PDA

View Full Version : Does great power limit creativity and cunning?



Agrippa
2012-02-24, 11:40 PM
I've noticed a lot of talk, mostly from old school gamers, about how character power deminishes in game creativity, or at least the need for it. The argument is that many heroes in fantasy fiction (modern day pulp-like fantasy fiction) relied mostly upon their cleverness and ingenuity as opposed to raw power. These non-superpowered heroes would include the likes of Cugel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eyes_of_the_Overworld), Farfd and the Grey Mouser, Conan, Solomon Kane and John Carter. While those heroes with greater, and often times supernatural, power and resources don't have to think and plan as much to get by and triumph against their adversaries. The basic theory is that this makes the non-superheroes far more interesting than the more fantastic and powerful heroes and therefore worthier of interest. Also that such characters would make for better gaming as well. So does anyone here agree with that statement at all?

Grinner
2012-02-24, 11:43 PM
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've realized that it boils down to the player's reason for wanting to play. Some just want to be super badass. Others want to weave epics. Really, your mileage will always vary.

Tengu_temp
2012-02-24, 11:56 PM
What limits or encourages creativity and cunning first and foremost is your response to them as the DM. If you give bonuses for using them and show that they're valid ways of thinking, players will use them. If you give penalties to them or treat them by the book as called shots/inferior combat maneuvers, then players will be discouraged from using them and stick to auto-attacking instead.

Power only matters in comparison to the enemies - if the PCs are much stronger than they won't bother with smart tactics and will just effortlessly plow through instead. Keep the enemies a challenge and it doesn't matter if the PCs are 100% mundane or a bunch of reality-warping wizards and superheroes.

Belril Duskwalk
2012-02-25, 12:04 AM
I think it would be overstating the case to say that having power limits creativity. In some ways having the right kinds of power actually allows for more options, thus allowing for more creativity.

But in a general sense, I could see the argument that having power does reduce the incentive to be clever and crafty. If you have enough power on hand to charbroil the whole castle, or Charm and Dominate everyone inside that can severely reduce the inclination to try navigating the political intrigue of court. Whereas a less powerful individual in the same scenario would need to try and cleverly maneuver the members of court into helping his cause with favors and convincing arguments. For me, I'd rather play the latter theoretical game, it sounds much more interesting.

bloodtide
2012-02-25, 01:54 AM
I've noticed a lot of talk, mostly from old school gamers, about how character power deminishes in game creativity, or at least the need for it. The argument is that many heroes in fantasy fiction (modern day pulp-like fantasy fiction) relied mostly upon their cleverness and ingenuity as opposed to raw power.

That's not exactly accurate. After all characters like John Carter and Conan are quite powerful in raw power. And after all Superman is a classic example of a very powerful character that relies mostly on his cleverness and ingenuity as opposed to raw power. So you want to compare the classic low power heroes such as: The Shadow, Doc Savage, Buck Rogers, Indiana Jones, Clint Eastwood(any character he ever played), or Bruce Willis(any action character he ever played). To the more modern high powered characters such as: Any X-Man, Richard B. Riddick, Spawn, Thomas A. Anderson (alias Neo) or any Anime.

Now great power alone does not limit or diminish creativity, but power in the wrong hands can be a big factor. Some gamers, say 15% can handle real power, but the rest can't and that can be a big problem in a game.

You can see the effects in almost any modern game: Players think of their character as just words on a page, and worse they think that the character can only do what is written on the page. As soon as they encounter a problem that they can't easily fit into their great powers, they will be completely lost. I've seen this example tons of times: A character that can go all crazy nova and do tons of effects, is stopped by something like a locked door. They will look over their sheet dozens of times, but unless they have a power that says 'open doors' they will be at a loss of what to do.


Though in the end it's just a matter of play style: 1)Old School-"I, the player, want to use my own skill and mind to play a fictional character and solve/accomplish something that I can take credit for by being me. Or 2)New School-"I want to play a fictional character with lots of cool and powerful abilities that I can take credit for using.'' The first type would tell a story that they, the player, did or figured out; and the second type would tell a story about a power or ability their fictional character used.

A great way to tell the two apart is the BBEG encounter.
For two perfect examples: Type 1-Jhon McClain, at the end of Die Hard, badly wounded and with only two bullets. Type 2-Neo, in the Matrix, who is always at top ultimate power.

Anarion
2012-02-25, 02:03 AM
Part of this is player mindset, which is something that a DM can craft. Whether weak or strong, if the obstacles that the players encounter can be defeated effectively with the direct approach, the players will probably take the direct approach. Imagine 3 orcs in a relatively open field for a low-level party. They're going to charge and throw a couple spells.

On the other hand, if the scene and encounter encourages creativity or lateral thinking, the players will often take up the challenge. Imagine a high level party faced with a group of demons. But the room they're in has a number of magical and alchemical devices including a series of portals and an illusory wall, as well as a trap that conjures a forcecage effect for 3 rounds at a time before resetting.

erikun
2012-02-25, 02:05 AM
I used to think along these lines, using the Batman vs Superman logic, but it seems much less true these days. I've read more than enough Batman comics to realize that the difference between bad writing and good writing, or even bad/good characters, have little to do with the character's power level. There have been remarkably good Batman stories written. There have been remarkably bad ones written. The same goes for Superman.

I've found Conan rather dry and boring to read through, especially for large parts, while Percy Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Jackson), a literal half-god, has been fun to follow.

As for the talk towards roleplaying, I won't say it doesn't have an effect. You certainly get some interesting plans and solutions when characters don't have an automatic-win option. However, interesting "plans" do not necessarily mean interesting characters. You'll find players that create some of the wackiest game sessions, but whose party is just your stereotypical Elf-Dwarf-Human-Halfling. You'll also find groups that can steamroll any encounter they find, but have no problems spending entire sessions talking with a single NPC or even amongst themselves.

Agrippa
2012-02-25, 02:08 AM
To bloodtide: Maybe I wasn't entirely accurate about Conan and John Carter and I humbly appologize for that. You're also right that power doesn't automatically equal lack of cunning, which is my point as well. I'd like to say I'm a type three, I'd like (an eventually) powerful character and use a combination of his or her own powers and my own tactical and planning skill.

erikun
2012-02-25, 02:17 AM
I'd like to point out one more thing before heading off: I've found that if I am pretty much guaranteed to fail in a given situation, then I am disinclined to come up with an original solution.

This kind of goes hand-in-hand with what Tengu Temp was saying, that meaningful bonuses would have an impact on what choices are made by the players. I'm thinking D&D3, where you could easily have a 10% change of success or less on a roll. Trying to come up with creative options or an original solution, only to have the success chance increase to 15%, pretty much makes all that creativity and originality feel like a waste of time.

Totally Guy
2012-02-25, 02:37 AM
I'll go with a less controversial claim:

Obvious optimal solutions limit the player's ability make interesting decisions.

Xuc Xac
2012-02-25, 02:44 AM
I'll go with a less controversial claim:

Obvious optimal solutions limit the player's ability make interesting decisions.

Right. If you want to see Macgyver do something cool with a Swiss army knife, a roll of duct tape, a rubber band, and a paperclip, then don't give him a wand with 50 charges of the Solve Problem spell.

tyckspoon
2012-02-25, 03:57 AM
While those heroes with greater, and often times supernatural, power and resources don't have to think and plan as much to get by and triumph against their adversaries. The basic theory is that this makes the non-superheroes far more interesting than the more fantastic and powerful heroes and therefore worthier of interest. Also that such characters would make for better gaming as well. So does anyone here agree with that statement at all?

No. More powerful characters are not inherently more or less interesting than less powerful characters. What changes is the situations where they are interesting. You lock McGuyver in a room, he finds a way to make an improvised explosive and blows open the door. You lock Superman in a room, he punches out the back wall and goes to find out who was stupid enough to lock Superman in a room. This doesn't mean McGuyver is more interesting, because his method of getting out of the room was more interesting- it means that for McGuyver, that locked room is his problem, while for Superman it's just a setup premise for whatever the actual story is going to be (if there is no further story, that's a serious flaw in the DM/writer's execution, but it does not reflect an inherent lack of interesting things to do with Superman.) Similarly, a D&D Fighter has to cross a canyon- he needs to find some way to do that within his pretty limited capabilities. A Wizard casts Fly and moves on. This doesn't mean the Wizard can't be challenged in meaningful and interesting ways; it just means he needs situations that are more unusual.

So I'd say if you want to make an honest statement, it's definitely not "Less powerful characters are more interesting." It's "I find the challenges suitable for less powerful characters more interesting than those suitable for more powerful characters." Opinion, not fact.

Fatebreaker
2012-02-25, 05:36 AM
Some people are more creative when they have more options. Others are inspired by limitations. But the real concern is how the DM portrays the challenges facing the players and how much he rewards creative solutions. Players will be creative if they are rewarded for creativity, even if "reward" means recognition from the other players at the table.

Imagine a DM creates a challenge for his 1st-level group of players. It's difficult while still being fun, has room for straightforward as well as ingenious answers to problems, and different rewards and consequences for different actions.

If that DM were to run the exact same challenge for the exact same group of players, now happily at, say, 15th-level, then of course there's no need for either creativity or cunning. And we, whether as the players or as the live studio audience, would be quite right in putting the blame squarely on the DM.

As players and characters increase in power, the threats and challenges and situations we put them in need to change as well. Maybe there's an equivalent rise in power-to-power, or maybe the DM uses clever circumstances, environments, objectives, and time to make an otherwise straightforward threat anything but simple.

"Sure, we can kill a half-dozen ghosts. But now the ghosts are possessing some (but not all!) of the nobles in the king's court, and we have to find them without letting anyone know about us or the ghosts, all while averting a terrible civil war!"

There is no direct correlation between power and interest. A good DM can make an interesting challenge for any power level. Me, I'd rather have a powerful character with a variety of options than a weakling who can barely do one or two things with only a mild display of semi-competence. But I'm also willing to accept that all that power and all those options will in turn be opposed by challenges which don't always allow for a simple, straightforward solutions. And in fact, I want my high-powered character to face high-powered challenges which require creativity and cunning. I'd be very disappointed if I had all those options and never had a reason to use them!

Saph
2012-02-25, 06:00 AM
So I'd say if you want to make an honest statement, it's definitely not "Less powerful characters are more interesting." It's "I find the challenges suitable for less powerful characters more interesting than those suitable for more powerful characters." Opinion, not fact.

However, it's generally much easier to come up with interesting challenges for low- to mid-power characters than it is to come up with interesting challenges for high-powered characters. Most challenges in a normal world are fairly low-powered - that's why regular people can deal with them. The more you fill the world with high-powered challenges, the less it resembles any kind of world we're familiar with and the more world-building you have to do. This is one of the reasons high-powered games break down so frequently - they're much more work for the GM.

