Fiddly Bits, Power Cards, and Imagination

[Garmorn]

If it's just trivial citation of a codified stereotype, then the "stunt" or whatever is no longer so creative, eh? Unless your compilation has anticipated so many that nobody actually turns to page 20,000 to look up the rule.

Ok, I will try and give a short answer. This depends on the skill of the DM, the brevity of the rules, and the quality of the players. Better the DM, more willing and fair the players on using the new rules in the sprite of the intent. Out of all of the DMs I have played with (including me as one of the DMs, only two have and the skill and imagination to do it right and one stoped because of player attempted abuse after the second usage in 3 months.

Right now, I am running all of the playtest games. This is, admittedly, a weak point in the playtesting process, but one I am working to overcome. In fact, I am working up a playtest module with pregen characters.

Hussar, you have exhibited an interest in trying new games (you have a thread to that effect). I would encourage both you and Garmorn to participate in (run) the playtest module when finished (January due to holidays).
RC

While I love to test new games. (I have lost track of all of the games I have played) I currently don't have a group and am out of practice. (Had a 3 year period of no table top RPG). Your awarness of the need to spread out play test means I will be looking foward to how it works for other DM's. I think that is the key. Several times I have seen what at first glance to be great rule die a slow death because the require a special type of DM.

Garmorn, just to add to your list of different sources for different experiences, I think a big one is how often did they play modules. Honestly, I think that has been the source of much of the difference that I've seen between my experiences and others.

Right, modules - I am not sure they are a cause or effect or both of the 'problem'.

One thing I forgot is that many groups don't see the lack of improvization (a better term then creativity) as a lack in their games.

Some groups poor all of the creativity into their background and role playing. Example one DM required a 2 page background that covered your family, how you got trained and why you where involved. She used that to creat a detailed campaign the got the players and their characters involed in the every affairs of the world. Combat was strickly by the book.

On the other hand I have been in far to many campaign where combat by the book was the start, middle and end of the campaign.

 

[Raven Crowking]

While I love to test new games. (I have lost track of all of the games I have played) I currently don't have a group and am out of practice.

Sorry to hear that.

Your awarness of the need to spread out play test means I will be looking foward to how it works for other DM's.

Me too! I need to ensure that the playtest adventure includes enough staging tips to allow another DM to maximize the benefits of the system!

Several times I have seen what at first glance to be great rule die a slow death because the require a special type of DM.

Well, that was a stipulation I included too. It is a synthesis of rules and GM, not just one or the other. Both must be in place, IMHO. Players are quick to learn what works in a game.

Also, I agree with you that we are only talking about one type of creativity here, not the be-all-and-end-all of creativity. Combats can be extremely vanilla in an otherwise very creative game, or vice versa.


RC

 

[Garmorn]

Me too! I need to ensure that the playtest adventure includes enough staging tips to allow another DM to maximize the benefits of the system!


Well, that was a stipulation I included too. It is a synthesis of rules and GM, not just one or the other. Both must be in place, IMHO. Players are quick to learn what works in a game.

All of that should be in your rules Section 1 (Are these rules right for your party?)

So when are you moving to Texas?

 

[Alan Shutko]

A couple things have contributed to the death of imagination in the group I play with.

The first was a rules layout problem. Page 42 is in the DMG. None of the players knew that it existed for the first six months we played (until I read about it here). If it had been mentioned somewhere in the PHB, I think that would have given us a lot more license to try things differently. Yes, 4e actually expects you to try stuff outside the box! But you won't necessarily know about it unless you're the DM.

The second problem has been a DM problem. The DCs for standard powers are set, by the rules. When we try anything outside the box, the DCs we get are high and accompanied by negative effects on failure. For example in our game, somersaulting over a barrier with acrobatics usually has a higher DC than just shooting through cover, and if you fail, you end up prone. With that kind of penalty, who would bother trying it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

All of that should be in your rules Section 1 (Are these rules right for your party?)

I think most players and GMs are smart enough to decide whether or not they like a ruleset. Of course, I'm an optimist.

So when are you moving to Texas?

You may not know this, but I am an American abroad. I could move to Texas if I wanted to.

(Now you folks in Texas aren't going to sleep for a week, worrying about it! )


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

The second problem has been a DM problem. The DCs for standard powers are set, by the rules. When we try anything outside the box, the DCs we get are high and accompanied by negative effects on failure. For example in our game, somersaulting over a barrier with acrobatics usually has a higher DC than just shooting through cover, and if you fail, you end up prone. With that kind of penalty, who would bother trying it?

See if your DM will let you use the Combat Advantage rule from RCFG. It basically goes like this:

* Narrate a skill use to give yourself a benefit while attacking (i.e., "I leap up and bring my axe down hard!")

* Set a DC. The bonus for DC 10 is +2. For every increment of 5, this increases by +2 (so, +4 at DC 15, +6 at DC 20, etc.). These numbers may need to be adjusted for other systems. The player determines how much to gamble.

* If you succeed, you get the bonus, which may be applied to attack roll, damage, or your AC until your next action. If you fail, you lose your attack.

* Your bonus can be split equally between any two of the above, instead of all applying to one. Thus, you could increase your attack roll and your AC.

So, on a check of DC 10, you could gain +2 to hit, +2 damage, +2 to your AC, or (for example) +1 to hit and +1 to your AC.

* Monsters get to do the same thing.

In our last game, this rule was used so that a PC could Intimidate an opponent into giving him an opening to attack (for example).

There are more stunting rules in the game, but this is an easy one to port into other systems. You might also want your DM to examine the Special Manoeuvre rules.


RC

 

[Garmorn]

Me too! I need to ensure that the playtest adventure includes enough staging tips to allow another DM to maximize the benefits of the system!
RC

This is the part (The staging tips and examples) Also a nice paragraph about play styles and how this fits in to different ones to increase the enjoyment of the game.

Good DM's might know what they want but there are more inexperienced or DMs that are poor because the have never been show a better way or how to go beyond the basic rules then good experienced DMs.