Is D&D a game about imagination?

[ImperatorK]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
Do rules limit imagination?
Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
What other thoughts do you have on this subject?

This thread was inspired by this statement:

D&D isn't just a game of "imagine". Not just anything is supposed to be possible. The rules are in place to limit your imagination. Within those limits, there might still be considerable leeway - for example, you can imagine infinite amount of different numbers between 1 and 2. But again, not just anything is supposed to happen in the game because you can imagine it.

If you don't want to impose limitations on your imagination, why use a limiting ruleset? Why bring chessboard and pieces to the table if you aren't going to play chess? Again, not a rhetorical question; you can answer it.

[Xtomjames]

D&D is completely about imagination. Rules just help to structure it so that everyone's imaginations are seeing roughly the same thing. Since D&D is about not just imagination but joint or group storytelling, rules are necessary to establish the boundaries that all players can go to. Just as though writing has some basic rules to it, like plot progression, character development, narrative setting and so forth.

They're not there to hinder your imagination so much as to help you structure it.

Consider a D&D game without rules, everyone has a character and there's a DM. But without rules you can get into sticky problems. Player A might suddenly give their character X power which do Y thing which directly impacts Player B's character without that player's permission. Player B gets ticked off and does something similar and it escalates. No story gets told and no one has fun.

Or imagine a D&D game where everyone knows Rules set A and the DM without telling them uses Rules set B. If no one is on the same page then the game and story can't progress.

[Vandicus]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
Do rules limit imagination?
Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
What other thoughts do you have on this subject?

Imagination does play a role in D&D. The rules don't limit that imagination, they're guidelines for figuring out how the world reacts to the player's actions. When a group doesn't like a rule, they change it(and thus the houserule was born). The rules are not supposed to limit imagination(see the we have the sourcebooks to build it thread for examples of virtually any concept being built within the rules) but are supposed to help arbitrate the game universe, avoiding the "I shoot you with my laser beam" "No, I reflect it with my reflector shield so you die" "No I'm invincible to lasers" etc. debates.

Personally I find most of the D&D system to be useful and fun, though I modify certain parts for my group, for example smite damage is cha*level rather than just +level in damage, although our interpretation of the critical rules doesn't allow the smite damage to be multiplied on a crit.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Even in a free form RP your imagination is going to be curbed by aspects of the already-imagined world and the other players. Or at least it should, if you're not playing some sort of Mary Sue. No cooperative game is all about imagination; otherwise it wouldn't work.

[Shadowknight12]

I think you already know my stance on this. :smalltongue:

[Luckmann]

Yes.
No.
No.
Not many.

[Psyren]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
Do rules limit imagination?
Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
What other thoughts do you have on this subject?

- Yes.
- They can, if you adhere to them too strictly (especially ignoring the intent behind them and/or common sense.)
- Rules provide structure. That "limits imagination" in the same way that support beams limit a building.
- That freeform is not my cup of tea, but I have no issue with those who choose to play that way.

[erikun]

I am certainly forced to use my imagination with some of the rule interpretations people come up with around here. :smallwink:

D&D 3.5e is a very "There's a Rule for That" system, which tends to imply that if you aren't following the specific rule for an action, you cannot do it. Want to channel positive energy into your holy symbol and press it against an undead for damage? There's nothing saying you can't, except that there are feats and spells that let you do something like that, so it is generally assumed you cannot. Want to use your reflex check to twist out of the way at the last second before the giant grabs you? You might, except the rules don't allow for a reflex save during grappling so that even the most nimble of rogues gets caught regardless.

[Kalirren]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?

Of course it does. If you don't want to imagine, you may as well go play Neverwinter Nights, where the imagination is done for you. Some players I know do this; they let the DM do all the imagining and effectively play NWN with their DM. But that's not my cup of tea, and a D&D game can be so much more than a human-run NWN session.

Do rules limit imagination? Are rules supposed to limit imagination?

Rules insofar as they limit -individual- imagination do so in pursuit of their more fundamental goal; to provide a system platform that supports -shared- imagination. I think the most important function of a ruleset is to enable the consistent description of characters. You don't have to play chess with a chessboard and a chess set; you can play Hyperchess, you can play checkers too, and if you have also have a deck of cards on hand, you can use the pieces as chips in a poker game. But what you do give up when you sit down at the board is the unilateral right to play Calvinball. If you want to go back to playing Calvinball, you need to convince the other person to also get up.

What other thoughts do you have on this subject?

I think that by viewing "The Ruleset" too statically, many people allow the rules to limit their own imagination much more than is really necessary. A game can function well with only one ruleslawyer and one moderator in the group to really deal with the system at all. In my group, the ruleslawyer advocates for the players; the moderator advocates against them. Everyone else can do whatever they want, and I think it's in some sense become their job to actively push against the constraints of the system, force the ruleslawyer and the moderator to come up with new rules and new framings for what the players are actually interested in doing with their characters.

So in that way the best systems are supported by group dynamic that recognizes the need for an adaptive ruleset.

[ffone]

Rules INCREASE imagination usage.

