Fiddly Bits, Power Cards, and Imagination

[steenan]

In my experience, defined powers and actions do not limit creativity if they allow flexible fluff. It is a different king of creativity, though - less focus on problem solving (as mechanical effects are predefined), more on colorful descriptions and cinematic action. The most fun combats I had were played with a "fixed crunch, mutable fluff" system.

There is something else that predefined options limit - it's immersion. You may play tactically with them, you may play cinematically, but you are unable to start thinking as your character does; the mechanical limitations hold you as an anchor. Maybe somebody can do it - but neither me, nor any of my friends (many of them great roleplayers) could.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

It is true by my observation.

The more highly defined powers and options are, the more likely players are to stick to them and be less creative. From my experience one end of the continuum is OD&D and the other end is 4e.

I'm not telling anyone that one way is good and one way is bad, just observing that in my long experience the more codified powers and options are, the less creative people end up being for one reason or another.

Cheers

You could just as easily interpret it with the opposite connotation, in which an excess of creativity is a sign of something wrong with the system. Which is to say, people stay in the box more often in a powers system because there is a lot to do inside the box. It's a neat box with shiny things and noisemakers. You have room to stretch out and get comfy. Depending on what class you were playing in older versions of D&D... sometimes there wasn't that much inside the box that was worth doing. Even with a bucket of combat feats in 3e, I didn't feel like I had very many interesting things to do on a Fighter. At the end of the day, it felt like once you were engaged, you had "trip" and "swing away" as your only mathematically viable options. There just wasn't much system to master there. I remember going outside the rules just to relieve the monotony. In a powers-based system, you typically have several "buttons" to hit, so it takes longer to get into a repetitive chain.

Obviously, there's some variation here between class types and so on. Creativity is generally a good thing, but I think it's too simple to say that it is automatically a good sign. Sometimes it is merely a form of acting out. The reason why someone is choosing to get creative is telling, and that can vary a lot from person to person and game to game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I wanted to temporarily blind a creature with my cloak -- the classic "throw a cloak over it's head to distract it for a few seconds" -- my fellow gamers looked at me as if I had sprouted a new head!

(Chuckle)

I had a player try this last Tuesday (using a different system).

IMHO, it isn't the system that's at fault here per se, but the way that the system is presented.

If a system presents "Here's what you can do", then players will naturally try to make use of what is presented.

If a system presents "Here are some powers you have, but you can also do anything you can imagine within the limits of probability, and here are some rules to help determine probability", players tend to be more imaginative because the system explicitly suggests and rewards that creativity.

It is difficult to write balanced game rules that also reward player creativity, because it is impossible to balance that creativity if it is rewarded. In 4e, the emphasis is definitely on balance. This is why, in 4e, the creative choice is often the suboptimal choice.

If you want more creative play in a 4e game, simply let it be known that creativity will be rewarded more than the books suggest. And then make it so. And let the monsters be equally creative (when appropriate). You will not have the same level of balance as straight 4e, but I suspect you will have more fun. (And that is a YMMV moment, obviously.)

EDIT: Throwing a cloak to blind a creature is a standard manoevre in RCFG, for what it's worth. Make an attack roll at -4 (against standard or touch AC, whichever is easier). If successful, the opponent is blind until it spends an Action to remove the cloak.




RC

 

[Plane Sailing]

You could just as easily interpret it with the opposite connotation, in which an excess of creativity is a sign of something wrong with the system.

I don't think I would interpret it the other way though, to be honest. I'm also thinking in the larger picture of an adventure and not just combat - I notice that in systems with less defined options players that I know are more likely to come up with innovative ways of doing things.

As someone said further up in the thread, I notice that it affects peoples immersion in the character too.

One of the things I really liked about OD&D was that because there were no skills for anything, anyone could attempt anything which they could describe. Not so good for people who weren't creative at all, I suppose, but that wouldn't describe any of the people I played with back then!

Again, just my opinion and observations.