Going back to the OP, I don't think great power necessarily limits creativity and cunning, but it does mean you have less motivation to be creative and cunning. On the other hand, as several people have pointed out, the way the GM runs games has way more influence than anyone's power level. A GM that rewards creativity will probably end up with creative games no matter what, and if the GM discourages creativity then lowering the power level won't help.

jackattack
2012-02-25, 08:44 AM
I'd like to introduce a note about gaming systems here. There are systems that allow or promote creativity, and systems that restrict it.

As more "powers" and combat maneuvers are quantified, and restricted as to who can use them, players become less likely to explore creative maneuvers and solutions because the rules likely prevent them.

As a simple example, in some systems throwing sand in an opponent's eyes has absolutely no effect unless you purchased a specific power/ability/skill for your character. Because the effect is quantified under the rules, it is restricted from any player/character who doesn't have the points/level/power to "own" the effect.

This pushes players to crave power in order to give their characters options. They need more points/levels to buy/gain more powers/abilities/skills to do the creative things they want to be able to do. But that in itself channels those creative impulses, as players have to "budget" their creativity as they pick and choose which powers/abilities/skills to take and which to abandon or put off until later. Each character will have a limited set of creative solutions available, which players will stick to.

A system that provides guidelines instead of hard rules, encourages DM's discretion, and leaves players room to think and/or role-play instead of just rolling dice, is going to foster creative solutions. A system that has a fast rule for every situation, demands rolls in the interest of balance, and reminds player and DMs that the rulebook is there to settle all questions about gameplay, is going to discourage creative solutions.

HOWEVER: An open-ended system that allows for player creativity has its own problem, which is that not all players are as creative as others, and some players may have backgrounds that give them advantages over others in various game situations. (Forget trying to balance fighters and wizards, try balancing a fifteen point difference in IQs, or an avid movie fan with a history buff, or a military retiree with a math teacher.) A highly creative player can make a low-level character much more powerful than other characters of the same level, throwing off game balance and making it very hard for the GM to challenge the creative player without overwhelming the others.

The point of rolling dice is to make the character's abilities the deciding factor, not the player's. The point of rules is to prevent hour-long debates over the actual effect of any action. Player creativity is not always in keeping with character stats, nor is it necessarily conducive to quick or smooth gameplay.

Finding a balance is up to the DM, with as much help as possible from players, as a cooperative effort.

Jay R
2012-02-25, 05:35 PM
I've noticed a lot of talk, mostly from old school gamers, about how character power deminishes in game creativity, or at least the need for it...

It's not about having power; it's about always having encounters with a proper CR.

If you know, going into a fight, that you should win a straight-up battle, then there's no need for creativity. But if, as in the older versions, the enemy often has more total power than you do, then you will look for creative alternatives to the straight-up battle.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-02-25, 06:23 PM
"Power" isn't a single thing. There are different types of power, and those different types interact with creativity in different ways.

As an example, my current RL D&D campaign involves a party of mid-level PCs raising an army against an Insane Evil ArchmageTM who currently rules most of the world: one arcane heirophant, one "monk" (a very eclectic mix of monk, cleric, binder, and more), one dread necromancer, one bard, and one warblade. Each PC has a different sort of power (details spoilered for length).
The arcane heirophant prepares only spells to manipulate stone, wood, and metal on his druid side and only wall/creation and elemental summoning spells on his wizard side and has spec'd for Craft skills. He hasn't cast a single offensive spell or even gotten into melee combat, but he can craft a fleet of warships or a fortress in a week or so, create bridges over rivers, create a several-dozen-yard-long wall to shield our archers, and so forth. His power is extremely dependent on creativity, and he has lots of fun rearranging the environment to suit us or crafting whatever would be most handy at the moment.
The "monk" has boosted his unarmed damage to the point that he one-shots most mooks, has boosted his land and climb speeds to ridiculous levels, has taken Aberrant Reach and other reach-boosting abilities, binds Paimon for Dance of Death, has a morphing scorpion kama to deal unarmed strike damage via a spiked chain, and has a wand of blood wind. That basically means that, in combats against large armies of mostly level-2 to level-5 or so enemies (lots of wizard 5s and bard 8s and warblade 6s and so forth), any mooks within a 130-foot-by-85-foot area of the map just plain die on his action. He's also the party skillmonkey, and handles all of the trapfinding, trapmaking, forgery, Knowledge skills, etc. His combat power is purely of the "find targets, kill targets, find new targets, repeat" variety--no creativity required--but out of combat he is as creative as you'd expect a skillmonkey to be.
The dread necromancer is a textbook minion master, with all of the feats to buff created undead and increase his control limits. However, he doesn't just use his minions for zombie hordes to send against the enemy; the party has everything from zombie pegasi for transportation to zombie squirrels for scouting and message passing to zombie giants for siege warfare to a zombie shark for submarine warfare. Yes, many of his minions provide sheer combat power, but just as many minions result in him trying to come up with the most creative use for the party's most recent kills, and he has certainly come up with some creative uses.
The bard has just made it into Sublime Chord and is roughly spec'd half Inspire Courage and half charming/dominating. With the party's many conscripted soldiers devoted followers, he can exert a powerful presence on the battlefield, and his Requiem feat lets him make the dread necromancer's scary minions even scarier. Off the battefield, he can bend entire towns around his finger with a few words. This, interestingly enough, means that he's very creative on the battlefield, maneuvering his mind-controlled minions devoted followers for the best strategic and tactical advantages, but the extend of his creativity off the battlefield is "find target most vulnerable to mind control, dominate target, use dominated target to find next-most-vulnerable target, repeat."
The warblade player had a fighter in the previous campaign, a lockdown build focused around Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gambit and tripping. He's essentially playing the same build as last time because the warblade is the fighter's son and following in his footsteps, so mechanically speaking he has roughly the same pure offensive power and available combat options. However, because he achieves the same power and options with much less investment, he is able to spend his other character resources on other things--specifically, throwing-based feats and tons of alchemical items and cheap-but-nifty magical items. When big lumbering brutes show up on short notice, he uses fairly straightforward tactics, but if the party has a few rounds to prepare he can do interesting things with a few feather tokens and dust of dryness. So given the same combat style, same character personality, etc., increased power has actually led to increased creativity.
So all of these characters are quite powerful for their level, but all of them have different kinds of power, each of which allows for more or less creativity. Lethality is power, versatility is power, force multiplication is power, terrain control is power, and none of them inherently decrease creativity. In short, kind of power is more important than magnitude, and a creative player who can build powerful characters yet still retain that creativity instead of slipping into one-trick pony mode is more important still.

Eldan
2012-02-25, 07:39 PM
Looking out of RPGs for a while, I can think of plenty stories where characters with plenty of powers still facde interesting problems. Plenty of superheroes with powers still need to think creatively. Or just look at supernatural mysteries. Death Note, while an Anime example, is an entire series about a superpowered person having to come up with ever more ridiculous plans in order to achieve his goal. Harry Dresden? Can blow up buildings, deflect bullets and, at this point, probably master that spell to rip your heart out from half a state away. He still needs plenty of trickery to get by.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-02-25, 09:28 PM
I've found Conan rather dry and boring to read through, especially for large parts, while Percy Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Jackson), a literal half-god, has been fun to follow.

Leo Valdez, who first appears in The Lost Hero for those of you who haven't read it (so you gotta sit through the original series before he's introduced, but that's not to say the originals are bad. On the contrary, I find Jason in the new series, someone with the same status as Percy, to be a rather normal character, he has barely any defining personality, and just acts like a general good guy hero would), is particularly good at this sort of thing. Dude wired up some cranes and slammed them into a few Cyclopes before sending a ray of white-hot fire to hit a weakened chain link and make the chain come crashing down into the last one. Later, he sets up a miniature wind-up sort of thing he made himself in a bulldozer to make it move on its own. Guess there's some perks to being the son of the god of builders, blacksmiths, and anyone who builds things with their hands.

Coidzor
2012-02-26, 02:53 AM
Well, to a certain extent this is true. If you're basically impervious to their attacks and can eliminate them without really inconveniencing yourself, there's no reason not to just go with the direct confrontation.

Problem being though, that many games are built upon direct confrontation. It's a cornerstone of how most people seem to conceive of D&D and how it tends to get played, though here and there you run into subgames, such as the action economy game and Wish/Demi-plane/Godhood chess at the high-end of D&D 3.X. The ones that aren't, well, they're explicitly sneaky anyway, like Shadowrun.

TheOOB
2012-02-26, 03:02 AM
Power doesn't limit creativity, but it can make things difficult. The Superman example has been brought up. The character is basically a god as far as humans are concerned, but he has interesting stories all the time, and he encounters threats that are a danger to him.

That said, it can be harder for a powerful character to be given a challenge. Let's take an RPG example. In D&D 3.5 take a standard party of level 1 characters. There is a fairly narrow range of power levels of threats that party can tackle. Any monster above around CR 2 at the most is likely to kill the party. As the party advances in level, they keep a fairly narrow range of possible challenges, anything more than 2-3 levels below them will no threat except in silly huge numbers, and anything more than 2-3 levels above them will be impossible to defeat. This continues even when the party is an epic level 30 party. Here is the thing though, foes that are in that range at level 30 are pretty few and far between, aside from few published monsters with laundry lists of special abilities your looking at other level 30 characters and gods. And those require a ton of book keeping and make things really hard on the DM. The options are still there, they're just harder to manage.

Knaight
2012-02-26, 03:08 AM
Power is largely irrelevant. Creativity is an aspect of RPGs that tends to arise when dealing with conflict - this isn't surprising, as narratives without conflict are incredibly boring, and RPGs do have emergent narratives. Conflict can be relevant at any level of "power", particularly as "power" varies by what is relevant to the task at hand. Moreover, while conflict can be removed by failing to deal with power properly, that can happen for numerous reasons. If the protagonists are utterly incapable of affecting anything due to being feeble in all regards relative to the setting, there is no meaningful conflict. If the setting is utterly incapable of presenting risks and meaningful decisions to the protagonists because it is feeble relative to them, there is also a problem.

Coming back to conflict, the key elements are risks and meaningful decisions. In keeping with the thread, several obvious combat examples connected to power where there are not meaningful decisions include "should I die, or should I not get in this fight" and "should I get in this fight and win when it is advantageous, or not get in this fight when I stand to gain". However, at any and all levels of power, there are still potential tradeoffs. "Should I risk the life of this important person with me by attacking head on, or should I risk the life of the important person I need to get information to by delaying for safety" is a scenario that could apply to everything from a very mortal, easily killed soldier with a breech-loading rifle in a bombed out city, to a character straight out of wuxia who runs up trees and cuts arrows in half with a sword.

Daer
2012-02-26, 06:33 AM
Power doesn't exactly limit creativity but can cause laziness. Why bother think creative way when you can just simply raw force it?

jackattack
2012-02-26, 09:56 AM
It's also a matter of game world detail and design.

