NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 5053645" data-attributes="member: 5724">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.</blockquote>

Verification