Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.

I'm not really understanding your position on this. Could you give an example of an instance where rules undesireably limit creativity?

Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.

I am not suggesting one cannot be creative within the rules.

In their defense there was an enormous group of players complaining by the time 4E was being developed about heal rates and needing a cleric. But that was just never an issue for me, and the solution itself seriously challenged my enjoyment of the game. I think it is a case where the designers really need to be careful about addressing longstanding criticisms without thinking through all the implications. You might have twenty percent of the community complaining but there might be a reason the remaining 80 percent are not voicing any concern.

Quote from: Bill;674420You don't have to bend rules to be creative. But I believe that there are situations where the rules limit creativity in an undesireable manner.

I am not suggesting one cannot be creative within the rules.

This. It is an underlying feature of emergent gameplay and doing what the dice dictate should you decide to roll them.

Its easy to make the events in the game world conform to a pre-conceived notion. It takes more creativity to work what emerges naturally from actual play into a logical and consistent campaign.

Quote from: TristramEvans;674335Rules are just suggestions of ways to handle things to me. I don't care about constraints or creativity, I just do what I like. Because I'm a black-hearted punk who has issues with authority, and the rules are my bitch.

What do you do about the jack-booted RAW Police when they show up at your door?

Quote from: jeff37923;674421I'm not really understanding your position on this. Could you give an example of an instance where rules undesireably limit creativity?

Undesireable is very subjective, so lets make that 'Bill thinks it was undesireable'


Some examples:

Player of a Monk wants to use flaming oil on a small pack of zombies and then use his superior running speed to lead the burning pack back to the main hoard of zombies. He wants ti run among them splashing oil. He envisions a massive bonfire of undead that might save countless lives. Rules say Monks can't use oil.

Wizard with necromancy spells that role play wise, is a necromancer. He is adventuring in a region where negative energy is seeping into the world through hidden planar cracks. He asks the gm if he can sense the negative energy at all.  No explicit rule allows this.

Character hunts down and catches a creature that has poison. Character wants to take the poison sack and use it to poison his arrows. That particular creatures poison is not on the list of poisons.

Player wants to be the first dwarf ever known in the world to be a wizard.
Is he a gift from the gods? a curse? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So many potential plot hooks!    Dwarves can't be wizards.

Player has a fighter with a shield. He wants to protect his comrade, and asks to forfeit his shield ac bonus to cover his friend. No explicit rule for that.

Character is a Cleric of Law, and his order is opposed to the invasion of chaotic Slaad. He finds a portal to Limbo where the Slaad are entering the world. He wants to alter the portal to dump the Slaad into the Hells instead of his world. Great idea but without a ring of wishes, not much rules support for that.


These are just some things that have come up in dnd games.

Quote from: Bill;674441Undesireable is very subjective, so lets make that 'Bill thinks it was undesireable'


Some examples:

Player of a Monk wants to use flaming oil on a small pack of zombies and then use his superior running speed to lead the burning pack back to the main hoard of zombies. He wants ti run among them splashing oil. He envisions a massive bonfire of undead that might save countless lives. Rules say Monks can't use oil.

This one is easy. "Can't" is a term that is always misinterpreted. Much like a wizard using a battle axe, this one is easy to handle. Sure the monk can carry out this plan. It may even work as intended. The monk will however earn no XP on the adventure in which this was done.

Thus "monks can't use oil" is preserved but the player is not prevented from doing something he obviously could do to save lives.

Quote from: Bill;674441Wizard with necromancy spells that role play wise, is a necromancer. He is adventuring in a region where negative energy is seeping into the world through hidden planar cracks. He asks the gm if he can sense the negative energy at all.  No explicit rule allows this.

Do magic users in the campaign have an innate ability to detect magic in any way? If so, it should be applicable here. If not its time to use the detect magic spell.

Quote from: Bill;674441Character hunts down and catches a creature that has poison. Character wants to take the poison sack and use it to poison his arrows. That particular creatures poison is not on the list of poisons.

Add it to the list. Use the effect of the poison to assign it properties to bring it in line power wise to established poisons. If it is deemed too nasty to be used as other poisons, limit its viabilty once removed from the creature to a matter of hours.

Quote from: Bill;674441Player wants to be the first dwarf ever known in the world to be a wizard.
Is he a gift from the gods? a curse? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So many potential plot hooks!    Dwarves can't be wizards.

Turn the desire into a quest to find out why. If the player wants to start out being a special snowflake just to play a race/class combo that isn't permitted tough shit, people in hell want icewater.