If an encounter consists of a square room with a monster in the middle and a wooden door at the far end, there isn't much to work with. If an encounter consists of a square room with an arched ceiling and lots of pillars, with rusty manacles on two walls, steel grates in the floor leading to a cramped crawlspace, and a wooden door at the far end with a large bar holding it shut and something moving behind it, then you've got lots of material to get creative. (Possibly in ways the DM doesn't expect!)

IMO, a well-designed dungeon plays to each characters' strengths as often as it exploits their weaknesses. Every encounter should include something for at least two characters in the party to do well. For fighters, straight combat or strength. For clerics and wizards, puzzles or one of their usual spells. For rogues, stealth or athletics. And so on. Not every encounter needs something for everyone, but the more paths through/around the encounter, the more likely the players are to say "Wait a minute, I've got an idea!"

Similarly, at least some encounters should play to a monster's weaknesses. That's not to say that the specific weapon that kills the monster with one strike should be hanging on the wall, but having substances that hurt or hinder the monster in the encounter area (or a previous encounter area) rewards players who know their monsters (or characters with high dungeoneering scores) and might inspire players to scheme about how to best use the resources the DM has placed in the environment.

Which I guess boils down to player creativity may be proportional to DM creativity.

prufock
2012-02-26, 10:20 AM
The thing is: people will use whatever resources they have on hand to solve a problem. It isn't just about "great power" or supernatural abilities. Your response to dealing with any situation is going to depend on the options available to you. I don't think it limits their creativity, it is just that the list of things they can create is larger.

kaomera
2012-02-26, 02:09 PM
Right. If you want to see Macgyver do something cool with a Swiss army knife, a roll of duct tape, a rubber band, and a paperclip, then don't give him a wand with 50 charges of the Solve Problem spell.
One of the big problems I've run into is players who complain that their characters don't get to do cool stuff like this, but also become upset if they are not allowed to have a wand of problem solving and fire it off at every challenge they encounter.

Lack of power, imo, is the root of the problem - when players feel like anything they do is liable to be a disaster, they fall back on a few (generally very specific mechanically) options they have any confidence in. Then this mentality transfers over to more powerful characters, who could handle a problem several different ways, but the player only wants to ''spam'' the one optimal solution.

IMO: if you let the fighting-man do cool stuff (and not fail such that he looks like a fool), then the magic-user is less likely to want to simply blast through everything. Also, the more one option becomes a kind of ''skeleton key'' that solves all problems, the more this issue crops up. In D&D that key would be combat - as combat has been made more and more safe* it's become more and more of a safe bet to focus your characters' resources / abilities on fighting**, rather than wanting to also have some abilities that will help you avoid those fights that you can / should.

*And not without good reason - combat crops up a fair bit in most D&D games, and randomly losing characters isn't in and of itself fun - there's just additional repercussions to combat not being particularly deadly that I think can go under-recognized.

**On top of the fact, particularly in the case of the magic-user, that most limitations on how many different things the character can do have been eased / erased. Spellcasters have more spells per day, more overall spells to choose from, more ability to choose exactly the spells they want, and all characters have more magic items, or at the very least more choice of which items they posses. More power + more choice + an easy / optimal choice to focus those abilities in one direction is going to lead to many players simply taking the well-trodden path.

GRM13
2012-02-26, 05:38 PM
I believe this is the problem as well as other. One being that you have players planning these elaborate gambits and strategies like maybe distract while someone goes past the enemy or trick him into doing something (like getting a fake replica of the item in question) or having a back up plan in case things go wrong. Only to end up being useless cause the DM knows full well what is happening and just goes "the enemy easily scryed you and saw what you were up to" or "he's not dumb enough to fall for that". The other occasion being cause the DM is very strict and hates being outsmarted by the PCs so he he quickly says that their elaborate plan doesn't work or get punished and told that it was a dumb idea and you shouldn't have expected it to work.

These are all cases of bad DMs yes but sometime it just takes one bad experience or denial to just stop bothering doing anything out of the box and just go the safe route. Especially if it's simpler and actually pays off as opposed to the complicated failure that was your actual plan

Slipperychicken
2012-02-26, 09:14 PM
As a player, I find that creativity is curtailed when one option is clearly "optimal" (i.e. near-perfect chance of success, minimal resource expenditure), or when alternatives are punished (large failure chance, steep penalties for failure, large resource expenditure). If trying new things incurs large penalties, a player will likely revert to less-creative but "safe" options (fighters autoattacking, casters spamming the "win" button).


3.5 casters have A Spell for That, which is almost always the optimal solution, and will likely be spammed because it will almost certainly work, while "creative" solutions may or may not be punished (depending on the DM and situation).

Agrippa
2012-03-02, 06:43 PM
If you're interested about what has traditionally been considered an appropriate power level and feel for D&D think of Glenn Cook's The Black (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackCompany) Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Company). That might explain a few things.

navar100
2012-03-02, 07:16 PM
In other words: Stormwind Fallacy

It's not outright saying having power means you can't roleplay, but it is what is meant. Slaying the dragon to save the princess is not much of a difference to slaying the orcs to save the mayor's daughter. It's just bigger numbers and flashier effects. You need creativity and cunning to do both. The bigger numbers and flashier effects are just fun to have after all that time beforehand of small numbers and mundane effects.

JCarter426
2012-03-02, 07:41 PM
I'd say it does, but I also believe the more defined your player character's abilities are, the less creative input or ingenuity is required on the part of the player. A character with a high ranks in hide/stealth/what have you will automatically succeed, while player who knows their character has no ranks in is likely to proceed with another course of action, without attempting to find anything that gives them a circumstantial bonus.

On the other hand, a lot of it depends on how the game is designed and run. It might take you a inventive leaps to realize that yes, you can resolve this dilemma by using your ranks in Profession (Gourmet Chef).

I think this is why video games get so much criticism over their mechanics; they're run by a computer, not a human being, so they're forced to have a set of rigid rules that don't always mesh with what goes on in a player's head.* So the games become more and more focused on combat, with less focus on the skill system, if it even exists. Player choices can also end up irrelevant because a lot of players don't like it when the game punishes them for making the "wrong" choice - or conversely, they'll base their choices on what rewards them the most, rather than consider the consequences of those choices in relation to the story.

But of course it also depends on the player - do you enjoy to crunch the numbers and develop an optimal build that will protect you in every crisis, or do you prefer to use your stats as more of a guideline and try to think things through on your own? I lean more towards the latter, so I end up not liking the more popular games.


*For example, when I was playing Arkham City, I tried to use explosive gel on sheets of ice to clear a path, but the game wouldn't let me because that "would be a very, very bad idea". I wasn't going to blow it up until I was at a safe distance, obviously. Don't tell me how to use my gadgets. I'm Batman.

kyoryu
2012-03-02, 07:46 PM
In other words: Stormwind Fallacy

It's not outright saying having power means you can't roleplay, but it is what is meant. Slaying the dragon to save the princess is not much of a difference to slaying the orcs to save the mayor's daughter. It's just bigger numbers and flashier effects. You need creativity and cunning to do both. The bigger numbers and flashier effects are just fun to have after all that time beforehand of small numbers and mundane effects.

No, not really.

It's just saying that if you have a simple, straightforward solution to problems that Always Works, there is less incentive to find creative solutions. That really has nothing to do with the Stormwind Fallacy.

ngilop
2012-03-02, 07:57 PM
wow, the whole 'cannot lose syndrome' has nothing at all to do with the stormwind fallacy, which is if you optimize then you are a poor roleplayer and if you are a good roleplayer then you are an atricous optimizer.

the two are not in the least bit related.

When you have at your disposal everything you need to win and know that you will not fail, then yes you ARE going to be less creative in going about accomplishing your ends.

where as if you only have a and b you have to imorovise and get very creative to meet the same results, this has nothing at all to do with how well one can roleplay or optimize their character.

Here is how I test that take your players through a bit more difficult than usual dungeon with teh bare necessaties( i.e if they are 4th take them through 5th level with 4th levelwealth) then run them through a lower level one with more than what they should have ( this time a 3rd level dugnen with 6th levle wealth) see which one they have more fun with and then you'll know what type of group you are playing with and can then gear your adventures towards that particular group.

I myself am fully int he former group. I do not want to start as a hero, I want to earn the right to be called a hero so overcoming adversity through bravery ( or stupidty) luck, and sheer force of awesomeness rather than oh hey everybody has stone daggers and I have plate armor and a sword that launches fireballs. but that is just me.

I have a friend who is the opposite, he wants to start out being billy baddass from the get go so the games he creates are like that, giant massacres of the bad guys. sort of like kung-fu movies where one guy manages to be down like 30-40 and come away with bruises..

there is nothing wrong with either way of playing. it just boils down to personal choice and playstyle.

navar100
2012-03-03, 01:28 AM
Alternatively, it's another way of crying "Munchkin!" Just because a player's character has POWR does not mean that's all he cares about or can deal with. There is no correlation to the power of a character and the player's ability to roleplay, be cunning, know tactics, spontaneously think of a solution to a sudden problem, or any other zero-sum scenario that auto-assumes the existence of the power takes away from some other ability that is holier than thou acceptable to have instead of POWR.

It is not a crime against humanity for a player character to be "powerful", and it is false to assume having such power is to mean the character and/or player must therefore be deficient in some other manner.

bloodtide
2012-03-03, 02:27 AM
It is not a crime against humanity for a player character to be "powerful", and it is false to assume having such power is to mean the character and/or player must therefore be deficient in some other manner.

It does come down to hard numbers. 25% of people can handle power and be just fine. However, 75% can't. It's that simple with everything in life. A small number of people are fine doing something, but most are not. But, of course, everyone will think they are in the 'special 25%'.

And it's basic enough: an uncreative, with no cunning player will almost automatically play a 'powerful' player. It's almost a rule. And it's very common in a game to give the player 'great power' and then watch them just fizzle.

Xuc Xac
2012-03-03, 02:56 AM
There is no correlation to the power of a character and the player's ability to roleplay, be cunning, know tactics, spontaneously think of a solution to a sudden problem, or any other zero-sum scenario that auto-assumes the existence of the power takes away from some other ability that is holier than thou acceptable to have instead of POWR.


No one here is saying that powerful characters can't think of clever solutions to problems. The issue is that powerful characters don't have to and so they usually don't.

GolemsVoice
2012-03-03, 03:10 AM
But as many people said, powerful characters must think cleverly when confronted to problems that are appropriate for them. As one poster said, if I am locked in a room and have nothing but what I find in the room, escaping it is no mean feat. If I can simply smash through the door, or teleport, escaping the roomis no real challenge. In this situation, the first character might have had to think very hard and be very clever, while the second character didn't have to think at all, but that just means that the challenge was not appropriate. Just like opening an unlocked door is a clever feat for a dog, but not for an ordinary human. But that doesn't mean that the human is incapable of comming up with clever solutions.

bloodtide
2012-03-03, 03:18 AM
But as many people said, powerful characters must think cleverly when confronted to problems that are appropriate for them. As one poster said, if I am locked in a room and have nothing but what I find in the room, escaping it is no mean feat. If I can simply smash through the door, or teleport, escaping the roomis no real challenge. In this situation, the first character might have had to think very hard and be very clever, while the second character didn't have to think at all, but that just means that the challenge was not appropriate. Just like opening an unlocked door is a clever feat for a dog, but not for an ordinary human. But that doesn't mean that the human is incapable of comming up with clever solutions.