One of my favorite sayings is "Creativity Loves Constraint". Marissa Mayer (VP, early employee, and first female engineer at Google) has a neat talk about this (there are youtube videos etc.) for example at http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_07/b3971144.htm

With no rules - i.e. with freeform, amateur roleplayng/fanfiction/fiction, you get the same cliches over and over and over, and inevitably Mary Sues whose powers always increase to be 'whatever they need'. Action in amateur fiction and action movies is more predictable than in DnD, b/c the latter has the luck of the dice, and real danger (in-character), which encourages real strategy. Want to spare the bad guy to seem all merciful and righteous? It might actually bite you in the butt.

Kalirren's Calvinball analogy above is great - the multi-human aspect of DnD also makes rules important - otherwise you have irreconcilable creative differences. (Remember little kids pretending to be heroes and villains? "I got you!" "Nuh-uh, you missed..."....and so, you need paintball guns.)

An analogy in another disciple is Shakespeare's regular use of iambic pentameter (usually), which leads to him using unique wordings and grammar to match it.

erikun's post above, although making the opposite point, is actually a good example of this - when players say they feel 'limited by rules' they always mean 'I wish things had gone my way there, or my PC was more powerful and had more abilities' - they virtually never mean 'I wish I could've pulled a punch, made things more challenging for myself, etc.'

Does a Fireball almost always having a 20' radius limit and being a sphere withn no 5'x'5'x5' holes limit your creativitiy - or does it give you a chance to think of a creative explanation for why this is the case, and lead to more varies results in-character (you don't always get every enemy in the radius)

[TheRinni]

I don't know...

Honestly, my most creative players have been the ones completely new to the game.

[ffone]

I don't know...

Honestly, my most creative players have been the ones completely new to the game.

That may be b/c of CharOp. While I'm not saying people shouldn't optimize, it does somewhat reduce the variety of characters you see (few sword and boarders, lots of uberchargers or DMM clerics, etc.) It's what makes good game balance so important - good balance increases the number of 'equally good', or 'viable' as many people say around here, characters.

New players tend to pick their class and feats more 'at random' ("Lightning Reflexes, hey that sounds cool...") OTOH in my own experience, there are certain motifs common among new players:

-Mimicing certain popular movie characters. Trying to be Lara Croft or Neo and then realizing dual hand crossbows doesn't work ("I can't reload without tons of magic enhancements! or Quick Drawing a bunch of 'em..okay now I might as well just throw things") etc.

-High cool-factor / Mary Sue motifs. A Dex-based TWF female fighter is one common pitfall (they do it for the kewls, then realize it's mechanically terrible without sneak attack or some other bonus damage source). The gish who TWFs and uses all direct damage spells like Fireball (the "maximum obviousness and offense" character). The sexy sorceress or bardess whose spells are all Enchantment [mind-affecting] and often have HD limits.

[TheRinni]

That may be b/c of CharOp. While I'm not saying people shouldn't optimize, it does somewhat reduce the variety of characters you see (no sword and boarders, lots of uberchargers or DMM clerics, etc.) It's what makes good game balance so important - good balance increases the number of 'equally good', or 'viable' as many people say around here, characters.

While that's entirely possible, it's more the things they try to achieve in game, rather than the characters they choose to play. I notice this particularly in combat situations. Newer players tell me things like "I want to run up the wall! What do I roll for that?" Or "I'm going to try and swing my grappling hook into one of its eye sockets." Everyone else seems to fall into the same old crutch of "I move x squares to attack this one."

I realize that skill tricks and other such things can be implemented in combat. But, in general, I see many players who aren't familiar with the rules being more creative.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

That may be b/c of CharOp. While I'm not saying people shouldn't optimize, it does somewhat reduce the variety of characters you see (few sword and boarders, lots of uberchargers or DMM clerics, etc.) It's what makes good game balance so important - good balance increases the number of 'equally good', or 'viable' as many people say around here, characters.There are ways to make S&B just fine in 3.5, mostly by focusing on Diamond Mind. It's a mite cold in here, by the way. Perhaps we're letting in a bit too much Stormwind.

[Shadowknight12]

erikun's post above, although making the opposite point, is actually a good example of this - when players say they feel 'limited by rules' they always mean 'I wish things had gone my way there, or my PC was more powerful and had more abilities' - they virtually never mean 'I wish I could've pulled a punch, made things more challenging for myself, etc.'

While I don't wish to criticise the rest of your position (let it just be said I do not share it), I would like to point out that a lot of people would rather have control over what, exactly, they can or can't do, of what their characters' weaknesses and strengths are. A lot of people may prefer to say "Okay, I'd like to have more spells per day than what I get as a wizard, but only from the Evocation school. And I don't want to play a sorcerer, I like the mechanics and flavour of the wizard." Or "I'd love to do more damage in combat, in exchange for having a lower AC." Or viceversa.

Sometimes, people do enjoy adding flaws and hindrances to their characters. They just want control over that.

