Falling off the 4ed bandwagon

[FireLance]

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies. Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies. Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.

I think that's an interesting insight and I more or less agree, but I would refine it slightly further as follows:

1. Creativity in flavor (see the refluffing thread) should have no mechanical effect, so there are few mechanical downsides to being as creative as you want with the flavor.

2. I think the problem is not so much unforeseen synergies as it is easily repeatable unforeseen synergies. In a way, the "best" sort of creativity is when you come up with a way to use your abilities in a certain way to overcome a situation, and then never ever encounter a similar situation again, so that you have to use your abilities differently the next time.

 

[Garthanos]

All this song and dance is lovely to see and hear, but it still ignores the point.

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies.

That is indeed one kind of balance.
The uber high level versatile utility/power spell caster was imbalanced for more than one reason one reason was because the mechanics distributed the creativity in to the hands of only a small subset of characters/players at the table. So you can have the same sum of creativity at the table with greater balance, no? I would also assert there are more team synergies now than there used to be as well.

 

[Mark]

The problem with that is Joe can probably get a superior bookshelf for almost no effort by calling the furniture store.

Well, that's not serious, since there are a myriad of places that can be called with varying degrees of quality shelves, and if Joe has a workshop, he's likely to be a pretty darned good carpenter anyway. You're moving the goalposts.

Ah but see only joe has the phone... nobody else can have one "because joe is the phone user class" ... (. . .)

Uh-huh. You're not just moving goalposts, you've left the stadium.


That's it for me for the time being. There's really no point to this under the present conditions. Thanks for your time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

All this song and dance is lovely to see and hear, but it still ignores the point.

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies. Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies. Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.

You cannot have it both ways.

(Where the balance/creativity fulcrum should lie is another question; one which relies very much on subjective taste. Denying that there is a tradeoff between the two, though, is irrational.)


RC

I don't think you're wrong, but I don't think you've considered the entire picture either.

I think the tradeoff can also be between balance and the degree to which the system rewards creativity.

Imagine that the DM describes a boulder strewn hill topped with trees. As an ogre (a very tough and dangerous enemy) approaches that hillside, one of the players decides he wants to grab a tree branch and use it as a lever to pry free a boulder, sending it tumbling down onto the ogre.

System A isn't much concerned with balance, and therefore with successful resolution of the check to pry the boulder free, the DM decides that the boulder crushes the ogre, who is killed instantly.

System B, however, is very strict about balance. Based on the player's level the rules state that improvised damage effects shouldn't deal more than X damage, although they may also knock the target prone if it fails it's resistance check. Upon successful resolution, the boulder rolls down and hits the ogre for X damage, possibly also knocking him prone.

Both systems allow the player equal freedom to creatively exploit the area around him (which the DM merely intended as window dressing). The difference lies in how the action is rewarded. System A offers the potential of very large rewards which undoubtedly appeals to the creativity of players. System B limits the size of those rewards, ostensibly for a better or more challenging play experience. System A allowed the player to neutralize the challenge in it's entirety, whereas B gave the player a "bonus" to the challenge (shifting the odds of the ensuing combat in his favor).

I think you're mistaken in saying that you cannot have it both ways, because (IMO) there's a third factor (reward) that you haven't accounted for. The potential exists to have both balance and the potential for creativity, so long as you are willing to limit the fruits that may be reaped from that creativity. Even the Wish spell had limits as to what it could accomplish, presumably for the sake of balance.

 

[pawsplay]

The analogies, Captain... they canno' take much more o' this!

 

[ExploderWizard]

I disagree and I think the increasingly complex tactical choices and strategic building choices presented to the PC throughout the editions indicates that this is a misinterpretation of what is going on with D&D design.

What is changing is not whether or not the game challenges the player, but in how it challenges the player. The game has developed so that the challenges the player faces are increasingly focused through the character and in how that character is developed as well as played. That's still plenty of player challenge if you ask me.

The character build minigame is indeed a player challenge but it is sort of outside the realm of actual play. Knowing where to put your build resources for maximum benefit does require player know-how.

This results in an in-game problem being solved by the player knowing where to put skill points to get the most out of a skill check, it isn't the player solving the problem.

 

[Hairfoot]

The character build minigame is indeed a player challenge but it is sort of outside the realm of actual play. Knowing where to put your build resources for maximum benefit does require player know-how.

This results in an in-game problem being solved by the player knowing where to put skill points to get the most out of a skill check, it isn't the player solving the problem.

That opens a line of enquiry that goes all the way back to the merits of random character generation.

Is roleplaying about generating the character you imagine, or imagining the character you generate?

 

[Jhaelen]

Balance is achieved by eliminating unforseen synergies. Creativity is the finding and utilization of unforseen synergies. Either 4e is more balanced than previous editions, and therefore limits unforseen synergies (and creativity, perforce) more, or it is not better balanced, and does not create said limitations.

Well, that's certainly a creative argument.

Now, if we take the theoretical totality of creativity, then every attempt at balance will naturally eliminate some creativity. But every game that includes even a single rule will do that. If you want ultimate creativity you cannot have any rules. So that's basically a strawman argument (if I understand the term correctly).

Finding synergies (unforeseen or otherwise) is just one of many ways to get 'creative'. I'd also argue that there are unforeseen synergies that don't hurt the overall balance and those that do. Closing loopholes that hurt balance is imho a good thing. So the question is really: How do you decide if something hurts balance?

Older editions of the game often didn't provide rules that limited a spell's effectiveness used 'creatively'. One example that doesn't involve any synergy: using a 'create water' spell to drown someone by creating the water in his lungs.

Later versions of the game specifically didn't allow this. This arguably makes the game more balanced but is this an improvement or not?

There's another problem: it only takes a single person to be creative. Once someone comes up with an idea and communicates it, others will take it up (assuming it's a good idea). So while as a DM I may feel I want to reward a 'creative' player by allowing his idea to work, I'll then have to deal with the copycats who are utterly uncreative and simply repeat the trick. If it's a trick that can be universally applied the game's effectively dead.
In the times of the internet this problem is multiplied athousandfold.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now, if we take the theoretical totality of creativity, then every attempt at balance will naturally eliminate some creativity. But every game that includes even a single rule will do that. If you want ultimate creativity you cannot have any rules.

Exactly so.

It is pointless to argue that adding some level of balance doesn't remove some level of creativity; what is actually worth pursuing is an examination of how much balance and how much creative potential are actually desireable.

EDIT: It should also be obvious that, as any system grows, the inherent balance point will slip. More options = more unpredictable effects (emergent properties) = less inherent balance.


RC

 

[fuzzlewump]

It is pointless to argue that adding some level of balance doesn't remove some level of creativity; what is actually worth pursuing is an examination of how much balance and how much creative potential are actually desireable.

EDIT: It should also be obvious that, as any system grows, the inherent balance point will slip. More options = more unpredictable effects (emergent properties) = less inherent balance.

Balance and creativity are defined as what?

In practice, a game with no rules does not necessarily have to be creative at all. It would be something along the lines of someone saying "There's a door. It's locked" and another saying "I open it." With no rules, you could creatively come up with a reason and a plan for why and how you open the door, but it would be a pointless measure. You need some kind of rules aka in this case adversity to overcome.

But, I'm not sure what you mean by balance or even creativity. So maybe I agree, covertly.