This mentality needs to die

[Primal]

I believe he's talking about the player's creativity, not the DM's creativity. Beyond that, not everyone is going to agree on what a power can and cannot do. In this case, I agree that Darkfire cannot be used to melt ice.

Always saying "yes" is just as bad as always saying "no" in my mind.

I'm with you there. If 'Darkfire' had the Fire keyword, I'd agree with KM; however, it doesn't produce "real" flames as it is the 4E version of 'Faerie Fire'. Maybe Chris should have described what the power actually does, instead of proclaiming that it can only target actual creatures but still I think he made the right call in this situation. Yeah, the player in question tried to be creative, but allowing any power or ability with the word 'fire' in its name to do actual fire damage is a bad idea, IMO. What if he had would say on the next session "You know guys, I can just burn down that inn with my 'Darkfire', so we can let the bad guys roast in there"? By always saying 'yes' you can easily end up in situations in which you have to make decisions that contradict your previous rulings.

I think this looks like a great adventure... as I said, I don't like the map and I would never reveal the whole complex/level to my players (instead, they need to map it room by room and corridor by corridor). Also, Chris said he had very little time to prepare, but I wouldn't have guessed it based on his DMing. Even though I'm a dedicated PF fan, these videos actually got me mildly interested in trying out 4E.

 

[Hussar]

Primal - from what I understand, you've touched on the sticking point. No one is really saying that Chris made a wrong ruling, just that he used a very mechanical, meta-game explanation. Some people find that jarring and there is some question as to whether or not it's a good way to introduce the game to beginners.

 

[MrMyth]

It doesn't seem nitpicking to recognise the difference between hours spent in combat based around highly tactical rules, (i.e. a wargame played with spells), and roleplaying, (i.e. an interactive story involving characterisation, exploration, plot development, negotiation and combat).

The first is a mechanical process, the second an imaginative process. Any game that is played in a way that includes a series of hour long combats with an occasional nod to the other areas can be mislabelled a roleplaying game, but it is, nevertheless, a tactical wargame.

To claim otherwise seems comparable to identifying Modern Warfare 2 as an RPG because there's a thin veil of characterisation and plot alongside hour after hour of brutal combat.

Yeah, let's just say I disagree with you and continue to find it offensive when people tell me I'm not playing a roleplaying game, or that I'm playing it 'wrong', or whatever. I'm fine if you don't prefer a certain style of play, but I'm sorry, claiming an objective claim to truth over other people's games is both insulting and incorrect.

 

[MrMyth]

But sometimes what the players THINK is the most fun isn't. The thing is, sometimes it's fun to use a fireball to melt your way through ice. Sometimes it's more satisfying to stand in front of the door, have your wizard make an Arcana check to point the trap at the door, attract the attention of a trap with an Acrobatics check and succeed on your Athletics roll to jump away at the last second in order melt the ice.

What players might get disappointed by("What do you mean my fireball can't melt the ice?") ends up being MORE fun for them in the end. Mostly because they had a chance to fail and succeeded anyway. This is especially true when a solution obviously favors one class or player over another. It sucks to be the fighter when you realize that a Wizard can simply say "I use a fireball, that solves everything and we go". Some people see that as creative. I see it as simply looking at your character sheet and picking a power.

Maybe yes, maybe no. A fireball doesn't solve 'everything', but does seem a pretty obvious solution for a wall of ice.

I'm not going to disagree entirely, as there is honestly some truth to what you say - I talked before about how I often use keywords on powers as guidance for what creative stunts those powers might be used for. And I did quickly realize that arcane and divine powers typically come loaded with a lot more keywords than martial powers - should that mean the casters can simply do more stuff? I've worried about it less since seeing that martial characters tend to be more capable of physical stunts using acrobatics and athletics, but I can still see the fear that too much leeway falls back into 'casters can overcome everything, and no one else needs to show up.'

But in the end, stunts and creative use of skills and powers is subject to enough DM ruling that you can usually keep things in balance.

To address your original question - is it more fun to fireball the wall of ice, or get to try out the trick of setting off the trap and then dodging out of the way as it burns through the wall of ice? I honestly don't know. I do know that situations with only one solution are a bad thing, and here is a very good article on why.

For any given obstacle, it is perfectly fine to plot out what the best option might be for the PCs to overcome the obstacle. Using a trap to blast through a frozen door, or joining the city watch to be allowed into the quarantined part of the city, or finding the secret password to get past the guards. Go ahead and set these up as the easiest solutions, or ones that provide extra benefits if the PCs go through with them. Feel free to emphasize them and steer the PCs towards them. Make other options really challenging to pull off, sure. But the second you decide there is only one option, and everything else fails... you've made a mistake.

Because it will be frustrating when the PCs try to do something else, that should work, and you shut it down. Because they aren't getting to play the game anymore, but simply following a carefully prepared script for you - which you might be really excited about, and think will make for great scenes that everyone will enjoy! And maybe it will - maybe you can even get away most of the time with convincing the party that they had choice in the matter. But I've seen a lot of games where players get frustrated as they do discover their lack of agency.

"But sometimes what the players THINK is the most fun isn't."

This could well be true. But I really recommend against deciding for the players what will be the most fun, and forcing it upon them.

 

[nedjer]

Well said, but I'm going to at least partly disagree.

Slaying monsters is often the heavy emphasis during any adventure, which is just fine.