[ffone]

While that's entirely possible, it's more the things they try to achieve in game, rather than the characters they choose to play. I notice this particularly in combat situations. Newer players tell me things like "I want to run up the wall! What do I roll for that?" Or "I'm going to try and swing my grappling hook into one of its eye sockets." Everyone else seems to fall into the same old crutch of "I move x squares to attack this one."

I realize that skill tricks and other such things can be implemented in combat. But, in general, I see many players who aren't familiar with the rules being more creative.

You have a good point. OTOH, I find these things more 'annoying' than 'creativie' b/c IMO the majority don't feel so much like genuine creativity as trying to ape certain Hollywood tropes (Neo/Trinity-style wall running etc.) they saw.

And they invariably feel like a way for players to try to glom 'more power' in the guise of 'creativity'. To wit, "I should succeed on this ridiculous skill check b/c I have a 'creativity' (i.e. 'unrealistic') fluff for it."

One I saw in another group was a high-Str character wanting to throw a horse at the monster. (Like many new players, he totally forgot to pack any ranged weapon at all.) The inexperienced DM decided to be 'agreeable' and 'creative' which meant 'coming up with a houserule on the spot...which of course made it a very powerful tactic'.

Naturally, it became a regular tactic until the DM realized the stupidity.

The reason 'creative' things seem 'creative' is that they are rarely done in real historical combat. That's generally b/c they are either impossible or inefficient (a metal weapon the weight of a horse, is more effective than a horse, even if you can lift the latter, and a lighter weapon may actually be more effective). Much 'creativity' is just 'white noise'. My rogue could be 'creative' by dual wielding duck bills instead of daggers. But it's retarded.

The other half of the issue is DMs, when they decide to allow something not spec'ed out in the rules, being much too generous. They often make it wildly better than 'normal' attacks. I'll make up custom skill DCs on the fly for random things, sure...but if it's an exceptional feat, the DC should be high.

[erikun]

erikun's post above, although making the opposite point, is actually a good example of this - when players say they feel 'limited by rules' they always mean 'I wish things had gone my way there, or my PC was more powerful and had more abilities' - they virtually never mean 'I wish I could've pulled a punch, made things more challenging for myself, etc.'
It was more of a complaint about how these particular game rules limit options into seemingly nonsensical situations. If positive energy hurts undead and I can channel positive energy, why can I not channel positive energy to hurt undead? If I am keenly aware and exceptionally agile enough to avoid 20' fireballs, then why can I not avoid the big lumbering hulk trying to grab at me?

And it does work the other way, as well. If I want to be exceptionally good at hiding, why do I need to take a pet dog and be good with two weapons? If I want to be good at scaling down walls safely, then why am I faster than everyone and capable of dodging lightning bolts? (This is actually a sore point for me, and why I prefer custom base classes over multiprestigeclassing.)

[ImperatorK]

Isn't refluffing kinda good for imagination? You can imagine your character almost as you want and don't need to make changes to rules (which is often frowned upon by some DMs).

[TheRinni]

And they invariably feel like a way for players to try to glom 'more power' in the guise of 'creativity'. To wit, "I should succeed on this ridiculous skill check b/c I have a 'creativity' (i.e. 'unrealistic') fluff for it."

I think what I'm noticing is this: players who aren't restrained by their knowledge of the rules don't understand how difficult certain exploits are. When a new player, completely ignorant of most rules, says: "I want to throw my grappling hook across this gap, and then run across the rope." They don't see DC 27 Balance check; they see a cool, and an interesting way to get across this pit.

[ffone]

It was more of a complaint about how these particular game rules limit options into seemingly nonsensical situations. If positive energy hurts undead and I can channel positive energy, why can I not channel positive energy to hurt undead?

You can. Cast cure spells at them (clerics can spont-convert in 3e). Turn Undead. (Not HP damage, but it hurts them, and there are several HP-damage variant rules or feats.)

You want to 'channel positive energy into your holy symbol and touch the undead with it to hurt them'? Well, fluff your Cure spells (touch spells!!) as that. That's creativity.



If I am keenly aware and exceptionally agile enough to avoid 20' fireballs, then why can I not avoid the big lumbering hulk trying to grab at me?

I have a standard digression on why Evasion doesn't not make sense (to wit who said Fireballs are perfect flawless spheres rather than ragged radiating tendrils/flowers of flame?)

Also, you can dodge the ogre. Dex to AC.

[erikun]

You want to 'channel positive energy into your holy symbol and touch the undead with it to hurt them'? Well, fluff your Cure spells (touch spells!!) as that. That's creativity.
Refluffing abilities only works so far, and you run into situations where your "refluffed" ability stops making sense because the rules just don't allow it to work.

For example: I am out of spells. I have a full tank of positive energy. I know that positive energy hurts undead. I have an undead that I want to hurt. What do I do? IDEA! I use the positive energy I have, which I know I can channel, to hurt and destroy the undead, which I know is hurt and destroyed by positive energy.

Except it isn't. And I can't. Because I don't have the feat or ability which tells me I can, and so I can throw positive energy at the thing all day and it won't be the slightest bit injured. And I can't "channel" my "positive energy" because I don't have the spell which I normally use to pretend like I am channeling positive energy.