I find this is often the other way around. Take a character that has a 'Superman' like character(that is lots of powerful abilities) and lock them in a room where they can't just 'easy use' their power to escape. They don't often get creative and think...they much more often just shut down.

And that is on top of when they feel all bad as if they are being personalty attacked. If the character has something like teleport or fire or whatever...it's not so amazing when the bad guy counters that. It makes sense really. Yet, a good chunk of players won't have fun with that experience. Then will just sit back and cross their arms and mumble that 'it's not fair they can't play their character'.

While the creative and cunning player will always make do with what they have...

Xuc Xac
2012-03-03, 03:54 AM
That's why making "appropriate challenges" for high level characters is so difficult. It often turns into something stupid like a low level challenge with all the numbers inflated to absurd proportions to match the character's higher level (i.e. level 20 is just level 2 with an extra zero).

Or, instead of making new challenges, the GM just takes away powers to keep the old challenges difficult by imposing bizarre conditions. For example, the "anti-magic zone" or "the bad guy's palace is warded against teleporting" or "the monster is coincidentally immune to all your best spells".

It's possible to create new challenges without resorting to these cheap tricks, but GMs and players come from the same pool of people and GMs are just as likely to be creatively lazy as players are.

SilverLeaf167
2012-03-03, 04:09 AM
It does come down to hard numbers. 25% of people can handle power and be just fine. However, 75% can't. It's that simple with everything in life. A small number of people are fine doing something, but most are not. But, of course, everyone will think they are in the 'special 25%'.

And it's basic enough: an uncreative, with no cunning player will almost automatically play a 'powerful' player. It's almost a rule. And it's very common in a game to give the player 'great power' and then watch them just fizzle.
I like the way you say "hard numbers" and then throw around arbitrary statistics. :smallannoyed:

And the second paragraph just doesn't make sense. Now (if I managed to interpret this right, assuming you referred to the character as a "player" as well), instead of claiming that power makes people play less creative characters, you're saying that uncreativity makes people play more powerful characters. This definitely isn't true. Actually, it's the opposite: an extremely uncreative player is the most likely to just play a straight Fighter and pick all the recommended (bad) feats, because he has no imagination with which to play or build a more complicated character.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in that last sentence, either. Players are given great power, which is then taken away? How is that related to this discussion at all?

GolemsVoice
2012-03-03, 04:20 AM
While the creative and cunning player will always make do with what they have...

Yes, you said it. Only that "what they have" can range from anything like a sixgun and some guts behind it to the power to punch people so hard that they are erased from time itself.

There is really little difference between an uncreative character with powers or without powers. Take for example WoD. The characters there are generally not on par with the (true) enemies, and that's intentionally. That doesn't stop people from playing Brujah and trying to beat every obstacle until it goes away instead of playing the game of intrigue and inner darkness that Vampire is supposed to be.
If you put an uncreative player with little power in a situation that doesn't offer an immediate solution, he will likely default to his preferred option (often enough violence), just like a high-powered uncreative player will. But a creative player will find workarounds with both situations.

Eldan
2012-03-03, 06:28 AM
Or take a look at game systems. I can be just as uncreative in PL20 Mutants and Masterminds than I can be in Call of Cthulhu.

I think people in this thread need to remember a crucial difference: absolute power level and relative power level.

No question: if you are much more powerful than your enemies (your relative power level is high), you don't have to be creative. No one is debating that. But that's just as true for a knight on horseback in plate armour and his bowman sidekick in the stone ages than it is for Superman vs. bankrobbers with handguns.

The question, however, seems to be about absolute power level. How much power you have in total. Can powerful people ever be creative? Does Superman ever need to think about how to use his powers? Are there any legitimate challenges for a powerful wizard?

I'd say yes, they are just more difficult to set up.

NinjaStylerobot
2012-03-03, 08:24 AM
Yes. Thats why people like e6.

Mastikator
2012-03-03, 09:22 AM
The thing about great power is that there comes a point where no tactic can win against an overwhelming opposing force. The more powerful you become, the more likely you are to adopt Xykon's philosophy on power. Who needs tactics, creativity and cunning when you can just blast every problem into specs of ash? The truth is that you don't need creativity and cunning when you have great enough power.

In short, power doesn't limit creativity and cunning, power makes it obsolete.

Edit-
Case in point What would Thor do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0073.html).

Second edit-
Also case in point BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA), BMX bandit thinks up a plan to defeat his foes using what little tools he has, in creative and cunning ways. But it's still easier to just summon a horde of angels.

Kuma Kode
2012-03-03, 09:48 AM
...you're saying that uncreativity makes people play more powerful characters. This definitely isn't true. Actually, it's the opposite: an extremely uncreative player is the most likely to just play a straight Fighter and pick all the recommended (bad) feats, because he has no imagination with which to play or build a more complicated character. This has been exactly my experience. The more creative a player, the more powerful their character tends to be because they can see all their options and figure out the best way to put them together. Even when they play a weak character, they did it intentionally because they liked the feel of the class or whatever. The less creative individuals I've played with have preferred simple characters with simple mechanics (usually passive modifiers or other such things so they just have to roll).


No question: if you are much more powerful than your enemies (your relative power level is high), you don't have to be creative. No one is debating that. But that's just as true for a knight on horseback in plate armour and his bowman sidekick in the stone ages than it is for Superman vs. bankrobbers with handguns. The question, however, seems to be about absolute power level. How much power you have in total. Can powerful people ever be creative? Does Superman ever need to think about how to use his powers? Are there any legitimate challenges for a powerful wizard? I'd say yes, they are just more difficult to set up. Powerful characters without a need for creativity seems to be more of the DM's fault than it is the players', in my experience. Like Eldan said, a poor challenge doesn't require creativity. Regardless of the power level, however, an appropriate or even overwhelming challenge does, but the DM needs to make sure that his tone and setting encourage creativity. If you set your players down in a square room with a monster in it and the door locks behind them, it becomes fairly obvious this is a "boss room" and you intend for them to fight it head on. If you intend for your party to blast through everything with their increasing powers, they pick up on the fact that you intend for your party to blast through everything.

If the DM encourages creativity, creative players will be creative. If a player is not creative, nothing is going to make them creative.

HunterOfJello
2012-03-03, 10:41 AM
I'll go with a less controversial claim:

Obvious optimal solutions limit the player's ability make interesting decisions.


I found this to be very true in a level 12 d&d game I was DMing. The vast majority of problems in the game were solved by the players using one of four solutions:

1. Kill EVERYTHING
2. Dominate Person ad infinitum
3. Mountain Hammer something for up to an entire week until you can break through that the stone wall, even if it is 50ft thick.
4. Teleport, teleport, teleport.

I'm not an extremely creative DM and I would try to set up different scenarios where other tactics were necessary by implementing different impediments, but the players got way too whiny about things in every single session that I gave up on trying to set up interesting situations at all.

Magical Wall that can't be destroyed by mountain hammer = whine for 3 minutes.
Person immune to mind affecting spells = whine for 2 minutes then start torturing.
Teleport doesn't work properly = whine for 2 minutes then teleport ad infinitum till it works.
Having the audacity to use a single anti-magic field in a dungeon in a situation that isn't even a difficult fight or isn't a fight at all (more often just a puzzle or trap room) = whine for 20 minutes about unfair game mechanics.

