D&D 5E How creative should 5e let you be?

[Sunseeker]

In this context, "players" includes the DM.

There's a lot of topics here to seem to be brushing up against this issue, but none of them seem to actually want to talk about it.

At it's heart, D&D isn't just about playing a fantasy game, it's about playing your fantasy game. Be it from behind the screen or in front of it, you want to play a fun an exciting game, and one of the ways D&D has achieved this is through creativity. Some editions, by design or accident are more creative than others.

In my PERSONAL OPINION, I would argue that while 4e is a lot of fun, there's not a lot of creativity. It's all a lot of very straight-forward X, Y, Z. 3rd seemed to take creativity overboard, with so much customization it became difficult to keep track of it all. When I transitioned between 3e and 4e, this was probably the most profound feeling I got out of it. I felt it was easier to have "fun" in 4e, but my creativity felt stifled.

So when we talk about racially/culturally/climate fitting apparel, ability score caps, vancian or powers and how 5e should or should not integrate these things, they naturally brush the issue of creativity.

What I want to know from you is: How creative should 5e allow people to be? There will be limits of course, but should those limits be the sky? Should players be allowed to clad their FemBarian in a chain-mail bikini? Should DMs get to completely revise monsters, create their own, should there be HARD rules for that or should it be more free form? Should classes/races/backgrounds/themes be customizable by the player? Write our own backgrounds and themes with appropriate bonuses? Build our own races? Reskin and reflavor existing content? These aren't specific questions to be answered, but more a general idea to make you ponder:

How creative should 5e let it's players be?

 

[Savage Wombat]

Twelve out of ten.

 

[Thalionalfirin]

My experience with D&D is that house rules (which I believe you are discussing) has always been acceptable.

I personally think everything is game as long as everyone at the table is fine with it.

If I want to write my own background and everyone else is fine with it, then so be it.

If the DM wants to create his own monsters, then go ahead and do it.

The key is cooperation at the table. If I want to create my own background and everyone else thinks it's either not appropriate or unbalanced, then I shouldn't be allowed to do it.

At the heart, D&D is a social game and the key to that is an acceptable social contract. Anything that falls within that contract should be fine from a creative standpoint. Anything outside of that... isn't.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Twelve out of ten.

Up to 11.

 

[El Mahdi]

It sounds to me that the rules for D&D Next will probably allow any level of creativity that any past edition provided. Whether that still feels limiting to anyone though, will depend on personal taste.

I don't know if "sky's the limit" is truly possible with any "system". Though it may be possible to achieve something close enough as to appear that way (like having something that would last for the duration of the known universe and calling it everlasting or immortal).

But how much creative flexibility 5E will have will likely depend upon what kind and how many modular add-ons are provided. At each individual table, houserules will be able to theoretically make the game capable of anything, as it always has been. But modules will likely be the limiting factor as far as RAW (which will also affect the online tools).

Sky's the limit at your table? Of course.

Sky's the limit on DDI? Probably not.


But I think the designers should try to make a game flexible enough that it eliminates as many impediments to creativity as possible.


So, I'd say I'm close to Savage Wombat on this. But would prefer an 11.9999992987374983 out of 10.

 

[Mattachine]

For folks relying on DDI, creativity was dialed down a bit. In my own 4e campaign, players can't use the character builder because I have a custom gameworld, different character creation rules, new classes, etc.

The edition didn't make me any less creative: I have made new classes, races, and monsters in every edition I've played (which is all but BECMI).

That being said, some things make creative endeavors tricky. For instance, until the idea of Essentials classes, making a class with a full set of powers by level was very daunting. Likewise, in 3e, a new class was going to intersect with numerous feats and Prestige Classes, often unpredictably.

I want the new edition to explicitly foster creativity by giving guidelines on making classes, monsters, and races. For instance, the 3e DMG did a great job giving class advice, whereas the 4e DMG was great at helping DMs build monsters.

 

[Greg K]

The DM should have the tools to create the campaign that they want to run.
Players should be able to build the characters they want within the limits set by the GMs for the campaign/game that they are running (meaning that the DM is within their right to place limits on character concepts and disallow powergaming, min-maxing/char ops if deemed inappropriate by the DM)

 

[Dausuul]

The only kind of creativity I see 3E encouraging is creativity in build-optimization. I'm not dissing that form of creativity, but it's not something I particularly want to see a lot of in 5E. I see nothing in 3E that encourages creative character concepts. Indeed, the system inflicts a hefty penalty for designing to a concept instead of to an optimized build.

IMO, creativity in concept is best supported by "siloing," which 4E tried to do but couldn't quite get the hang of. Make it so concept and optimization are not in conflict.

 

[Greg K]

The only kind of creativity I see 3E encouraging is creativity in build-optimization. I'm not dissing that form of creativity, but it's not something I particularly want to see a lot of in 5E.

Among the people with whom I play, they don't char Op/Min Max (well, there is one player. However, he does it to test the DM and see if they will set limits. If the GM sets limits, he will respect those limits). Concepts and characters are designed by talking them over with the DM to make sure they fit the campaign the DM is running. The classes, UA style class variants, feats, Cityscape wilderness/urban skill swaps, skills points are assigned to build the character discussed to reflect culture, training, etc. and create the character envisioned not get the most l33T character.

Char ops/min maxing is a player issue (in the wrong groups). I blame a specific subset of players and their DMs that refuse to keep them in line if char ops/min maxing is not what the DM wants to run.

I see nothing in 3E that encourages creative character concepts. Indeed, the system inflicts a hefty penalty for designing to a concept instead of to an optimized build.

Blame the DMs that you have had. The DMG, specifically, tells them that they, the DMs, are in charge of how the game is played at their table, the rules used and how they are used. It also tells them that they will need to make adjustments based on their players and characters at the table.

IMO, creativity in concept is best supported by "siloing," which 4E tried to do but couldn't quite get the hang of. Make it so concept and optimization are not in conflict.

Or one could not play with the optimizers or DMs that don't tell them, "No".
As a DM, I don't want the designers "siloing" or limiting the concepts, because someone might char op/min-max and abuse the system. I consider it my responsibility as a DM to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate for my campaign.

 

[FireLance]

I don't see how any set of rules can "let" you be creative.

In any case, I think "creativity" is too broad a concept. It might be better to break into down into a few specific cases.

If we are talking about interesting character backgrounds, then I don't think any edition or rule set has the ability to stop you from using your imagination. Your DM might choose to disallow something that is too outlandish or which doesn't suit his campaign, but that is not a matter of rules.

Similarly, when it comes to coming up with your own rules and character options, I don't think any edition can stop you from doing what you want. I personally have come up with new classes, spells, abilities, etc. in practically every edition I've played. Some editions might give you better guidelines on what is considered an appropriate level of power, but I don't think that actually constrains creativity - that's more a matter of classifying your finished product after you're done with it.

And then there is creativity at the table - going outside of the rules to solve problems and deal with challenges in the game. Here, a comprehensive ruleset can reduce the need for creativity. If the standard resolution methods can always be used to overcome challenges quite effectively, then there is little need to step outside of the rules. However, reducing the need for creativity and not allowing you to be creative in the first place are two entirely different things. IMO, the latter cannot be done by the rules; only by the DM, and the former is a matter of the players taking the effort to adopt different approaches.