In short, I am given abilities and told how the world works, then not allowed to use those abilities to interact with the world by its own rules.


I have a standard digression on why Evasion doesn't not make sense (to wit who said Fireballs are perfect flawless spheres rather than ragged radiating tendrils/flowers of flame?)

Also, you can dodge the ogre. Dex to AC.

DM: "The ogre grabs at you."

Me: "No problem! This guy is slow, right? Well I took a feat to make me dodge well, and I have a class ability to make me dodge really well, and a racial ability that helps me dodge, and I am really fast anyways. I want to jump out of the way! What do I roll?"

DM: "Sorry, but those are all for dodging out of the way of something completely different. And you can't do anything. The ogre succeed."

[Taelas]

There can be no question that the rules limit imagination, and anyone saying differently are kidding themselves. They exist to do just that. I can imagine my character killing dragons left and right, but unless I actually manage to make the rolls and survive, it's not going to happen: The rules limit my imagination.

This is a good thing. It's what separates D&D from when kids play cops and robbers (and even then, they probably have some rules).

[Sucrose]

It was more of a complaint about how these particular game rules limit options into seemingly nonsensical situations. If positive energy hurts undead and I can channel positive energy, why can I not channel positive energy to hurt undead? If I am keenly aware and exceptionally agile enough to avoid 20' fireballs, then why can I not avoid the big lumbering hulk trying to grab at me?

And it does work the other way, as well. If I want to be exceptionally good at hiding, why do I need to take a pet dog and be good with two weapons? If I want to be good at scaling down walls safely, then why am I faster than everyone and capable of dodging lightning bolts? (This is actually a sore point for me, and why I prefer custom base classes over multiprestigeclassing.)

In order:
-This doesn't really make sense, you're right. You can do something similar by spontaneously Curing them to the face, though. Also, Turning Undead can, in fact, destroy them. It's just that your Turning needs to massively overpower them.
-That's what Dex to Touch AC is for. Wanting a Reflex Save vs. a grapple attempt is like wanting a Reflex Save to Matrix-dodge an arrow; it's already represented in the system, and you don't get a second chance.
-A rogue does fine at hiding, and doesn't need an animal companion. If you want the other skills of a Ranger, you can always go archery route and pick up an alternate class feature that ditches the companion, like Distracting Shot.
-Fighters and several others get the Climb skill as well.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with custom base classes, so long as care is taken to make them balanced with existing options. It can even give the build a more cohesive feel: an Abjurant Warrior class that gives the same benefits as going Wizard/Fighter/Abjurant Champion/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight, for example, even though what the character would actually be is essentially the same.

On-topic
-Yes
-Yes
-Yes
-All of that said, so long as the features that you get match your idea well enough, I believe you should be encouraged to make the character you desire. MegaMan as a Warforged Warlock, for example, using Use Magic Device to steal the weapons of some of the enemies that he comes across, rather those same mechanics having to describe a demonically-powered hell engine.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

DM: "The ogre grabs at you."

Me: "No problem! This guy is slow, right? Well I took a feat to make me dodge well, and I have a class ability to make me dodge really well, and a racial ability that helps me dodge, and I am really fast anyways. I want to jump out of the way! What do I roll?"

DM: "Sorry, but those are all for dodging out of the way of something completely different. And you can't do anything. The ogre succeed."I think there are two problems here:

1. Evasion isn't so broad, and shouldn't be seen as so broad. It's the wuxia ability to avoid explosions and the like. Yeah, it's silly. Lots of things in D&D are silly.

2. You don't seem to like passive defense. There is a variant, I believe, for active defense which simply takes out the base 10 to AC and lets you roll a d20 instead. That would accomplish the "I try to dodge out of the way" mechanic while you get to "do something" in the metagame.

[Divide by Zero]

And it does work the other way, as well. If I want to be exceptionally good at hiding, why do I need to take a pet dog and be good with two weapons? If I want to be good at scaling down walls safely, then why am I faster than everyone and capable of dodging lightning bolts? (This is actually a sore point for me, and why I prefer custom base classes over multiprestigeclassing.)

This is a consequence of a class-based system. If this were a serious problem for you, you'd probably be better off with a different system, of course, but the ease of multiclassing and number of ACFs help deal with the problem. And you can always homebrew.

[drack]

the way I see it the players are imagining what they're doing, and the DM is imagining the whole world around them. rules help keep a player from just saying "I rage across the battlefield slitting throats with exceptional ease wielding my massive battle ax with enough skill to just barely slit each and every one of the three thousand Orc throats without taking a single scratch" And at the same time they keep the DM from needing to decide if they can do each thing, keeping the players relatively similarly talented such that no one easily outshines the others (though we know that part isn't always true :smallwink:) It also puts all of a character's skills and talents into the form of numbers so that they can have a given competence in various tasks rather than just listing their endless or nonexistent list of talents. So it's not so much that the rules take away from it, it's more that they supplement some imagination using the immigration of those who wrote them to pick up the slack. At least that's my take on it :smallbiggrin:

[ImperatorK]

There can be no question that the rules limit imagination, and anyone saying differently are kidding themselves. They exist to do just that. I can imagine my character killing dragons left and right, but unless I actually manage to make the rolls and survive, it's not going to happen: The rules limit my imagination.