*Why* you're slaying the monsters is often the heavy emphasis between adventures; that's where the role-play comes in, which is also just fine.

Both are as much fun as you want to make them.

Lanefan

So during the adventures you're using the procedural subset of rpg game cognitive skills associated with frequent combat most of the time. Between adventures you're using the more sophisticated executive cognitive skills associated with a fuller range of rpg gameplay.

Consequently, you're using the full 'skill set' during play as a whole but rarely, or less frequently, bringing the entire skill set to the game at the one time. That seems a major improvement on battle, battle, battle but while you're using all the parts, it seems it remains unusual for you to be in a position to realise the sum of the parts, because they're not in play at the same time.

I appreciate that I'm generalising on the basis of your account but the principle appear true: what you describe is one set of skills/ fun switched on, when the other set of skills/ fun is switched off.

 

[nedjer]

@nedjer

Sure, and the converse is also true, that a heavy focus on non-combat takes away from the the full range of skills and fun that combat offers. I'm not sure your terminology is very useful, either, because it seems quite true that something can be both a role-playing game and a tactical war game. Namely, well, Dungeons and Dragons. This is especially true for Dungeons and Dragons because it identifies itself as a role-playing game and puts a fair amount of focus on the roleplaying aspect of the game.

So, roleplaying game and tactical wargame should not be on a continuum. Maybe something like: non-combat drama game versus tactical wargame. At any one time you can either be doing something combat related or non-combat related, even within seconds of eachother. "I roll for attack, screaming 'You shall not pass'" But, the entire time you are playing the role of something or someone, thus, roleplaying.

I see it as a continuum, because our cognitive processes are cascading and hierarchical. Which involves, during roleplaying games, engaging a pyramid of skills. At the bottom we have static, procedural reflex, win mentality orientated skills. Found in Chuck Norris movies, counter wargames, mechanical approaches to tabletop RPGs and other lowest cognitive common denominator activities like MW2.

Further up we get complex cognitive interactions involving executive skills such as collaborative decision making, Bayesian risk analysis, systemic and predictive thinking, putting thought into action: aka as learning and fun golddust. These are found in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction,Yossel the graphic novel, any tabletop RPG that is not played (or draws you into playing) mechanically and those legendary moments when tabletop RPG play transcends other media at moments of collaborative, for want of another word, 'epiphany'. This is what makes tabletop play most unique and valuable, because there are more opportunities to create your own Pulp Fiction and live it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So during the adventures you're using the procedural subset of rpg game cognitive skills associated with frequent combat most of the time. Between adventures you're using the more sophisticated executive cognitive skills associated with a fuller range of rpg gameplay.

How can it be the "fuller range of rpg gameplay" if it doesn't include the combat part of it? How do you define "fuller"? Is their a measurement method for determining that?
Where does your value judgment come from?

What do you mean with "procedural" subset? How would you describe it from "non-procedural" in context of roleplaying games?

Does it even matter what's "fuller" and what's not? Doesn't it matter more which one you find more enjoyable? Does this have anything to do with "fuller"? Isn't this more a matter of preference and mood?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Further up we get complex cognitive interactions involving executive skills such as collaborative decision making, Bayesian risk analysis, systemic and predictive thinking, putting thought into action: aka as learning and fun golddust.

So, this is not what you do in tactical combat and only "between" them?

 

[nedjer]

Hang on a second though. Are you saying that someone playing in a heavily defined setting is less capable of role playing than someone who plays in a less defined setting?

Wouldn't that mean that everyone who plays Forgotten Realms is no longer role playing? Is there a setting out there that's as heavily defined as FR? Thousands and thousands of pages of setting info, that's about as well defined a setting as you can get.

Sure, it might not fit the role you want to play, but, that's also not a requirement for role playing. If I'm playing the Avalon Hill 007 game, I'm GOING to be an MI6 agent. If I don't want to be, I should play another game. Or, if I'm playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I'm going to play an anthropomorphic animal.

Does that mean these games are somehow less roleplaying?

Isn't that like saying free verse is somehow "more poetry" than a sonnet?

The players are entrusting part of the creative and imaginative side of the game to whoever makes the setting. That doesn't mean they won't roleplay but it makes it likely that they won't get as involved in the design and personalisation of the game as a GMs who build their own campaigns based on their own and their players' imaginative input.

If the game's played at the end of everyone's working day, after a drive and in the middel of winter it's much easier to reach for the pre-packaged. Nothing wrong with that, especially if you wouldn't have a game otherwise.

At the same time though, part of what roleplaying games offer has been lost in asking others to help out.

 

[nedjer]

Yeah, let's just say I disagree with you and continue to find it offensive when people tell me I'm not playing a roleplaying game, or that I'm playing it 'wrong', or whatever. I'm fine if you don't prefer a certain style of play, but I'm sorry, claiming an objective claim to truth over other people's games is both insulting and incorrect.

I kind of flew the white flag on the objective thing earlier but there is a great deal of scientific evidence about games, skills, roleplaying and the cognitive functions linked to the performance of particular in game skills. This is drawn from psychology, education and design.

It, not me, clearly notes a massive difference between the skills used in a driving or shooting game, and the skills used in open-ended, imaginative.

The same kind of science notes that players become emotionally attached to driving games? I suspect the same applies to shooters and 'hack and slay' videogames when they tap into 'lower', often subconscious, reward systems but that's an opinion.