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

[Henry]

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.

My experience with both differ -- the charts on Pages 42, 184, and 185 of the 4th edition DMG show someone how to be immensely creative, while giving a framework that will help a DM not accidentally over- or under-power what he sends at his players, or whatever non-"powered" creative solution his players want to try against the challenges they face. If he wants to overwhelm the players, he'll full well have the math in front of him to show him that's what he's doing, intentionally or not. How the DM creatively expresses the challenges his players face is completely up to him, with only guidance to power level of the threat.

My current and previous experience with 3.x is that so many corner cases, variants and options are presented, that the opposite, namely "analysis paralysis" can result in both DMs or players. Do I threaten the players with a 4th level sorcerer and his warrior-1 cronies, or would a cleric-3 and his zombie horde be more effective? Do I want the enemy to just bog them down, or will a party without a cleric be totally screwed? Would a party with a cleric find it a total cakewalk? Would the sorcerer-4 obliterate the party with spamming scorching rays, or should I just equip him with burning hands and web spells and under-play his tactics? Or would my specific group of players totally destroy him without losing a single spell or hit point? And it takes a LOT, a LOT of time behind the DM screen to answer these questions properly.

Even in the case of a refined version like Pathfinder, which I enjoy the heck out of, the designers at Paizo have difficulty answering this question. To vary a challenge, they'll give the villain a shortspear instead of a longsword or greataxe, so he won't be as damaging, and he'll have toughness and improve initiative instead of power attack and cleave, when in his right mind he should be fighting with the more effective weapon, or the superior villain will gloat for three rounds until he gets knocked down to half his hit points, so that the party stands a chance. In a way, too much detail can limit plausibility of actions, to explain why the DM is lightening a challenge to make it more appropriate instead of a vast challenge or suicide.

In short, I don't think the question is "how creative should 5e let you be?" it's "how creative should the players let 5E be?" Because that's why it's being made in the first place, when you get down to it. Too creative with the rules interpretations differently from what came before, and people won't buy it.

 

[jbear]

4e taught me to "say yes". This meant stopping stifling my players creativity by projecting DCs upon them I believed what was realistically achievable for characters of their level. "Sure, try ... DC 35..." is the same as saying no.

Changing that attitude was a huge release for me, and a big leap in terms of allowing my players to get creative. Like I said ... 4e taught me that. Thanks 4e.

Whether I play/switch to 5e or not, that is a philosophy that I take with me. No matter what the rules say.

 

[GM Dave]

I find 'creativity' comes when you are given guidelines.

I found 4e myself to be difficult to work with when it came to trying to do something like go outside of a class or design a new power that fit within the framework. When I first got the game books there were calls by the players that wanted things that were not in the game yet or to push the boundaries.

Comparatively, I've made a few 'monster' classes for 3e/PF and would be comfortable with making a hodge podge class that covered most player wants or desires.

I do agree with the poster that Essentials has made class design simpler in 4e and would allow for someone to make a 1-10 level class progression for a new idea in a reasonable amount of time.

I like how 4e has made monsters simpler to work and has many versions of similar monsters.

I do think that a more component assembly approach to monster design would help with creativity.

For example the rust monsters touch is an interesting mechanic. Having it loaded only on the rust monster limits its usage to things where players know what a rust monster is supposed to look like or loses something of the surprise horror when it first first happens.

I mentioned in the Flora and Fauna thread that it would be an interesting mechanic to have on a plant or to possibly have some humanoids that have adapted the plant to use in their weapons.

There are dozens of mechanics like cones or lines of dragon breath that could be adapted to other things (monsters, traps, hazards) and given a slight recolouring of material expelled. Walking in a sewer may subject people to explosive discharges of sewer waste with the potential to hit like a dragon breath but does subdual style damage. A plant might have a large bulb or fruit that explodes when disturbed like a small fireball (or possibly several fireball if a chain reaction occurs).

The undead touch might drain energy but the floor of a crypt with undead imprisoned below it might have a similar effect to any that walk the tile floor.

I was also taking this idea recently to magical items.

It would be an improvement on magical item design to separate the container from the magical properties.

The magical container still needs to be designed and of a specific 'size' to hold the magical energies that are but into the container.

The magical energies are a separate design and may be transferred from one container to another.

This allows players to gain some sort of effect and carry it much more easily with them or put into a form they can more easily use.

If you find a sword of fire and prefer a hammer of fire then the property of the fire can be transferred from the sword container to the hammer container.

If you have say a necklace and like the idea of a necklace more than a cloak you can choose the same 'neck' magical property to be in the necklace. You just transfer the property from one container the other.

A more valuable container can hold bigger properties or more smaller properties. The hammer of fire might be limited to holding that one fire property but the legendary dwarven hammer of Aleric might be able to hold five small properties or one large and one medium property.

This type of design option allows for flexibility from the players and the GM which encourages creativity.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

It should let you be as creative as you want to be...it just baffles me that there are people who think D&D should do anything but.

 

[steeldragons]

I think the premise of the OP is flawed.

5e will not "let me" be creative, nor should it try. I will be as creative as I am/wanna be and "let" 5e be the framework in which structure that creativity...or not if I don't like it/I can't do things in a way that is creative and enjoyable for my table.