This is a good thing. It's what separates D&D from when kids play cops and robbers (and even then, they probably have some rules).
But the thing is: I'm not talking about imagining whatever and not caring for rules ("My Fighter kills dragons with his stare!" on 3rd level). I'm talking about imagining the rules in different ways ("My Fighter is a samurai.").

[Honest Tiefling]

For me, rules and the world provide challenge. Why I like DnD so much is I want to ponder a situation and find an IG solution that has been overlooked. Think about the game as if I am a person in the game and try to make it alive within the constraints of that world.

Without a challenge, there really isn't a game. But running around following cliched plots is also not my thing. This is why I hate railroading, as my character is no longer in charge of their fate, and I can't try to think my way past encounters.

This isn't to bash free form RP, which I see more as a story telling exercise between several people to leave interesting tales. Its just not my cup of tea.

[Thiyr]

There can be no question that the rules limit imagination, and anyone saying differently are kidding themselves. They exist to do just that. I can imagine my character killing dragons left and right, but unless I actually manage to make the rolls and survive, it's not going to happen: The rules limit my imagination.

This is a good thing. It's what separates D&D from when kids play cops and robbers (and even then, they probably have some rules).

I would like to agree with this. I would also like to make the addition that while rules limit imagination, they oftentimes serve to -encourage- creativity (very different things there. Imagination is the how, creativity is the why). I do a bit of freeform and a bit of 3.5, but I have (typically) an easier time coming up with a character when doing 3.5, because I have bits and pieces of extra baggage in the rules that I want to explain. My freeforms, on the other hand, are a lot more open, and as such I have a harder time with the initial idea (because there's no good limits to work within) and once its going it's hard to gauge what's an appropriate response, especially when the effects are going to be directly impacting another player's character (perhaps even literally. That whole cops and robbers thing that was mentioned earlier is very tempting. It's why I tend towards characters that don't care about getting hit in situations like that)

[HappyBlanket]

Just going to steal this formatting...

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
For the sufficiently creative and ambitious, imagination plays a role in everything.

Do rules limit imagination? Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
Yes to both. I can immediately think of several ability concepts I've had that simply wouldn't function in the world of d&d. They were cool, interesting, and fantastic abilities, but they all had flaws that made them unusable. Maybe one wouldn't be efficient, or another didn't do meaningful damage. Usually it was because they simply didn't have existing rules. Either way, I couldn't bring those ideas into d&d.

That said: homebrew. As someone who has recently come to the conclusion that d&d is NOT a campaign setting, with it's own rules for what exists and what doesn't, and is instead a system, I've recently embraced homebrew as a way of utilizing imagination in d&d. With an open mind toward homebrew, a great deal of thought, and enough experience to know what's underpowered or overpowered, a far greater scope of concepts become achievable.

Kinda SO unrelated, but:
Self scrub! No point in pursuing that.

[Divide by Zero]

For me, rules and the world provide challenge. Why I like DnD so much is I want to ponder a situation and find an IG solution that has been overlooked. Think about the game as if I am a person in the game and try to make it alive within the constraints of that world.

Without a challenge, there really isn't a game. But running around following cliched plots is also not my thing. This is why I hate railroading, as my character is no longer in charge of their fate, and I can't try to think my way past encounters.

This isn't to bash free form RP, which I see more as a story telling exercise between several people to leave interesting tales. Its just not my cup of tea.

Exactly. This is also why I like theoretical optimization - coming up with some obscure combination of classes and feats and whatever to accomplish a seemingly impossible goal can't be done in a system without rules.

[Psyren]

I think a lot of us are talking past each other. There's two ways imagination can factor into D&D - imagined flavor (refluffing) or imagined mechanics (homebrew.)

And then you can combine both of the above in various degrees into freeform: "here's what my character should be able to do, because it fits his concept." (The example given earlier - of an agile character who can dodge an explosion without a scratch, should also be able to avoid being grabbed by a lumbering ogre, is a good one I think.)


Anyway - I don't think anyone has a problem with the first type, i.e. imagination as it relates to fluff. If you want to play a Fighter/Warblade and call it a Samurai, go right ahead.

Rather, the second type is the one that is causing contention, and that is the one that is more interesting to discuss.

[Kalirren]

There's two ways imagination can factor into D&D - imagined flavor (refluffing) or imagined mechanics (homebrew.)

I'd have to disagree with this. I don't think it's just about homebrew and refluffing. Before you decide on what mechanics to use to resolve a IC conflict you have to decide what the conflict is in the first place, and resolve to decide it at all. At the risk of sounding a bit Sapir-Whorf about it, the kind of conflicts that your system models well tend to become the kind of conflicts your characters use to achieve their goals, even if their goals would typically be better achieved through other means. D&D tends to result in big fights, for instance.