Note: I still don't understand why a person playing a Warblade / Bloodstorm Blade should be whining about an anti-magic field, they're pretty much the most powerful non-magic characters EVER.
~~~~~

Each group of players will have a proclivity for using creativity and cunning in their gameplay. Some players are devoid of real cunning and will have no interest of seeing in their games, while others will have a strong desire for it (whether they're good at it or not). It all depends on the group.

The above-mentioned group hated getting in situations that required creativity and cunning even if the situations were very open and had tons of possible solutions for. I learned from other DMs that it's best not to create solutions to problems in your campaign so that players can decide on their own ways to handle things. However, my players hated those too. They actually wanted to play Exalted characters in a fantasy environment but refused to learn a new system. [/end rant]

Siosilvar
2012-03-03, 10:42 AM
Yes. Thats why people like e6.

E6 is built to negate the ridiculous power of spellcasters as compared to other characters, not to reduce overall power. That's a side effect of how it was done.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-03, 10:46 AM
Great relative power does not limit creativity and cunning, but it makes it less necessary.

Let us say you have an "I Win" button. Once you press that button, you win. No matter what, no real consequences. In the course of normal events, you MAY come up with creative solutions to problems... but if you come up against something that stumps you, are you going to come up with a clever plan, or are you going to punch the consequence-free "I Win" button? A LOT of people are going to go with the button, especially if there are consequences for failing the "clever" route.

When storytelling someone with an "I Win" button, one of the main ways to make an interesting story is to take away their button, or make it not work. Superman runs into magic or Kryptonite, especially in older stories, because it gives him a reason to come up with something clever, instead of just punching the problem into the sun.

The other option, from a story perspective, is to ramp up the opposition, so they no longer have great relative power. Superman v. General Zod is a great example of this. They're both Kryptonians, so power is about the same. Zod has more military experience, which gives him an edge. Superman has to struggle to win = story. Superman beats up normal human muggers = anecdote.

Autolykos
2012-03-03, 10:49 AM
No. Poor balance does limit creativity. People are lazy - they don't look for a second solution if they have one that seems to work. In combat-heavy games like D&D, this solution is usually violence/brute force. Only when this solution fails (or just seems highly unlikely to succeed), will the players look for other ways.
But the GM has to provide ways to be creative. Adding lots of detail works, but can slow down play and get boring for the DM if the players never seem to do anything with it. Blackjack's guide to bitter gamemastering (http://free.of.pl/h/hiro/rpg/srun/srbjbitter.pdf) covers this (Chapter: "Say something!"). His suggestion is to let the players use stuff that wasn't explicitly described but is still likely to be there (like crates in a warehouse or a paperweight in an office). Some description will still be necessary (beyond "It's a square 20x20' room with two doors and brick walls"), but it will cut down a lot on describing useless stuff.
The other common source of this problem is a GM that trained his players to accept railroading. If original solutions tend to get punished more often than rewarded, players will stop using them. A GM needs to accept that his players can outsmart him, and should still be fair (or, in very extreme cases, say: "Ok, you've got me there, but doing that will completely wreck the campaign. Please don't.").
In one of our early Shadowrun campaigns our hacker had a knack for doing stuff like this (well, what would you expect?). We joked that he could probably get the target for a kidnapping mailed to his basement without ever leaving his chair. One of our GMs (we rotated frequently) got extremely paranoid about him, and soon the Donut Shop 'round the corner had security ratings well beyond what would be expected for top secret government data. Wasn't necessary though, I could keep him in line with reasonable levels combined with clever system design (but I had a better understanding of matrix rules than the GM and wasn't trying to compete with the players).
However, a paranoid and competitive GM will probably actively try to limit options (sometimes by inflating stats way beyond plausible, sometimes by flat out forbidding) so he won't be surprised as much.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-03, 11:01 AM
In short, power doesn't limit creativity and cunning, power makes it obsolete.

This is only true is if you have overwhelming power in relation to your opposition. Power is very much a matter of circumstance and comparison.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-03, 12:15 PM
Power can only really be talked about in terms of imbalances, however. Two entities of equal power do not have a power imbalance; two characters a level apart have only a slight one (in linear advancement). When your Civ is running Mechanized Infantry against the other Civ's Spearmen, however, you've got a power imbalance.

Take, for example, Rifts. It can be played a ludicrously high levels of power... "Godling" is an OCC, and you can make Cthulhu with rules in the books, and use him as a PC. However, if EVERYONE is playing Cthulhu, and your opposition is Cthulhu, you have a) a very confusing game and b) one that is less about personal power.

bloodtide
2012-03-03, 12:32 PM
Power can only really be talked about in terms of imbalances, however. Two entities of equal power do not have a power imbalance; two characters a level apart have only a slight one (in linear advancement). When your Civ is running Mechanized Infantry against the other Civ's Spearmen, however, you've got a power imbalance.


Well, I'd point out two types of power relevant to this discussion. Power 1-the simple power to do things to change the world. Power 2-the ability to use power 1 creativity and with cunning.

It's easy to get power type 1, that's just in the game rules. Anyone can read the rules and pick out the powerful stuff. But it's power 2 that is the far more important power.

Ye old game example: Character has 'super telekinesis' that can move mountains. In the course of the adventure they get locked in a prison cell by the Bad Guy. And the Bad Guy: "Haha, the door to your cell is made from anti-telekiesium, so your power won't effect it!". Player thinks about this for a minute, then puts his head down and walks away from the game mumbling how 'unfair' it is. A perfect example of a powerful character, but uncreative player. The player can only use the telekinesis for fairly straight forward things; picking up mountains, throwing foes around and such. But when locked in a room with a door they can't effect with their power, they just shut down. The creative way out of the cell is obvious to the more creative player: only the door is made of anti-telekiesium. (Now granted the player did assume that the Bad Guy said 'the door and the whole world', even though the Bad Guy did say 'anti-telekiesium door' three times(and granted 'door' and 'world' do sound alike) so that is why the player felt bad and walked out of the game. And maybe the Bad Guy did have another tick or two up their sleeve; but the point is that the player did not even try, they simply walked away from the game.

navar100
2012-03-03, 05:43 PM
I find this is often the other way around. Take a character that has a 'Superman' like character(that is lots of powerful abilities) and lock them in a room where they can't just 'easy use' their power to escape. They don't often get creative and think...they much more often just shut down.

And that is on top of when they feel all bad as if they are being personalty attacked. If the character has something like teleport or fire or whatever...it's not so amazing when the bad guy counters that. It makes sense really. Yet, a good chunk of players won't have fun with that experience. Then will just sit back and cross their arms and mumble that 'it's not fair they can't play their character'.

While the creative and cunning player will always make do with what they have...

That's the point. It's all about the player, not the character. A creative and cunning player who has a character that does have teleport and the ability to smash through walls will think of another solution to escape when captured and teleporting and smashing through walls aren't available. Why are you assuming just because the player's character has teleport and smashing through walls will shut-down because those options aren't available or rather most players? That is a false assumption to make. You really think the majority of players are that ignorant?

Lamech
2012-03-03, 10:49 PM
Anyone played minecraft? Depending on the mode you use you have vastly different levels of power to build things. Map editing software makes the difference even larger. I for one would never have built a lot of the things I did in survival if I had creative all the time. On the other hand people can manage things that would be absurdly difficult to pull off in survival mode via creative.

So yes, I certainly say that power effects creativity, you won't come up with a lot of things that you might if you were much more limited. On the other hand if you were more powerful you can come up with ideas that couldn't be pulled off if you were more limited.

bloodtide
2012-03-04, 01:15 AM
That's the point. It's all about the player, not the character.

Of course we are talking about the players, why would we be talking about anything else?




A creative and cunning player who has a character that does have teleport and the ability to smash through walls will think of another solution to escape when captured and teleporting and smashing through walls aren't available.

Right. I'm not saying that all players are like this, just most are; and yes some are creative and cunning.



Why are you assuming just because the player's character has teleport and smashing through walls will shut-down because those options aren't available or rather most players? That is a false assumption to make. You really think the majority of players are that ignorant?

I just base it on my experience with thousands of players and common sense. The common sense should be common and easy enough: take any group of people doing anything 25% will be great at it, 50% will be ok and 25% will be poor at it. This is just the way life is.

And I'm not even saying most players will 'shut down', I was just giving one example of one player.

Very few players, only 25% are creative at all, the rest are not so much. Yes I know this sounds harsh, but really the idea that 'everyone is special and perfect' is not just wrong, but it's dangerous. It's true, not everyone is creative. Not everyone thinks that way. Creativity, like any talent, is not something that everyone has equally. So the vast majority of players won't be all that creative no matter what 'power level' of character they are playing.

But, great power does hurt the middle folks(the 50% of average players). When you have great power, you don't need to think or problem solve as much and can just 'sit back and relax'. When a player does not need to try and does not have a challenge, they very often just zone out. Then when problems do come up, they can't deal with them.

And with great power comes getting too comfortable. If you have a power play that works...then you just do that, again and again and again. And it's fine, as it does work, but it will soon get boring for everyone.(A great example here is Voltron. You know they will destroy the ro-beast with the blazing sword every single time, in every single show. So you have the great power of Voltron and no creativity.)

Great power can also limit role-playing. Teleport is the classic example here. Where a character just teleports around and can ignore the world. They can almost ignore the whole world and teleport past everything, including the plot. (Classic example-LofR would have been a five page short story/five minute movie if it was:Gandaf and Frodo fly on giant owl over to Mt. Doom and drop ring in.)

So yes you can be both creative and powerful....but that is very rare.

SilverLeaf167
2012-03-04, 03:43 AM
Of course we are talking about the players, why would we be talking about anything else?

Right. I'm not saying that all players are like this, just most are; and yes some are creative and cunning.

I just base it on my experience with thousands of players and common sense. The common sense should be common and easy enough: take any group of people doing anything 25% will be great at it, 50% will be ok and 25% will be poor at it. This is just the way life is.

-snip, snip-

Great power can also limit role-playing. Teleport is the classic example here. Where a character just teleports around and can ignore the world. They can almost ignore the whole world and teleport past everything, including the plot. (Classic example-LofR would have been a five page short story/five minute movie if it was:Gandaf and Frodo fly on giant owl over to Mt. Doom and drop ring in.)

So yes you can be both creative and powerful....but that is very rare.
Yes, we are, technically, supposed to be talking about players, yet most arguments here are based on the power of the character, not the person playing him. Thus, this thread is somewhat paradoxal, until we accept that a character's power and the player's creativity are largely unrelated.

I'll just accept the fact that you like flinging around arbitrary statistics, but... what do you mean "experience with thousands of players"? I'll assume this is supposed to mean you've read plenty of gaming stuff and rants, because I really don't think you've actually played with thousands of different players, at least not intimately enough to get to know them.

Also, that LotR example is somewhat flawed: it's not that they were powerless and thus had to improvise. They did have the power to just fly there, but didn't, for whatever reason. Having no power and not using it are two very different things.

I agree on the general idea that a powerful character simply needs different challenges, and I haven't really met anyone who just locks down like that when his basic trick doesn't work. You wouldn't throw CR1 monsters at an epic character, right? So why would you throw doors or travel at a teleporter, who is obviously capable of ignoring them?

GolemsVoice
2012-03-04, 08:38 AM
And with great power comes getting too comfortable. If you have a power play that works...then you just do that, again and again and again. And it's fine, as it does work, but it will soon get boring for everyone.(A great example here is Voltron. You know they will destroy the ro-beast with the blazing sword every single time, in every single show. So you have the great power of Voltron and no creativity.)

That's the flaw of the show and it's writers, not the flaw of power per se. I haven't seen the show, but it seems that the good guys had a weapon of great power, but no challenge that was adequate for them. But that's like making an adventure for normal folks that consists of them outsmarting children.

