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

[Sunseeker]

I have found the exact opposite in every edition.

really? I find creative combat and Rping said creativity takes a lot longer than rolling a few d20's and adding up some damage.

 

[hanez]

really? I find creative combat and Rping said creativity takes a lot longer than rolling a few d20's and adding up some damage.

Combat can take excruciatingly long, if you run by the rules. Take 4th editions monsters extreme hitpoints, players with tons of complicated powers, and structured adventures with tons upon tons of encounters.

I found 3.x combat to be long to.

I have a couple "houserules" where monsters immediately become minions when I am annoyed, and encounters end when we know your just going to win anyways. But I would like a better way to make combat more speedy.

 

[TimA]

If i had to pick i would say the perfect level of creativity rules wise would be halfway between AD&D and 3e.

I would like to see more guidelines and less rules. And more help with designing your own rules.

As an example.
Less "sure you can make your own classes but we dont think you should. If you try then good luck"

and more "sure you can make your own classes. Heres the math we used to build the existing classes so yours balances with them and heres some advice on class abilities and clearly broken combinations"

And the 3e savage species book is another good example. Lots of advice and guidelines on how to say "yes you can" without breaking the hell out of the game.

Another good example is skills.

3e skills were a great creative concept too. But they assigned too many combat-esque mechanics too them in the end and let the ranks get out of hand but the idea is still a very good one.

Old editions skill systems of "gee i dont know if you can do that. Lets play a quick game of convince the DM that you can track an animal or swim because of something in your backstory and hope he goes for it"...... those IMO are just terrible. But then I dislike 4e's skills as well because their too much.

 

[jbear]

Totally agree.



Really? I actually had the opposite effect. I was in the "Say Yes" mode before 4e, the more I played 4e, the more I found that becoming "Say No". I guess we had a different experience.

As to the topic at hand, I am a huge advocate for creative play. To me, thats the big drawcard of tabletop play, and if a system doesnt do that your better off playing Dragon Age on the PC.

This is where I want 5e to do something a little different. No just "less mechanics", leaving it to DM fiat, but more mechanics to support creative play. My big love in this way goes to FATE and the players ability to creative narrative, it not only allows creative play...it has a mechanic for creative play. Very cool.

We will see what they can come up with.

Yes really. Did you read the DMG? Probably would have helped if you didn't. Not too clear on why you felt that restriction as a DM. If you read the two DMGs there is pretty explicit encouragement of saying yes to player innovation.

I certainly don't recall reading that in a DMG before hand. Perhaps you can prove me wrong. I have my doubts.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

I would argue that giving them a DC and damage expression designed to be makeable but generally less effective then just using a power isn't really saying "yes", but "who cares?".

As a player I don't get creative just to hear the sound of my own voice. I don't "refluff" just to express myself. I get creative to get my butt out of a situation I by all rights shouldn't survive, or to earn rewards my character wouldn't otherwise be good enough to receive if they were played more predictably.

To me getting creative means to break the game, and I might go so far as to say that the game should push players into doing this, because it's really fun. One of the salient features of tabletop roleplaying is if you "break the game" it will keep going, because the DM is there to smooth over the holes and use their judgement. So this should happen a lot imo.

 

[jbear]

I would argue that giving them a DC and damage expression designed to be makeable but generally less effective then just using a power isn't really saying "yes", but "who cares?".

As a player I don't get creative just to hear the sound of my own voice. I don't "refluff" just to express myself. I get creative to get my butt out of a situation I by all rights shouldn't survive, or to earn rewards my character wouldn't otherwise be good enough to receive if they were played more predictably.

To me getting creative means to break the game, and I might go so far as to say that the game should push players into doing this, because it's really fun. One of the salient features of tabletop roleplaying is if you "break the game" it will keep going, because the DM is there to smooth over the holes and use their judgement. So this should happen a lot imo.

I'm not quite sure I understand your first paragraph. My reading is that you have understood that I said yes by setting an achievable DC, but made the action less effective than just using a power. And you're opinion of this is that I wasn't saying yes to my players, I was saying 'who cares'.

If this interpretation of your interpretation is correct, then your assumption is incorrect. When my players thought outside the box I often didn't even ask for a roll if I thought it was cool enough. Also, I included a house rule in the game that allowed player creativity make their powers even better if the situation made sense or was in line with 'the fluff' of the power. It also allowed them to interact with the environment and/or the situation in innovative ways that were always more advantageous than just using a power. I did loads of stuff to encourage them to play not just play out their powers. And yes, often players had to do this because I set very challenging encounters for them constantly where being innovative or creative could resolve the situation as opposed to being expected to simply slog it out. But the game never broke. It was quite simply, awesome.

If I have misunderstood what you were saying then ignore everything written above.

 

[Libramarian]

I'm talking about the pg. 42 system.

 

[Incenjucar]

In practice, you can't make often-available actions more powerful than at-wills without turning the game into Furniture Juggling.

Much less available things, which cannot be abused, can have more oomph.

Turning smacking someone with a bar stool into an at-will daze attack? Players will carry bar stools in a bag of holding.

Turning dropping a chandelier on someone into an AOE prone+restrain (save ends), absolutely, because they're only ever going to get to do that in very niche situations.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I would argue that giving them a DC and damage expression designed to be makeable but generally less effective then just using a power isn't really saying "yes", but "who cares?".

As a player I don't get creative just to hear the sound of my own voice. I don't "refluff" just to express myself. I get creative to get my butt out of a situation I by all rights shouldn't survive, or to earn rewards my character wouldn't otherwise be good enough to receive if they were played more predictably.

To me getting creative means to break the game, and I might go so far as to say that the game should push players into doing this, because it's really fun. One of the salient features of tabletop roleplaying is if you "break the game" it will keep going, because the DM is there to smooth over the holes and use their judgement. So this should happen a lot imo.

Erfworld Book 1 Archive