To go back to the chessboard analogy, it's akin to a bunch of chess players sitting at a chessboard talking about playing tennis, staking things over a hypothetical tennis match, maybe even going so far as to comparing the quality of each others' rackets and the consistency of each others' swings, but then deciding to play a game of chess to settle it all. This happens because everyone's happy enough at the chessboard that no one wants to get up from it, even though what they really need is to look up (or re-invent) the rules for tennis and play a real match of tennis.

On some occasions we can adapt fast enough and we end up playing badminton instead of tennis, where we address the conflict but don't really hit the nail on the head in tying the result to our characters' abilities, assets, goals and narrative arc. That I still consider a partial success, and is more than I'd expect. But more often I've seen something worse happen in many more games; the game grows just too far beyond the scope of its system to adapt, and the moderator/ruleslawyer team can't come up with the rules to adjudicate a conflict appropriately, so instead the conflict itself artificially changes shape. Things get settled over a massive firefight instead of a sensible corporate takeover.

This I think is bad, and noteworthy. Creativity may love constraint, but this an important example pattern of how system can often constrain imagination for the worse. Groups who are overly attached to particular rulesets and averse to freeforming suffer the most from this of course, because they can't even agree to shift into the freeform gear and start to find a way to tackle a conflict that occurs outside the scope of the system. And this mindset is often rooted in the misconception that D&D itself is the game, instead of what it really is, a ruleset (among possibly many) that you use while running the game.

[Arcran]

I definately think that DnD is all about imagination. I remember nobody in our party could figure out how to get into the BBEG's castle without dying. Then comes along the Psion Shaper, DnD noob, (aka me), and uses Fabricate to make a little tunnel in by turning the wall into sling bullets. We still all died though (damn drow!).

[Psyren]

*snip*

Maybe I'm just tired, but I have no idea what your post actually said. I got lost somewhere around the chess/badminton analogy and it didn't get any better after that.

[Taelas]

But the thing is: I'm not talking about imagining whatever and not caring for rules ("My Fighter kills dragons with his stare!" on 3rd level). I'm talking about imagining the rules in different ways ("My Fighter is a samurai.").

What you're describing is the difference between fluff and mechanics. That has nothing to do with imagination in and of itself; both can be influenced and are limited by it, in different ways. They also limit each other, to some degree.

Imagination is limited only by your own mind. You can imagine anything. I can imagine a human who can fly naturally without wings and shoot lightning out his ass if I want to, but that doesn't make it a mechanically sound concept. With just a few limits, though, I can make it work -- a half-dragon half-ogre (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0721.html) is be able to fly using his wings and he has a lightning breath. I have to make concessions, though. The lightning doesn't come out his ass, for one thing. :smallwink:

But if it's something small that does not have any impact on the rules, there's no need to make concessions at all. A title, for instance, has extremely little impact. You could call a sorcerer a samurai if you wanted to.

[Tyndmyr]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?

Sure.


Do rules limit imagination?

Yes. Absolutely. But they also provoke imagination. Manys the time when I had an idea sparked by reading a rulebook.


Are rules supposed to limit imagination?

Yes. Cops and Robbers is a game without rules, and without the limits, it tends not to go anywhere. Limits are always required, though what they are varies wildly depending on game. Even freeform games have limits.

[Kalirren]

Maybe I'm just tired, but I have no idea what your post actually said. I got lost somewhere around the chess/badminton analogy and it didn't get any better after that.

Sorry, I rambled. I do that alot. I'll try to hit the nail on the head this time.

What I was trying to describe was the pattern I often see where a growing imagination stretches the boundaries of system beyond its capacity to adapt even through homebrew. A group often starts out playing well within the descriptive confines of a system, be it D&D or WW or freeform, but then their characters get more powerful. And as their power increases, so too do their spheres of concern, and the players' imaginations grow accordingly. You can get by with handwaving, or homebrewing new powers and mechanics, but eventually the original framing of the characters, the original breakdown of a character's abilities, just becomes useless to describe what the characters are going through, what assets and liabilities and powers they have.

It eventually gets to the point where the very challenges the characters face have to be forced into a form recognizable by the system, even when it wouldn't otherwise make sense to do so. The DM eventually feels compelled to reduce everything to a big fight, a showdown. And that feels profoundly unsatisfying to me. It feels forced.

My point is that this isn't something that homebrewing material within a system can help with. You need to be willing to shift systems completely to escape that trap. Essentially, in every meaningful D&D game I've ever played, there has come a point where we needed to stop playing D&D to keep the game going. And we have not always realized when we had reached this point, so it's something worth keeping in the back of one's head at all times.

[danzibr]

D&D is a game about optimization. If your imagination involves doing totally borked things which break the game, then yeah.

[Hecuba]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
Do rules limit imagination?
Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
What other thoughts do you have on this subject?


Yes, of course.
Yes.
Yes, they are supposed to direct imagination into a mutually desirable collaborative output. As such, they place limits on direction and scope.
Limits on direction and scope are not limits on creativity unless you want them to be.

[Slipperychicken]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
If D&D was a car, imagination would be it's gasoline. :smallcool:



Do rules limit imagination?
Depends... Rules encourage most of us to think within them, but everyone imagines a concept or action which WotC didn't write rules for, so you just homebrew it and keep moving.


Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
If they are, they don't do it very well :smallbiggrin:

[Morithias]

D&D is a game about using your imagination. The rules are merely there to avoid "I hit you" "No you didn't" "Yes I did" debates.

[rubycona]

I took a class in college, Intro to Musical Theory. It kind of also seconded as Piano 101 :P

Anyway, one of our assignments was interesting. You know how on a piano, the black keys are spaced out, 2 then 3 then 2 then 3, so on and so forth? We had to use 5 keys - one set of 2 and a neighbor set of three - to make a song. It's absolutely, undeniably true that there's a very limited number of songs you can make with that.

But while I've often tried to make music, that was the only time I ever succeeded... and it was a nice song, too! What it was, more than anything else, was a launching point. It was so tight, so constrained, that it was easy to make something simple. Get the hang of that, and then maybe try 7 black keys... or maybe some white ones.

D&D RAW, to me, is telling people to make music with 5 black keys. Make the world small, and make sense in a mechanical sort of way (even if logically there's a "few" holes *cough*). If it gets too wide, and you can't make sensible music, go back to the constraints you can work with.

And it never really gets freeform in music. You're limited by the "rules" of pitch and tune, of rhythm and keys, even at the most expansive.

To me, D&D is the same way. Same as you have to have some type of rhythm in a song, you have to have some kind of balance and system in a roleplay, to avoid the "I hit you with my unblockable sword!" "No, I have an unbreakable shield!" arguments.

Needing rhythm in a song doesn't limit imagination - it frees it. Homebrew of various sorts is the means by which you can stretch beyond the "5 key limit" of your song, your story. But even within it, the inept and untrained can still find a way to make something beautiful.

And that's what's truly incredible about D&D.

[HappyBlanket]

D&D is a game about optimization.

Fact. Some people don't play for the sole purpose of optimization.

[Kavurcen]

In my opinion, rules can both shape and restrict creativity, but they can also create a great framework through which to channel creativity, in a way that you can utilize it in game and see your imagination at work.

A good example of this would be a recent experience of mine. When I first started playing 3.5, I was looking through the Monster Manual because I wanted a more unique race than the standard human, dwarf, elf, etc. I'd just given up on WoW after weeks of fetch quests and I was tired of the standard fantasy cliches. Looking through the book, one race caught my eye; the Gargoyle. When I was younger (and occasionally still), my favorite TV show ever was the Disney cartoon Gargoyles. The characters are fantasy surrounding it captured my imagination completely. When I noticed that they were a playable race, my mind was instantly made up that my first character would be a Gargoyle. However, reading more through its description and stats I was disappointed. Gargoyles in D&D are portrayed as Chaotic Evil monsters, vile looking monsters with horns. In the TV show, they were shown as noble defenders of the innocent. Obviously I thought the latter was much cooler. On top of that, the Level Adjustment of +5 was pretty ridiculous, and even as it was written probably not very balanced. I was hugely disappointed, and sought a way to fix this.

Talking to my DM and more experienced players, I found about the possibilities of homebrew, and reading up on some examples for reference and the rules for making races in the DMG, I made my own damn race that did the TV show justice. If D&D were a completely free-form RPG, would it have been easier to imagine a Gargoyle character? Yeah, a lot more. Would it have been as good? Not exactly. See, the ability for the rules to actually encourage leniency of their interpretation and the expansion of the game through the player's imagination leads to an experience unlike many others. The fact that you can imagine anything you want and make it work within the boundaries of a set of rules for a game is fantastic, and the reason why after quitting WoW I latched on to D&D. The central use of imagination in D&D, the way it's not only encouraged by the rules, but the rules and the game itself are in many ways built around it are what set it apart from WoW and anything else I've encountered.

So in my opinion, asking if imagination plays a role in D&D is a ridiculous question. Creativity is key for shaping the entire experience of D&D, and if you play without using your imagination, to paint the picture of the environment, to interact and react, to shape your actions, to basically play the game at all, you're getting less than half the fun.

[Larpus]

Does imagination play a role in D&D?
Of course it does, imagination is needed especially for DMs who will always have to come up with something of their own, unless they're self-gimping themselves by playing others' campaigns without any room for improvisation.

Players also need imagination, if not for anything else, just to make their character. Unless you go about it in a 100% min-maxing way and never care one bit about his story, personality, etc, you always have to imagine, at the very least, his base concept.

Do rules limit imagination?
Yes they do, but that's not necessarily bad, also, as others have said, you can look at it as "shaping" or "focusing" as opposed to "limit".

Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
Indeed they are.

If there were no rules and whatever anyone said passed as truth, then there would be basically three things: extreme min-maxers would make William Wallace with actual laserbeam eyes and lightning-shooting ass; normal people would most probably be confused and unable to make something original (for the lack of comparison) or would end up completely gimped; and last but not least, chaos, without rules it all would go down to the old days when we were kids playing police and bandits (or similar) where you shoot someone but that someone doesn't die, or magically "shoot you first".