Quote from: Bill;674441Player has a fighter with a shield. He wants to protect his comrade, and asks to forfeit his shield ac bonus to cover his friend. No explicit rule for that.

If the friend is fighting alongside of the fighter then I would rule that it is possible. On any given round the fighter may give his shield bonus to an adjacent companion so long as it was declared at the start of each round.

Quote from: Bill;674441Character is a Cleric of Law, and his order is opposed to the invasion of chaotic Slaad. He finds a portal to Limbo where the Slaad are entering the world. He wants to alter the portal to dump the Slaad into the Hells instead of his world. Great idea but without a ring of wishes, not much rules support for that.

Why should simply being in opposition to something give you free superpowers to deal with it?

I would rule that a rite or ritual to do such a thing may exist, and that appropriate knowledge and research might grant the ability to try and locate such a thing.

Instant abilities because " I hate chaos" ain't happening.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;674457This one is easy. "Can't" is a term that is always misinterpreted. Much like a wizard using a battle axe, this one is easy to handle. Sure the monk can carry out this plan. It may even work as intended. The monk will however earn no XP on the adventure in which this was done.

Thus "monks can't use oil" is preserved but the player is not prevented from doing something he obviously could do to save lives.

Monks not using oil, or not getting xp when using oil makes no sense.
Likewise a wizard using an axe. Stupid rule.

Do magic users in the campaign have an innate ability to detect magic in any way? If so, it should be applicable here. If not its time to use the detect magic spell.

It may not technically be magic, and it may be too far way for a spell with limited range. I personally would have no problem with letting a necromancer get a bump of direction toward a negative incursion.

Add it to the list. Use the effect of the poison to assign it properties to bring it in line power wise to established poisons. If it is deemed too nasty to be used as other poisons, limit its viabilty once removed from the creature to a matter of hours.

That's my point. You don't let the rules constrain you.

Turn the desire into a quest to find out why. If the player wants to start out being a special snowflake just to play a race/class combo that isn't permitted tough shit, people in hell want icewater.

I dissagree. As a one time campaign event, It makes an interesting character that adds a  lot to the game.
Do you assume the player cared about power? He just wanted to roleplay a dwarf that was an outcast because he was born able to use wizardry.

If the friend is fighting alongside of the fighter then I would rule that it is possible. On any given round the fighter may give his shield bonus to an adjacent companion so long as it was declared at the start of each round.

Sure, a reasonable ruling. but its bending the rules.

Why should simply being in opposition to something give you free superpowers to deal with it?

I would rule that a rite or ritual to do such a thing may exist, and that appropriate knowledge and research might grant the ability to try and locate such a thing.

Instant abilities because " I hate chaos" ain't happening.

I view it as an ability the character would likely have, and the rules are never comprehensive in all areas. The ritual does sound like a good way to handle it though. But, the ritual is bending the rules as well.

So we at least agree that there are times when the rules need to be bent.

A newbie GM in another forum asked a question that went something like...

"I have a concept for a villain, who I have already statted up the way I want, that I think would be a lot cooler with a devil boar as a pet.  Is it okay to cheat and just give it to him, or do I need to find a mechanical way to give it to him?"

Quote from: mcbobbo;674473A newbie GM in another forum asked a question that went something like...

"I have a concept for a villain, who I have already statted up the way I want, that I think would be a lot cooler with a devil boar as a pet.  Is it okay to cheat and just give it to him, or do I need to find a mechanical way to give it to him?"

Ouch.

And this is from SKR's 'File Off the Serial Numbers':

"
INTRODUCTION: GRAB A FILE AND GET TO WORK
The key to making your games memorable is being able to think on your feet. Creating NPC stat blocks is a time-consuming task for GMs. This PDF shows you how to use existing monster stat blocks as if they were unique NPC stat blocks. A typical hardcover monster book has 200–300 pages of stat blocks. A clever GM can use many of those monster stat blocks as stand-ins for unusual and higher-level humanoid NPCs. For example, say your party of 5th-level PCs goes in a different direction than you expect, and you suddenly need a CR 5 NPC for the party to fight. A barghest is a Medium CR 5 monster with good physical stats and some magical abilities; by describing the barghest as a "burly cultist," you're able to use the its game stats without your players knowing the barghest's abilities and weaknesses—and you've saved yourself the 30 minutes needed to create a level 6 NPC. That's what this book is for: to help you use stats you already have, so you can save time and focus on running the game and having fun instead of wasting time with math. Just find a monster of the right CR, describe it as an appropriate PC-classed humanoid, and roll with it. Not only does this let you repurpose monsters, it keeps know-it-all players from metagaming monster knowledge based on a creature's description."

