D&D 5E New L&L for 22/1/13 D&D Next goals, part 3

[Gorgoroth]

Well, the party found it creative that I found a way around there being...you know, that random chance of sudden death. I didn't gleam these tricks from the 'net either, so perhaps it's also a matter of perspective. I studied my spells after using them again and again, and also had to plan which spells to save and which PCs to TP first in the ferry. Sometimes the entire party would be separated (for various reasons), and my spells allowed the in-game story to proceed without players sitting on the sidelines, for which the DM was very appreciative. Did I get +bonus xp for creative use of spells? Yessir. You might call it "cheesing it" but I call it creative rules-lawyering around the intrinsic limitations of an iconic spell. Don't forget, I'd have to have prepared several spells in advance for each TP, for a 7 player party, some of which were anti-magic bigots (paladins brainwashed that non-godly magic was always evil). What I'm saying is that finding ways around those limitations of your spells, so that when you're higher level and you can suddenly teleport without error...might exist for a reason? Imagine you have been slaving around those roll % die or else let the world burn, type decisions, and as a wizard you decide, enough is enough, I will research my next spell level as a teleport without error or spend my hard earned GP on that instead of an offensive spell...makes you really think about the realities in the game world. Those higher level spells are rare, expensive...I needed to pass 3 charisma checks AND do a quest to convince a gold dragon to grant me some spells, because the isle of wizardry's prices were astronomical and exponential in cost the higher spell levels you achieved.

I'm a smart guy (don't take my word for it), and I can tell you a more free-form spell description that's not designed with a 2d battle grid in mind with an "encounter" i.e. 5 minute max duration chunk of narrative time, to be immensely creative. Not even exponentially so, but astronomically so. It is akin to the difference between playing a 2D fighting game with 4 buttons (despite its theoretically infinite variations), to a real martial arts tournement. Let's not kid ourselves here, certain rulesets limit the scope and breadth of the game world, and others less so. Free-form spell descriptions that have no arbitrary "this is an enemy and this is a "creature" type limitations are crud. How the heck would a fireball know that it's burninating a creature or a stack of books!!!!! in 4e, yes we did have many DMs who would rule by RAW that your powers could "melt" a dragon but not turn a candle on. And my dragonborn's acid breath couldn't melt a lock, no matter how many 5 minute breaks he took. It's not acid...don't call it acid. Call is "fake-nium". Words mean things. Acid is not a keyword. It melts metal. Period. Players expect it to. When you run headlong into the rules again and again and it kills your sense of fun, and instead of rewards you for creative use of your powers or spells, but penalizes you...

== fail.

The list of amazingly fun and creative things I've done over the years once that 3rd, or 4th dimension -- is thrown in...is long. I just want a D&D in 2013 that's creatively less restrictive and frustrating than they came up with 40 years ago (despite all its flaws).

 

[Hussar]

That was a very eloquent answer. However, it still ignores the basic question.

How is using a spell exactly as written, creative? Nothing you talk about - Cha checks and whatnot - have anything to do with the actual spell in use. Everything you've talked about is all about the in game campaign that you were playing, which sounds like barrels of fun. But, still, has nothing to do with the spell.

So, again, how is using a spell, exactly as it's written, creative?

And, since we're comparing here, how is Teleport, with it's % chance of missing, any more flavourful or creative than Linked Portal - the 4e version of Teleport (now a ritual no longer limited to wizards), which includes descriptions of how organizations might have permanent portals linking important places, and the possibility of actually creating networks of teleport gates.?

 

[I'm A Banana]

KM, I'd also point out that in the situation where your power didn't work, you were trying to set an entire tree on fire. The tree wasn't dead. And, in that case anyway, I think it had more to do with the DM not wanting to grind the game to a halt while he figured out what the heck a forest fire actually meant and how it should be resolved, than with any attention to setting fidelity.

Granted, I wasn't DMing that, but, I do recall the situation. I'd also point out that this was very, very early in everyone's 4e career. That particular event was what, two years ago, and we hadn't been playing 4e all that long at that point.

I imagine that if the same thing happened today, the answers might be different. For example, recently teleporting bad guys through walls, despite no line of sight. Not something that is technically allowed for in the rules, but, cool anyway.

That was one instance (and pretty understandable there), but it's happened under different DMs in different places where it was less understandable.