Again, you make your examples by taking very high-powered characters and putting them in low-powered situations. Nobody would argue that these situations can limit creativity, because you just have to use your "special thing" and win.

It may very well be more difficukt to adequately challenge very high-powered players (eventually, I'd say it becomes next to impossible without taking away their special thing, which then kinda defeats the purpose) but that doesn't neccessarily limit creativity.

Terazul
2012-03-04, 10:30 AM
So yes, I certainly say that power effects creativity, you won't come up with a lot of things that you might if you were much more limited. On the other hand if you were more powerful you can come up with ideas that couldn't be pulled off if you were more limited.

...that's not affecting creativity so much as "reasonable options" given there are things you would build in survival but not creative (needing them vs not needing them), and things you'd build in creative (access to are blocks/expensive components) and not in survival. In both instances the person is being creative, they just have different tools to work with and subsequently develop different plans of action.

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, if someone has an "I Win" button, and there is no reason not to use it, that's not a matter of lost creativity, that's a matter of being efficient (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). If you give them a reason not to use it or a situation in which it does not apply, they will then come up with something else, though some people take longer than others and get "stuck" for awhile.

Furthermore, a lot of this stuff (in addition to being anecdotal and having arbitrary percentages in a number of posts) is about the player's creativity, not the character's. Most of my gaming circle, for example is very creative. They'll come up with a solution whether they're McGuyver or Galactus, with solutions ranging from "hotwire this car with a hockey stick" to "kick the planet through the sun" depending on the problem presented. Though there are two people within that group who do in fact get into the "shut down" mode, and always take the direct approach even when they have other options to begin with, because they aren't really analytical like that, and would rather just hit some guy with a hammer while D and I turn the loom of fate into a chessboard. But no, they hardly account for "most"/"25% of"/"<arbitrary number>" of players. It's really an individual thing, not something you can make an (accurate) sweeping generalization about.

However, power most often than not results in greater number of possible options one can take that will result in the desired outcome, thereby offering a larger number of creative solutions to begin with. Someone may (choose to) focus on one to the exclusion of all others because it's less fuss or personal preference, but that's not the power's fault, nor a direct result of its inclusion (unless you're dealing with something wildly below its power level, which is a different problem entirely). So no, power doesn't limit creativity (in general), a person's own creativity (or lack thereof), and problems set against inappropriately high power levels do.

bloodtide
2012-03-04, 04:24 PM
Yes, we are, technically, supposed to be talking about players, yet most arguments here are based on the power of the character, not the person playing him. Thus, this thread is somewhat paradoxal, until we accept that a character's power and the player's creativity are largely unrelated.

There is a relation. The vast number of players are not that creative and will never be, that is just who they are as people. But for the ones that have the potential for creativity, great power snuffs it out. The players have the great power win button they will just use it. If the player has to think up of things(and they are an untapped creative type person) then they can grow and become creative.



I'll just accept the fact that you like flinging around arbitrary statistics, but... what do you mean "experience with thousands of players"? I'll assume this is supposed to mean you've read plenty of gaming stuff and rants, because I really don't think you've actually played with thousands of different players, at least not intimately enough to get to know them.

Well, I run a couple home games and have been gaming for years. Plus I work at the local game shop, so it's safe to say I've met at least a couple thousand players. I'm not sure what you mean by 'intimately', we just game for a couple hours. We don't trade life stories or anything(unless your just talking about the psychobabble idea that no one can know anyone and everyone is a deep mystery).



Also, that LotR example is somewhat flawed: it's not that they were powerless and thus had to improvise. They did have the power to just fly there, but didn't, for whatever reason. Having no power and not using it are two very different things.

Note my LotR was an example of how a player, with a great power character would just hit the 'win' button and not have to play the game, experience anything or get creative. Take LotR as a D&D adventure: archmage/archangel and halfling must destroy the ring. So they hop onto the giant owl, drop the ring into Mt. Doom and they are done. That is an example of great power bleaching out everything else.



I agree on the general idea that a powerful character simply needs different challenges, and I haven't really met anyone who just locks down like that when his basic trick doesn't work. You wouldn't throw CR1 monsters at an epic character, right? So why would you throw doors or travel at a teleporter, who is obviously capable of ignoring them?

I can say I've met lots of players that shut down when things don't go there way....and almost always they are players with characters with great power. To use another example: Player had a great 'dragonslayer' build and asked to have me run a Dragonslaying game. So we got together some players and did so. Though the dragonslayer player did not make it past the first couple minutes of the game. The problem: the first dragon they encountered flew. The dragonslayer player's build was all about walking up to a dragon and getting his full attack(in his other game the DM always had the dragons walk over and fight the characters claw to sword). There were at least a dozen things the player could have done, but the one they chose was to cry 'unfair' and simply walk away from the game.



It may very well be more difficult to adequately challenge very high-powered players (eventually, I'd say it becomes next to impossible without taking away their special thing, which then kinda defeats the purpose) but that doesn't necessarily limit creativity.

When you get very high powered, it only gets worse. The more high power a character has, the less creativity a player has. The basic problem here is that the players only see two levels of power: dirt poor and awesome. So when they have an awesome character they expect everything to be easy. And when things are not easy, they just shut down or stop the game to argue about the rules. Easy example here:In an Epic game, the players could not teleport right into the evil kings bed room and kill him in his sleep. And stop the game: a player demanded to see, in the printed rules where it said the evil king had anti-teleport wards. His argument was that unless page 101 of the rules said so, then they could just teleport in and kill the evil king.

GolemsVoice
2012-03-04, 04:38 PM
There is a relation. The vast number of players are not that creative and will never be, that is just who they are as people. But for the ones that have the potential for creativity, great power snuffs it out. The players have the great power win button they will just use it. If the player has to think up of things(and they are an untapped creative type person) then they can grow and become creative.

Again, you're stating this like a fact despite numerous examples of the opposite. If I have an IWIN button, I'll press it, no matter my powerlevel. But the point is, NO MATTER WHAT POWERLEVEL, and I emphasize this again, no matter what powerlevel, if the challenge you face is ADEQUATE to your powerlevel, your power is no IWIN button. Because that's what adequate challenge means. If your power, at any powerlevel, IS an IWIN button, that the challenge is per definition not adequate.

Superman might be invulnerable to mundane bullets, but superman stories aren't about how he stopped a robbery once where he did get shot and didn't care. Just like Lord of the Rings isn't about two Hobbits who successfully eleminated a rat infestation of their burrow.

Again, and this has been said several times now, it's easy to insert high-powered characters into low-powered situations and claim that these characters (and their players) wouldn't need to think much. Because that's true. But only for the situation you have constructed, and this situation isn't tied to any specific powerlevel.

TuggyNE
2012-03-04, 06:06 PM
Note my LotR was an example of how a player, with a great power character would just hit the 'win' button and not have to play the game, experience anything or get creative. Take LotR as a D&D adventure: archmage/archangel and halfling must destroy the ring. So they hop onto the giant owl, drop the ring into Mt. Doom and they are done. That is an example of great power bleaching out everything else.

Let's look at this example a little closer; I've seen it used a number of times, but I'm not sure it actually indicates what one might think. In particular, the reason for the low-key infiltration was precisely to avoid Sauron's armies and Nazgul. Flying on a giant eagle (what's with the owl idea, anyway?) would not necessarily have worked, since it would have been fairly simple for him to block off all access to the mountain once he knew they were coming. (And he was obviously able to track Gandalf at least.)

Assuming Gandalf had teleport or similar, couldn't they have simply hopped on in that way? Probably not, because Sauron would logically have put up anti-teleportation wards in order to keep from being scried-and-fried. (The fact that in D&D 3.5 one of the best spells for this purpose would also have done damage to the hobbits on the way in is largely incidental.)

In other words, what this example really shows is that great power that is not opposed by great challenges is boring; great power against great challenges is exhilarating; low power against great challenges is terrifyingly difficult. It does not show that great power reduces creativity, not even by extension.

bloodtide
2012-03-04, 08:26 PM
Again, you're stating this like a fact despite numerous examples of the opposite. If I have an IWIN button, I'll press it, no matter my powerlevel. But the point is, NO MATTER WHAT POWERLEVEL, and I emphasize this again, no matter what powerlevel, if the challenge you face is ADEQUATE to your powerlevel, your power is no IWIN button. Because that's what adequate challenge means. If your power, at any powerlevel, IS an IWIN button, that the challenge is per definition not adequate.


What?

Part one: If a player is not creative, the power level does not matter. So no matter what, the player simply is not the creative type. Some people are creative, and some people are not.

Part two: If a player is creative, great power can stifle, dull and destroy a players creativity. Not all creative players, but it's common enough.

So if a player's character has great power, and is then confronted with an adequate challenge, they won't be able to use that power to over come the challenge.

Terazul
2012-03-04, 09:09 PM
What?

Part one: If a player is not creative, the power level does not matter. So no matter what, the player simply is not the creative type. Some people are creative, and some people are not.

Correct.



Part two: If a player is creative, great power can stifle, dull and destroy a players creativity. Not all creative players, but it's common enough.

So if a player's character has great power, and is then confronted with an adequate challenge, they won't be able to use that power to over come the challenge.

This has yet to be proven in any sense of the word.

bloodtide
2012-03-05, 12:21 AM
This has yet to be proven in any sense of the word.

I'm not sure what you'd want as 'proof'. I can only tell you what I have experienced, I can't run an international double blind study of RPG players.

But I could suggest somethings to 'get proof'. Gather up at least 20 players, so you can make at least 4 or 5 groups. Make sure each player has a character with great power, and then run all the games for at least several sessions over several weeks. And see what happens. Now, for it to work best i'd suggest that you not tell the players about it (''Ok you all have powerful characters so I can judge you and get proof''), but just play the games normally.

You could do some 'quick polls', but they won't be as accurate. For example: Ask what a player in a game would wish for if they had a free wish. See how many 'creative' answers you get. You could also do a 'create a spell, PsC or such contest. And see what kinds of 'creative' stuff you'd get. Granted this will only give you how vaguely creative people are and won't really answer the main question.

Or maybe we could do some 'Pop Quiz, Hot Shot' posts. Give out a character of great power and a problem to solve. Then ask for solutions. Then see the number of creative solutions.

To leave another 'creative player that has dulled creativity by super power' Example: Arotho. This was a character that could assume any shape. And the player was very creative in shapechanging all the time....in combat. He had a whole stack of index cards sorted by abilities and such. Until we came to the part of game play where the group needed to sneak into the city. An Arotho, who could shapechange at will, never even thought to use that ability to sneak into the city. Instead he spent lots of time getting himself a cloak and a hat of disguise. After the game everyone asked 'why did you not just shapechange and sneak in?' and the player was shocked. He had no idea he could do that. He could assume any shape, but he never considered that he could be 'sneaky or deceptive' with that ability.

navar100
2012-03-05, 12:36 AM
So was the problem due to having the ability to shapechange itself or the player unable to think outside the box? Some people have been arguing it's the shapechange. It's not. It's the player.

Terazul
2012-03-05, 12:39 AM
...So a single character (player) who was very creative all the time with his powers was thinking too hard about game mechanics once, and this somehow shows that power limits creativity all the time? :smallconfused: I'm not even sure how that follows. If the player isn't the type to be sneaky or deceptive to begin with, I could understand him skipping that train of thought. But it in no way shows that


So if a player's character has great power, and is then confronted with an adequate challenge, they won't be able to use that power to over come the challenge.

That's patently absurd, because the ability to shapechange wasn't what made him forget he could be sneaky. I got eaten by a T-Rex once as a Shaper Psion/Constructor. My first thought wasn't "make the biggest Astral Construct I can" even though that was my specialization, it was "grow a tree in its mouth". The fact that I had the option to certainly helped in me devising my escape. Also that time I dug out of an avalanche with ectoplasmic walls of fire. The power itself gave me options, so I could afford to be creative. But this is more anecdotal stuff, and as you can see, it gets us nowhere.

