Punishing Player Creativity?

I've found DMs are less friendly to creative ideas if they get surprised with them. If I think of a cool tactic that I think should work, I run it by my DM way before I use it. If my DM can see it coming, he's much more appreciative. If it comes up in the middle of combat, he feels like I'm pulling a fast one.

PS
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Generally, if creativity is demonstrated by rules manipulation, I as DM am likely to approach it a bit skeptically. If creativity is action or plot based, it's a lot more likely to make the game better for everybody at the table.
 

DMScott said:
Generally, if creativity is demonstrated by rules manipulation, I as DM am likely to approach it a bit skeptically. If creativity is action or plot based, it's a lot more likely to make the game better for everybody at the table.

That is exactly how I feel about it. There are so many ways (mechanically speaking) to express what you want to do with your character, that I tend to tell my players to describe what they want their character to do in regular real-world terms. Don't worry about mechanics and dice rolls; tell me what you want to do, and I'll tell you what die to roll and when to do it.

Generally, when a player comes up with some idea that is interesting, ingenious, or somehow adds to the enjoyment of the game session I make sure to award some bonus XP - regardless of the action's success.
 

DMScott said:
Generally, if creativity is demonstrated by rules manipulation, I as DM am likely to approach it a bit skeptically. If creativity is action or plot based, it's a lot more likely to make the game better for everybody at the table.
Seconded.

If a player has a cool idea ("I leap onto his back and shove the Bag of Devouring down over his head"), we'll work together to come up with a mechanism for rolling it out.

On the other hand, exploiting the rules-as-written ("I use Telekinesis to hurl 1,000 shuriken at him") doesn't work quite so often.
 

When a DM denies a player a plan or action because it isn't what he expects the player to do to solve a problem (on a macro or micro scale), that is stifling. So what if your players aren't doing what you want them to? Is the solution reasonable? Will it work? If yes, kudos to them.

This doesn't mean everything should work. If only one key opens the magically warded door, you should understand the and quantify the nature of the wards on the door beforehand. Don't add layers of difficulty afterwards. For example, if a player uses the old "Rope trick over the door trick" don't make up extraplanar barriers on the fly. If the players start using it too much, just put a monster on one side of the door, just out of their limited range of vision.

It is true that some players try to work the rules to their advantage, just to pull off something tricky. But some honestly don't know if something will work. And sometimes the rules aren't exactly clear.

Evaluate the situation. Does it make the game more fun if they can? Does it ruin a major plot element, or end a battle without anyone else having fun? If no, give it a try. If you find the player abusing the trust, you can always address that later.
 

sorry about no examples, but i'm glad that a bunch of you posted a few on your own.

i'll use pendragon's excellent example. our campaign is for the most part "realistic", but that can be debated, for good and bad. it's the type of campaign where the villains always look cool and the PCs sometimes are made to look like bumbling fools by said villains.

in my opinion, if anyone in our group would attempt something like that, the DM would probably state that, something like that isn't covered in the rules, so he would give some really high DC (anywhere from the 30 to 40 range or where only a natural 20 would succeed). he would follow the rules for the Jump check because they are in the book, but probably add a bunch of minuses. and pulling the tapestries, i'm not sure what skill he would use, but he would probably pull the DC 30 or 40 do. for the tapestries to even hit the guards, you would probably need a naturally 20 to hit. this is assuming if he even lets you attempt it. sometimes he says that it's possible, but hints that it is going to fail if you attempt, since it isn't covered in the books. now if this took place during combat, he would probably make it not worth doing, making it take 3 rounds, one to jump, one to drop the tapestries, then one to hit (probably because the tapestries takes a "while" to fall).
i guess my gripe

i'm not sure what standard practice is, but our DM never tells us what DC we need. he just states that it is a "very" high check, that we most likely will fail, and that there are going to be minuses. he hardly says what the minuses are, but i believe the lowest one he ever said was -4.

a more personal example is when my cleric had a few ranks in perform. we were killing sometime at an elven village. my total bonus to perform was 7. i thought, not bad, because if i take a 10, it is 17, which is an average performance in the book. majority of the elves worshipped no deity, so i thought i could probably try to preach to them using perform to tells stories. i knew it wouldn't convert them overnight, but my main goal was to entertain while at the same time make them aware of my deity, in otherwords just roleplaying. i even got the wizard in the group to add to it by using prestidigitation. my DM, said you can try but this is what he did

minuses because the wizard and i were human and the audience were elves
minuses because i did not know the society and cultures of the elves
i had to make a perform check for each part of the story, which i told (around 5)

the outcome was that i rolled under 10 for many of my rolls, with the result being the elves thought i was some kind of fool and my deity was the same. whenever i dealt with them afterwards, they would always snicker behind their back.

i believe my DM has the idea that you can try something that isn't covered in the book, but since it isn't covered in the book, it deserves astronomical DCs or a roll of a natural 20 to succeed. the DM makes it so difficult to try something new, that it's to the point that we are at, why bother because we are going to fail anyway.