Cheers

 

[ExploderWizard]

You could just as easily interpret it with the opposite connotation, in which an excess of creativity is a sign of something wrong with the system. Which is to say, people stay in the box more often in a powers system because there is a lot to do inside the box. It's a neat box with shiny things and noisemakers. You have room to stretch out and get comfy. Depending on what class you were playing in older versions of D&D... sometimes there wasn't that much inside the box that was worth doing.

Raw creativity exists outside of any system. I think we all lose sight of the fact that there doesn't have to be a box. The original game design was written to encourage creativity which does not mean there is anything wrong with the system.

D&D was designed as an adventure game with abstract mechanics. Rolling a d20 to "attack" could represent a variety of activities just as scoring "damage" could be interpreted in different ways.

Over time the rules began to more narrowly define what was happening as the dice were rolled. This combined with rules more fixated on the capabilities of the PC's than the adventure created the "box" and associated limitations.

The benefit of the abstract system is speed of play. Shiny buttons with interesting effects do create more pre-define reliable actions but the slowdown is very noticeable.

The question becomes one of what the group finds more fun; the adventure itself or the handling of details related to resolving actions in the adventure.

Even with a bucket of combat feats in 3e, I didn't feel like I had very many interesting things to do on a Fighter. At the end of the day, it felt like once you were engaged, you had "trip" and "swing away" as your only mathematically viable options. There just wasn't much system to master there. I remember going outside the rules just to relieve the monotony. In a powers-based system, you typically have several "buttons" to hit, so it takes longer to get into a repetitive chain.

If character builds and system mastery is an objective of play then abstract resolution won't scratch that itch. I don't recall a great deal of boredom with the older edition adventures unless the DM didn't keep things moving and that can happen with any mechanics. 10- 20 minute combats didn't drag on long enough to become monotonous.

Obviously, there's some variation here between class types and so on. Creativity is generally a good thing, but I think it's too simple to say that it is automatically a good sign. Sometimes it is merely a form of acting out. The reason why someone is choosing to get creative is telling, and that can vary a lot from person to person and game to game.

Everything of course depends on the goals of both the game design, and the wishes of the players.

 

[JediJake]

This creative limitation bothers me in games as well. In the games I'm running now I think I've come up with a workable solution. Characters have a certain number of trained skills that they can use during combat. They make a check for whatever skill they are trying to use say acrobatics, as a swift action and if they succeed they get an action point(+1d6 to attack or damage or fuel for certain other abilities).

So the rogue is trained in acrobatics and makes an acrobatics check as a swift action to flip over that troublesome table in his way and succeeds, he gets +1d6 to his attack roll for taking his opponent by surprise; but if he tries the same tricks again his opponent will be ready for the move.

Characters can use diplomacy to fill their enemies with doubt, warriors can climb up and leap from tables and the like, the possibilities are limited only by your imagination and gives cause to have more skills trained, and uses a semi precious swift action to use.

Now that I bring it up can anyone see a trouble or fault with this system?

Good Gaming, Jake

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is similar to a mechanic I wrote for RCFG, and it works extremely well. I would recommend reading the "Combat Advantage" part of the pdf (link in my sig) and seeing whether or not you want to adapt it wholesale. Essentially, the skill check becomes a gamble for bonuses, where failure means you lose your action. Eventually, characters can automatically succeed for low bonuses, and are encouraged to gamble for more.

It's fun! And it doesn't require a grid!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

I don't think I would interpret it the other way though, to be honest. I'm also thinking in the larger picture of an adventure and not just combat - I notice that in systems with less defined options players that I know are more likely to come up with innovative ways of doing things.

I guess since we're talking about Power Cards and such in this thread, I figured we were talking about combat. Besides, I'm one of those people who doesn't really care about most of the non-combat rules. Combat is where I need a random element to adjudicate how things throw down. Skill challenges and such for chases or to provide a framework for doing social things seem fun, but I've always been just as happy with talking that stuff out, letting the DM throw a skill or ability check our way when we try something. I feel like we're more or less on the same page here.