Like, you keep saying, "if you give people power, they won't be creative with it!" to which I go, Why, and you say "because power limits creativity!". It's circular reasoning. Alternatively, it's "most people aren't that creative", which is both a sweeping generalization with no real basis other than you say so, and also just goes to show that power itself has nothing to do with it and is completely tangential to the question. Like really, who makes a "dragonslayer" that can't deal with things that fly?

GolemsVoice
2012-03-05, 02:20 AM
You could do some 'quick polls', but they won't be as accurate. For example: Ask what a player in a game would wish for if they had a free wish. See how many 'creative' answers you get. You could also do a 'create a spell, PsC or such contest. And see what kinds of 'creative' stuff you'd get. Granted this will only give you how vaguely creative people are and won't really answer the main question.

Why should I be creative when you ask such a question? If you'd ask a D&D fighter, or it's player, it'll probably wish for a good item, ore some bonus to strength. Creative? No. Useful? Yes.Theres just no need to be creative.

And I'd advise you to check the Homebrew forum if you think that people aren't very creative when it comes to anything.

But hey, I've got a friend who, no matter the powerlevel, is always incredibly creative with his class/template combos in D&D. So here's a story that proves that high power does not limit creativity to balance your story of how it does out. Does that make it wrong what you said, and me right? Or is the person right who can tell more anecdotal stories.

It's also fun to see how your initial post stated an opinion and asked for comments, whereas now you're just stating your theory as a fact.

Knaight
2012-03-05, 03:29 AM
Why should I be creative when you ask such a question? If you'd ask a D&D fighter, or it's player, it'll probably wish for a good item, ore some bonus to strength. Creative? No. Useful? Yes.Theres just no need to be creative.
I'm starting to wonder if the definition of "creative" in use involves mandatory inefficiency. Because, really, creativity is not a good thing when it takes the form of willfully ignoring good options for its own sake.

TuggyNE
2012-03-05, 03:50 AM
I'm starting to wonder if the definition of "creative" in use involves mandatory inefficiency. Because, really, creativity is not a good thing when it takes the form of willfully ignoring good options for its own sake.

True art must not be repressed!

No, but seriously, it would be good to clarify the definition of creativity here. Are we talking about creative problem-solving, creative role-playing, creative character building, or what? And what distinguishes creativity from min-maxing or even munchkinism on the one hand, or Chaotic Random shenanigans on the other?

Slipperychicken
2012-03-05, 11:55 AM
True art must not be repressed!

No, but seriously, it would be good to clarify the definition of creativity here. Are we talking about creative problem-solving, creative role-playing, creative character building, or what? And what distinguishes creativity from min-maxing or even munchkinism on the one hand, or Chaotic Random shenanigans on the other?

To me, it seems like the thread is talking about problem-solving. 'Creativity' or 'Cunning' in this sense, is the use of unexpected or lateral thinking to achieve objectives.


Power creates more-efficient avenues to solving some problems. No need to Macgyver your way past a river when you can fly or jump it. No need to blow precious points/time/noise on lockpicking when you can batter the door down, cast Knock, or pour an Acid Flask on it. The difficulty of a problem comes in relation to ones resources, and should be created with those powers in mind. Otherwise, the problem (too weak) risks being steamrolled, in which case Cunning solutions usually aren't as efficient, or (too strong) defeating the players, in which case cunning wouldn't be useful anyway.

bloodtide
2012-03-05, 01:29 PM
...So a single character (player) who was very creative all the time with his powers was thinking too hard about game mechanics once, and this somehow shows that power limits creativity all the time?

an example is just that, an example. I'm simply giving an example of how great power can limit creativity.



Like, you keep saying, "if you give people power, they won't be creative with it!" to which I go, Why, and you say "because power limits creativity!". It's circular reasoning.

This is not circular reasoning. I have plenty of facts and examples to back up my statement, plus common sense. Saying that something is 'circular reasoning' just as you don't like it is not helpful.



Alternatively, it's "most people aren't that creative", which is both a sweeping generalization with no real basis other than you say so, and also just goes to show that power itself has nothing to do with it and is completely tangential to the question. Like really, who makes a "dragonslayer" that can't deal with things that fly?

Most people are not creative, this is a basic fact of life. Are there more creative people in the world(artists, writers, and so on) or more fans? Power, has nothing to do with it if your either not creative or very creative, but great power hurts the average people in the middle.

And my Dragonslayer is a great example. You think it's crazy that the player did not think of how to deal with the flight of a dragon. And it is. But this is my point:most people are just like the dragonslayer player, they don't think so creatively. And you can see this all the time in the game.



No, but seriously, it would be good to clarify the definition of creativity here. Are we talking about creative problem-solving, creative role-playing, creative character building, or what? And what distinguishes creativity from min-maxing or even munchkinism on the one hand, or Chaotic Random shenanigans on the other?

We talking about creative problem-solving and creative use of ones abilities.


To me, it seems like the thread is talking about problem-solving. 'Creativity' or 'Cunning' in this sense, is the use of unexpected or lateral thinking to achieve objectives.

Agreed.


To give yet another example, and this example will represent hundreds of gamers as it's general and not about just one person:

It's a common held belief in D&D that 'lower level spells suck' and 'higher level spells are awesome' for spellcasters. So it's common for a great many players to simply ignore all of there spells of under 4th level once they get higher level spells. The player will have the pages and index cards for spell levels 5 to 9 right on the table, and nothing else.

I would think that anyone who has played D&D for more then a day will have run into a player that thinks this way. It is very common.

Specific example, of one player, just two weeks ago. While sneaking into a castle, they found the way blocked by a locked bar gate, though the guard on the other side they took out did have the key around his neck. They need to keep quiet so they could not do anything noisy. The wizard player has already used up his telekinesis, and thinks 'lower level spells suck'. The group could not get through the gate quietly and had to find another way in. You might guess where this is going, of course. The wizard did have mage's hand and could have easily got the key. But the player was blinded by the powerful spells. Unless he could use a powerful spell, he felt that he could do nothing.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-03-05, 02:18 PM
To give yet another example, and this example will represent hundreds of gamers as it's general and not about just one person:

It's a common held belief in D&D that 'lower level spells suck' and 'higher level spells are awesome' for spellcasters. So it's common for a great many players to simply ignore all of there spells of under 4th level once they get higher level spells. The player will have the pages and index cards for spell levels 5 to 9 right on the table, and nothing else.

I would think that anyone who has played D&D for more then a day will have run into a player that thinks this way. It is very common.

Anyone who plays a wizard who forgets his low-level spells is not playing his wizard to his full potential. The people getting the most mileage out of their casters are the ones who keep their lower-level slots in mind: A caster with 9th level spells might only use his 9th-, 8th-, and 7th-level spells offensively, but the reason high-level wizards are so powerful is that they have enough slots to blow through encounters with their highest-level slots and still have enough low-level slots available to keep their mirror image, bear's endurance, cat's grace, mage armor, nondetection, protection from evil, and other buff spells active all day. And of course there's the issue that if you use a lower-level slot to overcome a challenge instead of a higher-level one, you have more "good spells" remaining, so wizards who ignore the low levels further weaken themselves even if they're not the self-buffing sort.

So if your groups believe that "low-level spells suck" they'd probably end up being more creative than the norm, because their spellcasters wouldn't be buffed to Baator and back and they'd run out of their most powerful spells faster than necessary, forcing them to be creative about self-defense and problem solving. In the four long-term groups I've played with, casters have been creative with their low-level powers and buffed to the gills, generally speaking, because they're the sort to hoard higher-level spells for emergencies and try to use the lowest-level spell they possibly can to solve a particular problem. They cheer when a combination of silent image, ghost sound, cause fear, alchemist's fire, and Intimidate succeeds in convincing their foes that they've turned into a dragon and makes them run away, and groan when the bluff fails and they actually have to break out the polymorph or shapechange.

Once again, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

huttj509
2012-03-05, 02:59 PM
Once again, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Actually, it kinda is, IF the anecdotes are properly rigorous and documented. I mean, reading a scientific paper from someone telling me what he did is not particularly less anecdotal than him telling me what he did, except that it's more likely to involve enough information to know how pertinent numbers were obtained.

It's one thing to say "75% of people are not creative," but it's another to state the sample size you took, how you obtained it, and what test you gave to arrive at those numbers.

The "it's obvious" theorem didn't work for my middle school geometry proofs either (we had to state for each step WHY that step mathematically followed the previous one, guess what we tried when we couldn't think of a name?).

Now, IF it's agreed that lower power can FORCE creativity and cunning to overcome an obstacle, does it follow that the lack of the forcing factor limits the creativity? I say no, not forcing the player to be creative is not the same as limiting it, but there may be some talking past each other going on there.

Terazul
2012-03-05, 03:07 PM
Yeah there's probably a lot of talking past, given he keeps asserting that:



Most people are not creative, this is a basic fact of life.

Which no, it isn't. He keeps trying to take "the people I play with are uncreative" and trying to extrapolate it to "Most people". You can't go from a particular to a universal like that. Furthermore, if they're uncreative to begin with, it doesn't matter what power level you give them, they'll still be uncreative. It's moot.

So, yeah. Can't really have an argument when you're not on the same footing, let alone the same plane.

GolemsVoice
2012-03-05, 03:32 PM
I'd agree that most people aren't "successful artist" creative, but that doesn't mean they can't craft an interesting and multi-facetted character in any system.

After all, not being incredibly creative doesn't imply the opposite.

PairO'Dice Lost
2012-03-05, 04:31 PM
Actually, it kinda is, IF the anecdotes are properly rigorous and documented. I mean, reading a scientific paper from someone telling me what he did is not particularly less anecdotal than him telling me what he did, except that it's more likely to involve enough information to know how pertinent numbers were obtained.

There's a reason the phrase "anecdotal evidence" refers to "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts." As Terazul noted, bloodtide is trying to generalize his particular experiences to universal statements without giving any reasoning for why that would hold in the general RPing populace.

So far, we have some evidence for the positions "player creativity is most important", "power can influence creativity, but it isn't always negative", and "creativity shouldn't mean deliberately ignoring efficient solutions", but only tenuous justification for the position "the majority of RPers are uncreative and can't handle power"--if bloodtide wants to convince people that his hypothesis holds, he'll need more than "this particular player was uncreative in this particular instance thanks to having this particular kind of power."

bloodtide
2012-03-05, 07:43 PM
Which no, it isn't. He keeps trying to take "the people I play with are uncreative" and trying to extrapolate it to "Most people". You can't go from a particular to a universal like that. Furthermore, if they're uncreative to begin with, it doesn't matter what power level you give them, they'll still be uncreative. It's moot.


Ok, well my 'sample of people' is just players of the midwest USA. So maybe it's just that area has uncreative players. So if your from another area I guess you can say and believe that all the players around your area are creative.

Now I take my sample and do apply it to the bigger world with common sense. I know that most people are not creative, as obviously not everyone is creative.

And you can also say that as every player you know is creative then all players and all people everywhere must be creative as well(though it's odd as not every single person on the planet is a creative artist making millions of dollars..)

Kuma Kode
2012-03-05, 08:21 PM
Ok, well my 'sample of people' is just players of the midwest USA. I highly doubt you've played extensively with everyone in the Midwest. I've played with the Eastern USA and they're all fairly creative with one or three exceptions.


I know that most people are not creative, as obviously not everyone is creative. If you're trolling, you're doing a good job. If not, then you should be made aware this is a big leap in logic. This is like saying "Not everyone is female, so most people aren't. Not everyone likes cake or ice cream, so most people don't. Not everyone can eat peanuts without dying, so most people can't."