that is, if he doesn't snap at us and give us a lecture on how the rules "really" work. like a parent scolding their child. when we try to stop him and say we understand, he gets upset that we would interrupt him and says that he is trying to make sure that we understand the rules.

however, god forbid that we do the same to him. he states that he doesn't need the players telling him how to run his game. there were times where he was clearly wrong about a ruling, but we all just let it go, because it wasn't worth him getting mad at us by pointing it out in the book.

in regards to storminator, our DM is pretty much the same way. the ironic thing is that come of our best ideas come up right at the table during the session. personally, i don't like the idea of having to ask the DM if every little thing i think of or do is OK, especially outside the game. during the game, i know it can't be helped because he is the DM after all and he determines the outcome. however, outside the game, in my opinion, it makes me feel like i don't understand the rules well enough that i have to check with the DM on every little thing. plus, while he likes to call us on the rules often enough, he gets irritable when the players do that to him, even to the point where he snaps at us when we bring to his attention.
 

Well it looks like one of two things.

a. Your DM does not like anything he did not predict in advance. He has a storyline thought out and that is what is going to happen no matter what.

b. Your D does not properly understand the rules and as such is misapplying negatives when you do unusual stuff. A -4 is a huge negative, it should represent doing something well outside the norm with your skill check. The fact that he uses it generally as the bare minimum for his skill penalty shows a basic lack of understanding of the rules. As an example rarely does the DMG or any other source mention more than a +2 or -2 to a particular skill chek based on circumstance.


Ok, edit this. I read your last post again and its obvious that your DM is a rules Nazi A-hole. Never as a DM have I scolded or talked down to a player over a particular rule or the interpretation of a rule. Nor have I gotten angry for a player clarifying a rule to me. Sounds like you need a new DM.
 
Last edited:

Your DM is onm a power tirp, plain and simple. As Doc said, he doesn't want you to be able to do anything he doesn't think fits "his" story, so he gives you ridiculous penalties.


PS: Swaying an audience to like you is not an abuse of Perform, it's what the dang skill is for! Your DM is a twit!
 

well...

maybe you could e-mail him or something?

it's helps if you bring up concerns about the game. there have been times when our group has had a "sitdown", where we all try and voice our opinions about the game and what we would like etc. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but maybe it could help your group.
 
Last edited:

I like creative solutions to problems.

For example, I had a complicated puzzle one time, involving using levers to open combinations of secret doors to rooms with more levers. It was fiendish and would have taken the party hours to map the interactions of the different levers with the different doors. The party, rather then spend all this time, deduced which secret door was most likely to lead to the next area and Stone Shaped their way through. I spent an hour coming up with a cool puzzle that they just bypassed, but I wasn't about to make it not work just because I planned on them doing something else.

Sometimes I don't know how to handle creative ideas, though. Just last night I was DMing for a brand-new player. She is playing a paladin and we're running the Sunless Citadel. The party was attacked by those little wood-creature things as they camped for the night outside the Citadel and the paladin couldn't roll well enough to hit the things. Consistently bad rolls. The things only do 1d2 damage and I was still having to fudge rolls just because I didn't want the adventure to end this way. Determined that her sword "wasn't working" she decided to have her character kick the beastie into the fire. I wasn't sure how to rule that, but she gave up on it when she saw the fire was behind her and she'd have to move around to the other side of the monster to do it. Whew! Saved from having to make a wierd-non-rules-supported DM call. But alas for me, she still is convinced her sword is defective and decides to "squash the thing with my shield!" "All right." I'm thinking, "That's an off-hand attack with a shield... Don't remember the damage, but with those penalties she's bound to miss. I let her try, and she rolls a 19. Even with the penalties, she hits. I couldn't remember shield-bashing damage, so I had her roll d4. She rolls a 4, but with her strength bonus it's enough to kill it. So I say, "You succeed and manage to squash the thing into a sappy mess with your shield."

All well and good, right? Except she has now decided that her sword is an inferior weapon to this incredible shield-bashing and proceeds to try it in every encounter. When it didn't work against a trio of skelitons, she instead got the bright idea of lassoing them together. (After all, when all else fails, find ways to use your mundane equipment) I had no idea how to handle that, but talked her out of trying by pointing out that one of the skelis was behind her so she couldn't get a clear throw. The other player, more experienced but also rolling poorly, convinced her to give her sword another try (in the spirit of mercy I "forgot" to give the skeli's any kind of immunity to slashing weapons, lest she forsake the sword yet again) and the things were defeated.

Remember, sometimes the cinematic, dramatic, incredible moves you see in movies are in actuality really, really, really stupid things to actually try. Creative ideas do not necessisarily mean smart ideas. The tapestry-jump-pull ploy above is a good example. Sure, if you succeed it was really cool. But if you fail, all could be lost. Gambling all-or-nothing just to get a bit of cinematic coolness into the battle isn't worth it, IMHO.
 

Remove ads

Top