So basically, rules try to prevent powergaming to game-breaking levels (Rule 0 is a rule), give some general guidelines to most people, especially newbies, give some comparison ground to those who enjoy concept above all (seriously, how can you make an unique Bard if there's no rule as to what a 'bard' is?) and promote order above chaos (again, Rule 0).

What other thoughts do you have on this subject?
Not much, except that if someone feels that the rules are limiting their imagination, then it actually means that their imagination is limiting their imagination, since they're focusing too much on the few things they cannot do as opposed to look at all the things they can do or ways to make what they want to do be possible.

[Gnaeus]

Players also need imagination, if not for anything else, just to make their character. Unless you go about it in a 100% min-maxing way and never care one bit about his story, personality, etc, you always have to imagine, at the very least, his base concept.

Even if you are min-maxed 100%, you still have to imagine what he looks like, what his surroundings look like, what his motivations are, etc. Ultimately, the goal of Min-maxing is to have the most powerful options available in your game. Having the most powerful options available in the game is pointless unless you enjoy imagining the thrill of victory over your imaginary opponents, or the pride in crushing peasants beneath your heel, or whatever else your demi-god is doing. Just because you may not have imagined his complex and well-developed backstory doesn't mean that you aren't using your imagination. Without imagination, you may as well be testing the randomness of your dice, because neither the story nor its outcome has any meaning.


That may be b/c of CharOp. While I'm not saying people shouldn't optimize, it does somewhat reduce the variety of characters you see (few sword and boarders, lots of uberchargers or DMM clerics, etc.) It's what makes good game balance so important - good balance increases the number of 'equally good', or 'viable' as many people say around here, characters.

New players tend to pick their class and feats more 'at random' ("Lightning Reflexes, hey that sounds cool...") OTOH in my own experience, there are certain motifs common among new players:

-Mimicing certain popular movie characters. Trying to be Lara Croft or Neo and then realizing dual hand crossbows doesn't work ("I can't reload without tons of magic enhancements! or Quick Drawing a bunch of 'em..okay now I might as well just throw things") etc.

-High cool-factor / Mary Sue motifs. A Dex-based TWF female fighter is one common pitfall (they do it for the kewls, then realize it's mechanically terrible without sneak attack or some other bonus damage source). The gish who TWFs and uses all direct damage spells like Fireball (the "maximum obviousness and offense" character). The sexy sorceress or bardess whose spells are all Enchantment [mind-affecting] and often have HD limits.

So Char-op is bad because it leads to cookie-cutter characters. But less cookie cutter characters are bad, because they are ineffective, and need more optimization? Anyone who says "I want to be Lara Croft or sexy sorceress but I don't want to suck...how do I do that?" is engaging in char-op.

[ImperatorK]

Indeed they are.

If there were no rules and whatever anyone said passed as truth, then there would be basically three things: extreme min-maxers would make William Wallace with actual laserbeam eyes and lightning-shooting ass; normal people would most probably be confused and unable to make something original (for the lack of comparison) or would end up completely gimped; and last but not least, chaos, without rules it all would go down to the old days when we were kids playing police and bandits (or similar) where you shoot someone but that someone doesn't die, or magically "shoot you first".

So basically, rules try to prevent powergaming to game-breaking levels (Rule 0 is a rule), give some general guidelines to most people, especially newbies, give some comparison ground to those who enjoy concept above all (seriously, how can you make an unique Bard if there's no rule as to what a 'bard' is?) and promote order above chaos (again, Rule 0).
Have you seen Shneekey's Build Challenge: We can build it, we have the sourcebooks! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203959) thread? Or Lycan's What the Fluff (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11217.0) thread at BG? I daresay, rules don't limit imagination in the slightest. Refluffing is basically using imagination heavily, and lots of people do it and are of the opinion that fluff is totally disconnected from rules.

[Larpus]

Even if you are min-maxed 100%, you still have to imagine what he looks like, what his surroundings look like, what his motivations are, etc. Ultimately, the goal of Min-maxing is to have the most powerful options available in your game. Having the most powerful options available in the game is pointless unless you enjoy imagining the thrill of victory over your imaginary opponents, or the pride in crushing peasants beneath your heel, or whatever else your demi-god is doing. Just because you may not have imagined his complex and well-developed backstory doesn't mean that you aren't using your imagination. Without imagination, you may as well be testing the randomness of your dice, because neither the story nor its outcome has any meaning.
Good point, you are correct.


Have you seen Shneekey's Build Challenge: We can build it, we have the sourcebooks! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203959) thread? Or Lycan's What the Fluff (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11217.0) thread at BG? I daresay, rules don't limit imagination in the slightest. Refluffing is basically using imagination heavily, and lots of people do it and are of the opinion that fluff is totally disconnected from rules.
Oh no, I never meant to mean that rules = fluff, fluff is an entirely different beast and is by no means immutable, after all it's through fluff that the rules can be adapted to support an initially incompatible concept and vice-versa.

[opticalshadow]

dnd is total imgaination, in the orginal phb its stated that at no point do any rules needs to be followed, they are simply guidelines on how to make the game work. a good dm should push beyond the rules and create a realm to their liking.