creative uses to save your drowning friend:

Mage Hand
Prestidigitation
Ray of Frost (maybe?)
Thunderwave
Icy Terrain
Feather Fall
Bigby's Icy Grasp
Web

That's up to level 5, there are probably more.

You could also make the argument that, since you can use these spells more often, you have more opportunities to be creative (since you can't creatively use a spell if you don't have it prepared).

I do like rituals, but mostly for the flavour.

 

[Mark]

They're different kinds of creativity.

Imagine that the goal is to build a functional bookcase, and Joe has access to a carpenter's workshop while all Bob has is a kitchen (. . .)

Sure. Now imagine Joe is told he can't use screws, nails, or a drill. You are looking to explain how creativity can flourish in adversity but ignoring that the adversity being imposed is a set of restrictions that are unneeded and being added as roadblocks to more expansive avenues of creativity.

 

[jgbrowning]

I agree with your argument, but I think you're selling 4E a little short.

Potential spells with creative uses to save your drowning friend:

Mage Hand
Prestidigitation
Ray of Frost (maybe?)
Thunderwave
Icy Terrain
Feather Fall
Bigby's Icy Grasp
Web

That's up to level 5, there are probably more.

You could also make the argument that, since you can use these spells more often, you have more opportunities to be creative (since you can't creatively use a spell if you don't have it prepared).

This post is a prime example of what I've been saying all along.

Imagine if the player didn't have Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost (maybe?), Thunderwave, Icy Terrain, Feather Fall, or Bigby's Icy Grasp and only had Web to use as a tool to rescue their drowning friend.

People here have been arguing that that guy, the one with only web, is in a game system that has just as much (if not more) creativity in problem solving ability to get their friend out of the water.

People here would argue that the system would be even more creative if you didn't have access to web, because then you'd have to think of something else. And that's more creative!

*sigh*

Options allow for more creativity than limitations. The interesting discussion is when do options become limitations and vice versa.

And, no, I'm not selling 4e short because I'm only talking about the creativity lost concerning the spells that became rituals. I'm not doing a system-wide creativity critique. Never have been. If people would be more willing to discus the obvious negatives in the ritual system (and the obvious positives as well) as opposed to taking any critique of a 4e sub-system as being a critique upon the entire system requiring the marshaling of defenses resulting in ridiculous arguments such as "limitations improve creativity" that are utterly antithetical to one of the the core design principles of 4e "options, not restrictions" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Really, my simple comment pointing out the lost creativity potential in the new ritual system resulted in people trying to argue that one of the core design principles in 4e was wrong in order to defend against my saying there was some lost creative potential in their favored game.

That's what I'll have to coin as "4irony."

I'm a designer. I critique everything because I want to understand it. Some systems are better than others. Yes, that includes 4e. It's just another system, that's better in some way and worse in others. Not being able to talk about it rationally doesn't make the game one likes better.

joe b.