This may sound like semantics, but it is a very definite and subtle point/difference in attitude toward the game.

If you are looking for "permission" from the rules set, then in my humble opinion, you will be disappointed. You will have, for lack of a better term, already "lost" your creativity...in that you have put the guidelines of the rules ahead of your desires for the game.

So, my answer would be just that. 5e will NOT "let me be creative", in any fashion. But, if it sweet talks me nice and brings me shiny gifts...maybe a nice candlelit dinner or three...I will let 5e be a part of my creative game.

Happy Sunday, all (and Happy Easter and/or Passover to any/all that celebrate it. Hope it's been a Happy Spring, so far, for the rest of us )
--SD

 

[Steely_Dan]

Sounds like they might be encouraging more creativity with Ability Checks, like 2nd Ed.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

And you think of that as encouraging creativity?! Well... if it works for you, more power to ya. But that sounds to me like jumping through a whole lot of silly hoops, not to mention buying a ton of splatbooks, to wangle permission from the rules to make the character you wanted to make in the first place.

I don't think any edition of D&D has encouraged creativity in character generation--except, as I said, the build-optimization angle, which many people quite legitimately enjoy. Some editions have done a better job getting out of the way than others. I'd say BD&D is best at that because it doesn't pretend to have rules for everything. If you want to make a half-demon cleric of Pelor who burns in her own god's sunlight, there's no expectation the rules will tell you how to do that. You work something out with the DM.

If you tried to do that in 3E, you would find that the half-fiend template has an "always evil" alignment, which means you can't be a cleric of a good deity, and it has a +4 level adjustment so you couldn't play the character until 5th level, and there are no rules anywhere for non-undead that burn in daylight, and its special abilities may or may not look anything like what you had in mind for your half-demon. So you go to the DM and ask how to work this out, and the DM says, "Well, half-fiend probably isn't going to work, but you could play a tiefling, and I guess we can house-rule in the burning in sunlight thing."

So you end up with a cleric who has a couple of resistances and can cast darkness once a day, while being a level behind everyone else and having a Charisma penalty. Whatever you envisioned your half-demon being like, this probably wasn't it.

This is not encouraging creativity. It's punishing it. A good DM can certainly make this character fun and exciting to play, but that's the DM encouraging creativity, not the rules! For more on this, please refer to "Oberoni fallacy." BD&D does no more than 3E to encourage creativity, but it does do a better job of getting out of the way of the players and DM--it makes no pretense of having rules for stuff like this.

The best thing D&DN could do to encourage creativity in chargen is to give the DM some general guidelines (not hard-and-fast rules!) and examples for how to create unusual and interesting characters, and exhort both DMs and players to push the boundaries. Then provide a dead-simple core game and let DMs and players figure out the rest.

 

[hanez]

I think the more relevant question is "how creative will the designers let themselves be?". For skills, and actions and monsters, I can just houserule or DM my own. But for me to have engagement, I need rich classes that let the players differ from eachother. Will the designers let wildly different classes that uses different systems bloom? Or will they make all classes fit the same mold on an assembly line (1 will power, 1 encounter power, 1 daily for you, move along).

Also how imaginative will the powers be? Will they be short powers with damage only descriptions?

I could create my creative and engaging story, in any edition, but then when the game begins and I am asking the players to contribute, they will contribute with what they have been dealt. If its they have all been cast in the same mold with mostly numeric powers, 9 times out of 10, this wont lead to very creative play.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Will the designers let wildly different classes that uses different systems bloom? Or will they make all classes fit the same mold on an assembly line (1 will power, 1 encounter power, 1 daily for you, move along).

Exactly, I don't want every class to be 1st level features, then pick and replace powers for 29 levels, rinse, repeat.

 

[Greg K]

And you think of that as encouraging creativity?! Well... if it works for you, more power to ya. But that sounds to me like jumping through a whole lot of silly hoops, not to mention buying a ton of splatbooks, to wangle permission from the rules to make the character you wanted to make in the first place.

Not a lot of splats or hoop jumping (unless you consider a) talking to the DM to see if the character concept fits the campaign setting and/or power level they are running and b) designing the character to fit the concept/background to be hoop jumping).

As for needing a lot of splats? We don't use WOTC's splat books. We use the PHB, DMG, and Unearthed Arcana (along with Green Ronin's Cavalier's, Holy Warrior's Handbook, Psychic's, Shaman's and Witch's Handbook which each introduce a new class). No WOTC Complete [x] except for a handful of feats, spells or magic items. No Races of [Y].

Splats are unnecessary for what I described as are both Unearthed Arcana and the Cityscape web enhancement on skill swaps that I mentioned The latter two are helpful in presenting examples for new or time strapped DMs as well as DMs that felt they did not have enough examples or guidelines n the PHB and DMG, but they are not necessary. Many of us were posting such class variants on Monte's site and other sites early in 3e long before Unearthed Arcana or the Cityscape enhancement on skill swaps even existed. We did it to help our players by tailoring classes to meet viabale starting concepts/backgrounds (especially, those archetypes commonly found in history or certain fantasy) while minimizing our players hoop jumping through the use of cross class skills, multi-classing and Prestige classes. WOTC was pretty much late to the party on supporting class variants (unless you include the Urban Ranger from one of their early splats).