Combat I think has room for more rules, but I'm a bit of a tactical sort. Once initiative is rolled, I find that I really like a variety of cinematic and tactical things to do with varying combat effects right in front of me. Not only does it feel tactically deeper, but it also inspires me to generate further effects and feel like I have a rules justification right in front of me. i.e. "Well, if I can do X damage by smacking this guy with my shield, and it has a good chance to knock him down, I ought to be able to use that bench on a couple guys simultaneously the same way." (DM applying some penalties to such a maneuver assumed) or "If I can do Y fire damage in an area, that should be more than sufficient to set off a sizable explosion (read: knockback) in that silo, what with all the mousemen kicking up starch." (Yes, my wizards tend to be scientists. It's the only way I know how to roleplay 18+ intellect).

In short, for my brain, presenting lots of options.... tends to generate yet more options, not less. Clearly, mileage varies on this one, but I don't think that's a system problem. Leastways, it's not one that's insurmountable. Shake some trees, write up some new power cards that say "What would YOU like to do?" and so on.

As someone said further up in the thread, I notice that it affects peoples immersion in the character too.

On the immersion issue... have you ever had a brand new player bring some serious roleplay right out of the gate? I haven't seen it. Usually, they are are spending most of their cognitive resources on playing the game. Some sessions in, they start to ratchet it up..... often to the detriment of their gameplay, at first, until actual system mastery sets in later.

When you hand a new rules set to people, the learning is going to drastically increase the cognitive load on them for several game sessions, thereby reducing their capacity to either roleplay or think outside the box.

Unfortunately, I have to bring this back to an edition comparison because I'm not sure how else to make this point. Granted, I've played very little 4e, sadly, but it seems from my brief experience that everyone but the druids and wizards have a more interesting space inside their rules box than they used to. It's going to take some time to learn what goes on just in there before you can start cutting holes in the walls, rearranging the Skinnerian widgets and so on. But I think ultimately, many people will end up just as creative, though perhaps they will shoot their ideas through the prism of existing powers, rather than making them up whole cloth. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, since it probably makes it easier for the DM to decide if the rules exception the player wants to make is within a reasonable boundary of the existing rules exceptions. Make sense?

 

[Ariosto]

People who dig spending 30, 40, 50 minutes or more on a typical fight tend -- one way or another -- to build up appropriately thick bodies of rules.

No one would have believed in the last years of the twentieth century that this world of D&D was being watched keenly and closely by such intelligences; intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this world with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in the twenty-first century came the great disillusionment.

It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days, when a "test of skill" had what seemed then such apposite meaning. The Wizards seem to have calculated their descent with amazing subtlety--their mathematical learning is evidently far in excess of ours--and to have carried out their preparations with a well-nigh perfect unanimity.

 

[Ariosto]

If a menu is long enough, then it might as well be no menu at all. At some point along the way, there's likely to be some awkwardness as people ponder the choice between, say, #36 and #64.

On the immersion issue... have you ever had a brand new player bring some serious roleplay right out of the gate? I haven't seen it.

I have. Necessity is the mother of invention, and in a really, really old-style RPG, role-playing is -- simply, literally, precisely -- how one plays. There are no two ways about it, no "stats" at all to distract the player in the first place. The shift to getting to see an index card of ability scores and hit points is just a little step beyond, and even in such a highly systematic game as RuneQuest I never saw such replacement with "roll" playing as is all the rage in some quarters.

It is not really the provision in 3e of so many tools to help the DM make rulings that is the big problem in this context. The big problem is the importance laid -- even more by players than by the designers, I think -- upon the superstructure maintaining certain abstract game balances.

That really reduces the "world machine" to a relatively trivial puzzle with optimal solutions.

"Be careful what you wish" is a watchword for players, if we want to keep the game interesting.