After a brilliant freeform session on Tuesday, I have decided to co-opt the term Magical Tea Party and make it mine own!

Quote from: Bill;674461Monks not using oil, or not getting xp when using oil makes no sense.
Likewise a wizard using an axe. Stupid rule.

What is the point of ANY class restrictions then. Let paladins be evil, magic users cast in armor, etc. Each class is a different role that that comes with advantages and disadvantages in certain areas. If you want a class based system there need to be reasons why all classes can't do everything.
 

Quote from: Bill;674461Sure, a reasonable ruling. but its bending the rules.

How? The rules are completely silent on the issue. The whole concept of rulings comes from approaching the game from a stance of "anything the rules do not specifically forbid is possible"

Thus allowing monks to use oil would be bending the rules.

If you approach the game from the perspective of "anything the rules do not specifically allow is forbidden" you will get a lot more moments of game lock-up as things not specifically addressed come up in play. (As your examples prove).

Quote from: Bill;674441Undesireable is very subjective, so lets make that 'Bill thinks it was undesireable'


Some examples:

Player of a Monk wants to use flaming oil on a small pack of zombies and then use his superior running speed to lead the burning pack back to the main hoard of zombies. He wants ti run among them splashing oil. He envisions a massive bonfire of undead that might save countless lives. Rules say Monks can't use oil.

Wizard with necromancy spells that role play wise, is a necromancer. He is adventuring in a region where negative energy is seeping into the world through hidden planar cracks. He asks the gm if he can sense the negative energy at all.  No explicit rule allows this.

Character hunts down and catches a creature that has poison. Character wants to take the poison sack and use it to poison his arrows. That particular creatures poison is not on the list of poisons.

Player wants to be the first dwarf ever known in the world to be a wizard.
Is he a gift from the gods? a curse? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So many potential plot hooks!    Dwarves can't be wizards.

Player has a fighter with a shield. He wants to protect his comrade, and asks to forfeit his shield ac bonus to cover his friend. No explicit rule for that.

Character is a Cleric of Law, and his order is opposed to the invasion of chaotic Slaad. He finds a portal to Limbo where the Slaad are entering the world. He wants to alter the portal to dump the Slaad into the Hells instead of his world. Great idea but without a ring of wishes, not much rules support for that.


These are just some things that have come up in dnd games.

Some of this comes down to your choice of ruleset though. All of the things you list above can be accomplished very easily with Other Worlds or indeed many other conflict resolution style games. This is because they are built around the idea of people saying "I use X to do Y, let's discuss what that means' rather than having a load of pre-determined X=Y submechanics and hoping they happen to line up with what happens at the table. I don't need to bend the rules to accomodate this kind of creativity because the rules I have chosen already put that creativity at the heart of the game.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;674495What is the point of ANY class restrictions then. Let paladins be evil, magic users cast in armor, etc. Each class is a different role that that comes with advantages and disadvantages in certain areas. If you want a class based system there need to be reasons why all classes can't do everything.
 


How? The rules are completely silent on the issue. The whole concept of rulings comes from approaching the game from a stance of "anything the rules do not specifically forbid is possible"

Thus allowing monks to use oil would be bending the rules.

If you approach the game from the perspective of "anything the rules do not specifically allow is forbidden" you will get a lot more moments of game lock-up as things not specifically addressed come up in play. (As your examples prove).

My example of a Monk using oil is far different than a Paladin being evil.
The few times I have let a character do something like; wizard uses a sword, monk use oil, etc...The game was fine. No explosions, everyone was happy.


Not sure what your point is about rules forbidding actions and what my examples prove.

I am a flexable gm, I bend the rules when I feel it is needed, and I never have 'lock up' when I gm.

None of the things I mentioned create problems for me as a gm.

Quote from: soviet;674522Some of this comes down to your choice of ruleset though. All of the things you list above can be accomplished very easily with Other Worlds or indeed many other conflict resolution style games. This is because they are built around the idea of people saying "I use X to do Y, let's discuss what that means' rather than having a load of pre-determined X=Y submechanics and hoping they happen to line up with what happens at the table. I don't need to bend the rules to accomodate this kind of creativity because the rules I have chosen already put that creativity at the heart of the game.

I agree that the rules chosen may prevent a lot of potential problems.
But most rulesets are swiss cheese and people pretend they are the gospel.
When using the imperfect rulesets (nearly all of them) it makes no sense to me to let rules dictate jack squat to the gm.