It's not something I'd let ruin a night of gaming for me, but I think I get what folks like Gorgoth might be getting at when they're frustrated that their acid breath can't melt through a lock, "because the rules say so." It's annoying, and it doesn't have to happen. The game can be made so that it's easier to "say yes" to your PC's wacky plans. For my purposes, a game is made BETTER when that's made more possible. I'm an immersive player, and "Rules say you can't" is not going to satisfy me when there's no in-world reason for it. The game's not doing what I want it to do if that's the answer it gives me.

 

[Obryn]

The game can be made so that it's easier to "say yes" to your PC's wacky plans. For my purposes, a game is made BETTER when that's made more possible.

There's wide parts of the 4e DMG1 and DMG2 which are devoted to "say yes" DMing. So - the advice is there. I recall the 4e DMG got quite a bit of criticism for it, too, like when one of the designers' kids decided there was a trap on something but the DM hadn't planned it out that way.

-O

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's wide parts of the 4e DMG1 and DMG2 which are devoted to "say yes" DMing. So - the advice is there

Aside from Pg. 42, there's not a lot of concrete tools for a DM to use. And there's (clearly) a lot of ways to "say no" instead, when abilities that don't hurt monsters are mostly left up to DM fiat as to their effects.

 

[Obryn]

Aside from Pg. 42, there's not a lot of concrete tools for a DM to use. And there's (clearly) a lot of ways to "say no" instead, when abilities that don't hurt monsters are mostly left up to DM fiat as to their effects.

Okay. If you're going to bypass all the "say yes" advice in DMG1 and collaborative storytelling stuff in DMG2 ... and basically all the advice in both of them combined ... well, then no, there's absolutely no support for improvisation in 4e.

The breakdown's pretty simple... The stuff on your sheet - your feats, powers, and whatnot - are givens. You know those work, barring some unusual and generally rare situations; that's that whole "player fiat" thing we had a million-page thread on. Outside of those, we're back into improv/DM-as-gatekeeper mode, just like every RPG out there. Both 4e DMGs are abundantly clear on their advice; if you want to use frost breath to put out a fire or acid to melt a lock or anything like that, there's both structure and specific advice - say yes, find the fun, go for the cinematic, and collaborate with your players to make the game awesome for everyone. "Crapping all over your players' neat ideas" is nowhere in there.

-O

 

[Libramarian]

You're speaking my language in this thread @Gorgoroth . Preach the gospel of hardass gamist D&D.

My friends and I play D&D in basically the same way that we play sports or strategy videogames. Not in exactly the same way, but it's in this class of thing.

We have a multiplayer NBA 2K13 association going on right now, and we made it ridiculously difficult: everybody makes a brand new team (I'm the New York Post) and starts with scrubs from the free agency for every position. It takes like 3 years for us to scrape and claw and cheat the computer with trades just to get enough talent to make the playoffs. It's great!

We also play Medieval II Total War like this. We use this mod that gives the computer countries free money and population every turn and turns them into super aggressive backstabbers, and try to sack Constantinople with some little poor country like Scotland or Norway.

I find by-the-numbers, NPC gives you a quest, party goes and does the quest without being seriously threatened, people do some funny voices...D&D to be very boring these days. I imagine that's alright if you only play once a month, or are new to the game and still giggle whenever someone says anything in character, but I want more tension and risk in the game than this, personally.

It's difficult to talk about this in mixed company unless you're careful because it's easy to offend people who prefer a more casual and/or story-based approach to the game.

Mod Note: Yes it is, because oh-so-often it comes across less as "I like something different" and more as "we are *real* gamers, you guys are only casual fiddlers". Please allow me to remind folks that if you start placing value judgements on playstyles, there's apt to be problems. ~Umbran

 

[Obryn]

It's difficult to talk about this in mixed company unless you're careful because it's easy to offend people who prefer a more casual and/or story-based approach to the game. Of course it goes both ways, I've seen [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] ask people "why don't you like fun?" etc.

*[citation needed]

 

[Libramarian]

There's wide parts of the 4e DMG1 and DMG2 which are devoted to "say yes" DMing. So - the advice is there. I recall the 4e DMG got quite a bit of criticism for it, too, like when one of the designers' kids decided there was a trap on something but the DM hadn't planned it out that way.

-O

No no. Nooooooo noo noo. The "say yes" illustrated by the passage of which you speak is not the carefully refereed "yes, I'll think about it" of wacky plan gamism, it's the "sure whatever" of super casual, right-to-dream playing with your small kid who doesn't even know the rules, so let him make it up. These are two very different things.

 

[Warbringer]

Note to mike mearls ... You better have clearly articulated advise on play style, particularly gamist vs.narrative if there is to be any hope of next as a peacemaker edition... And in the standard rules at that. ...