One issue that I do see in your logic is that creativity appears to be a binary quality. You're either creative, or you're not. This simply isn't how things work, as shown by the wide variety of "creativity" and what it means. Some people are particularly good at being creative in some ways, but not in others. Being a good visual artist doesn't mean you're a creative problem solver. Just because a person can create a fictional world in their head doesn't mean they can figure out how to replace parts of their car with household appliances. "Creative" is not an all-encompassing, binary trait. The issue here may very well be that you're looking for a very particular kind of "creative" that might very well be rare in the population, but you're using a very broad term to define it.

Try telling us a little bit more about what kind of "creative" you mean.

Knaight
2012-03-05, 10:12 PM
I would think that anyone who has played D&D for more then a day will have run into a player that thinks this way. It is very common.

Specific example, of one player, just two weeks ago. While sneaking into a castle, they found the way blocked by a locked bar gate, though the guard on the other side they took out did have the key around his neck. They need to keep quiet so they could not do anything noisy. The wizard player has already used up his telekinesis, and thinks 'lower level spells suck'. The group could not get through the gate quietly and had to find another way in. You might guess where this is going, of course. The wizard did have mage's hand and could have easily got the key. But the player was blinded by the powerful spells. Unless he could use a powerful spell, he felt that he could do nothing.
Failing to read your mind is not an indication of lack of creativity. I'd consider not using the solution you proposed sensible, as that solution is terrible on many levels. The guard is going to notice the key just sort of float up above him, and be able to snatch it, with the position of the characters completely blown. Moreover, you just stated that they found another way in, which means they used a solution you hadn't thought of. That is creative.

This also explains the "most people aren't creative" opinion, as "most people come to different solutions than I do when being creative" is the sort of statement that is much more reasonable, and seems to be closer to the case, given your examples so far. It's sloppy reasoning to conflate the two, but it is also sloppy reasoning to conflate "creative" and "successful artistically" given how many skills other than creativity play into the second example, so sloppy reasoning is entirely plausible.

bloodtide
2012-03-06, 02:15 PM
If you're trolling, you're doing a good job. If not, then you should be made aware this is a big leap in logic. This is like saying "Not everyone is female, so most people aren't. Not everyone likes cake or ice cream, so most people don't. Not everyone can eat peanuts without dying, so most people can't."

I'm not a troll, I just have a different view point. I can't stand the psychobabble idea that every single person is a special snowflake. Sure it sounds nice and make people feel good, but it's just not true.




One issue that I do see in your logic is that creativity appears to be a binary quality. You're either creative, or you're not. This simply isn't how things work, as shown by the wide variety of "creativity" and what it means. Some people are particularly good at being creative in some ways, but not in others. Being a good visual artist doesn't mean you're a creative problem solver. Just because a person can create a fictional world in their head doesn't mean they can figure out how to replace parts of their car with household appliances. "Creative" is not an all-encompassing, binary trait. The issue here may very well be that you're looking for a very particular kind of "creative" that might very well be rare in the population, but you're using a very broad term to define it.

Try telling us a little bit more about what kind of "creative" you mean.

Well, you need to go back a couple posts, but what I said was: 25% of players are naturally creative, 25% are not and will never be and 50% are in the middle and just average.

And we did define the type of creativity we were talking about a couple posts back:creative problem-solving and creative use of ones abilities. As that is the only type of creatively effected by great power.


Failing to read your mind is not an indication of lack of creativity. I'd consider not using the solution you proposed sensible, as that solution is terrible on many levels. The guard is going to notice the key just sort of float up above him, and be able to snatch it, with the position of the characters completely blown. Moreover, you just stated that they found another way in, which means they used a solution you hadn't thought of. That is creative.

In the example they did take out the guard, but then had no way to get the key to open the door. They did not 'creatively' find a way around that....they sat around for a good 20 minutes and complained until they finally decided 'well, ok, we will just attack the main gate'. All because wizard player with great power could not be creative.



This also explains the "most people aren't creative" opinion, as "most people come to different solutions than I do when being creative" is the sort of statement that is much more reasonable, and seems to be closer to the case, given your examples so far. It's sloppy reasoning to conflate the two, but it is also sloppy reasoning to conflate "creative" and "successful artistically" given how many skills other than creativity play into the second example, so sloppy reasoning is entirely plausible.

I'm not sure what your talking about with 'different solutions'. Anything that gets the job done in a good way is an creative solution. And it does not matter if it's my way or not....the best games are where the players think up of new creative things.

My basic point is, with the 50% of average players (Not the 25% that are creative and the 25% that are deadbeats) that great power almost always stifles, dulls and destroys their creativity.

Kuma Kode
2012-03-06, 05:36 PM
Well, you need to go back a couple posts, but what I said was: 25% of players are naturally creative, 25% are not and will never be and 50% are in the middle and just average.

And we did define the type of creativity we were talking about a couple posts back:creative problem-solving and creative use of ones abilities. As that is the only type of creatively effected by great power. Your percentages are completely unfounded. Additionally, you've made several mentions of artists who make millions of dollars as an example that not everyone is creative... except the kind of creativity that makes millions of dollars is generally not the problem solving kind.


In the example they did take out the guard, but then had no way to get the key to open the door. They did not 'creatively' find a way around that....they sat around for a good 20 minutes and complained until they finally decided 'well, ok, we will just attack the main gate'. All because wizard player with great power could not be creative. You fail to actually address Knaight's point: the solution that you were expecting of your players was wrong. Mage hand would have failed disastrously. The only way to get a key from around a guard's neck short of teleporting it away or stopping time and nabbing it off him (both high level powers) is to physically overpower him and take it, or subdue him with a very high risk of failure (trying to put him to sleep would alert him to your attack if he succeeded). Distracting him won't work because he'll still have the key around his neck. Trying to get him to come investigate so you could jump him wouldn't work because no guard entrusted with an important key would be that stupid. Turning invisible and trying to pilfer it won't work because it's so obvious you would have to be epic level to steal it without him noticing. There might be more to the scene that could be used, but with the information I have, there's nothing that would work (with the exception of, ironically, well used high level powers) that doesn't also have a very high risk of failing disastrously and alerting him. This required level of aggression and obvious action is exactly why guards would wear important keys around their neck. There's really no way to get it off him without defeating him, and that's the entire point of wearing it like that instead of, say, on his belt where it could be pilfered.

Unless he was already somehow unconcious, but even then, he would be laying on it. Mage hand doesn't have the strength behind it to pull hard enough to free it from beneath him, or to snap the cord. Mage hand pretty much has no power to overcome any kind of resistance.

Which leads me to my next point: whenever I've noticed players being uncreative, it's usually the DM's fault. Note that I'm talking about players, not people who are kinda there because their girlfriend or boyfriend does it but they really don't do much. I mean players who are actually there because they enjoy playing the game. People who are just kind of "there" aren't really playing the game. Whenever I put my players in front of something and they get stumped, its usually because:


1) They spot a logic problem in the solution I expected them to use.

2) I did not give them enough information. The characters are immersed in the world, but if you don't take care to make sure information gets across, the characters will end up doing stupid things. See "Eric and the Gazebo." or "You encounter a baby (dragon)."

3) I gave them too much information of the wrong kind. This is called priming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_%28psychology%29). If the last few encounters were solved by force, what do you think the first response to the next encounter is going to be? Force. If the entire adventure up to this point has been solved with high level spells, what do you think the characters will try to use on the next encounter? High level spells. Whether you like it or not, you can influence how your players will approach different situations by encouraging or discouraging different kinds of behavior.

Saying "power limits creativity" drastically oversimplifies everything at work. You would have to isolate the power variable to prove that it is, in fact, what causes the issue. Maybe its the music. Maybe its the players not knowing the different capabilities of their class. Maybe the DM is subconsciously influencing the player's thought patterns. There's more to it than "Well this one time one of my players missed something obvious."

Terazul
2012-03-06, 05:38 PM
Well, you need to go back a couple posts, but what I said was: 25% of players are naturally creative, 25% are not and will never be and 50% are in the middle and just average.

My basic point is, with the 50% of average players (Not the 25% that are creative and the 25% that are deadbeats) that great power almost always stifles, dulls and destroys their creativity.

And just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

Especially when you keep flinging about arbitrary statistics you made up along with terms nobody else has agreed upon like "average players". What does average creativity even mean? Players of what age group? Of what system? The people who's favorite system is Nobilis are not the same type of players as those who prefer 4e, are not the same as those who prefer FATAL (god forbid). Like really, how are you making these logical leaps? Hell, I can't think of a single person I interact with regularly who plays roleplaying games and isn't creative, given that's the point of playing them in the first place.

Knaight
2012-03-06, 05:53 PM
I'm not a troll, I just have a different view point. I can't stand the psychobabble idea that every single person is a special snowflake. Sure it sounds nice and make people feel good, but it's just not true.
Stating that some level of creativity is normal is not stating that every single person is just a special snowflake. Currently, the conversation reads something like this:

Person 1: 25% of people can naturally speak, 50% are kind of average as regards speaking, and 25% just can't speak.
Person 2: Those numbers are unfounded, moreover most people can speak, as it is a near universal human trait.
Person 1: Oh yeah? Then why do so few people make money from speeches?
Person 2: There are several other skills involved, that isn't a fair comparison.
Person 1: You can't say that most people can speak. The idea that everyone is a special snowflake is untrue.

Your premises don't lead to your conclusions, and they seem to be drawn from nowhere, moreover we have reason to doubt your data collection methods.

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-10, 04:30 PM
The point's been made before, but generally speaking without a certain minimum of power, creativity is impossible. A character with no arms can't climb a rope, so any plans involving grappling hooks are right out. A character with FOUR arms, however, can do much more impressive rope tricks, so in this metaphor power leads directly to increased creativity.

Likewise, when I play 3.5, I always make a point of playing a spellcaster for more, better options. Fabricate the enemy's wall into ladders is a pretty interesting move, and it's just not something you can do without sufficient power.

Necroticplague
2012-03-10, 09:48 PM
I think there are two problems with this question that need to be more carefully defined.

1:What is "great power"?
To use terms from a page back, are we talking about absolute power, or relative power? I'm a kind of person who favors high absolute power, low relative power. I don't want to be bob vs. dragon or superman vs. normal robber, or even kratos vs. all the various mooks. I prefer kratos vs. the bosses, where my own mighty strength is surpassed only by that of a truly worthy foe. High relative power might appear hurt creativity (because the use of creativity is obsolete), but high absolute power doesn't.

2:What is "creativity"?
To use myself as an example (though I in no way expect this to be indicative of anything, due to small sample size), I'm distinctly uncreative artistically/imaginably. My mental constructs are either replicas of something else, or completely geometric figures. However, my ability to come up with odd solutions to problems is better than the majority of peoples (the associated skill on an IQ test was 138, so numbers back me up). So, by the definition of creative we're looking at, and I highly creative, or highly uncreative?

Also, you have to consider that different systems support different amounts/types of creative thinking. DnD supports "how many different uses can I get out of this one X?" where X is an ability, mechanic (like charging), or resource (like a spell known slot), with two different directions to go in: efficient, and versatile (ideally both at once). You want something to work the best with minimum expenditure, or to help in the most situations with minimum expenditure. You're trying to fit yourself in the situation, and make the most out of it. I've heard (though can't vouch for due to having never played it) that V:tM is more about "how can I change the situation?" Instead of seeing yourself in the situation, and trying to make the best of it, you change the situation until it no longer has the problems against you, and now benefits you, through the use of intrigue.

Agrippa
2012-03-10, 10:31 PM
I think that when people, mostly old-school games, say "great power limits creativity" they mean great aboslute power, not relative power. They tend to believe that great absolute power should largely rest in the hands of the villains/antagonists, forcing the PCs to use clever and underhanded tactics to win, or flee to survive.