The Rules Hate Creativity

[koboldish]

I've been thinking on this for a while, and was wondering how everyone else handled this problem. The rules encourage having one thing you can do (only if your not a wizard), and doing it over and over again. Trying new things in game, like throwing torches or whatever, is vastly inferior to just attacking with a big sword. Has anyone found a way to encourage this, or at least make it more viable?

[ahenobarbi]

Many people around this forums claim that Tome of Battle martial classes can be interesting. Because they have different options than full-attack. I never played one but I took a look at the book and it seem plausible.

[Stake A Vamp]

my dm bends the rules when we are creative, one time i used knowledge (architecture) to collapse a dungeon ceiling on a bunch of orcs, i was a fighter, and i only had to whack one arch with a hammer. the rules may discourage creativity, but DM's can balance that by rulings.

[scarmiglionne4]

my dm bends the rules when we are creative, one time i used knowledge (architecture) to collapse a dungeon ceiling on a bunch of orcs, i was a fighter, and i only had to whack one arch with a hammer. the rules may discourage creativity, but DM's can balance that by rulings.

I think this is how D&D should be played. Without stuff like this, you're just playing any other board game or video game. D&D is special because their is no edge of the playing field. You don't need a hook-shot to climb up on a ledge. You don't always need a key because you can break the door down.

[koboldish]

Very true. I haven't purchased Tome of Battle yet, but it seems interesting. Many of my fellow players haven't really mastered the rules system yet (so I roll one of these? Or is it that one?), so I don't know how well they would do with the added options. I usually play battlefield control wizards or factotums, and I can do it fairly well. Can someone provide a few more examples of things your DM has ruled to be effective?

[Eldan]

Well, two things.

First of all, there's a lot of potential in the skill rules as mentioned above. You can use skill checks for all manner of things not mentioned in the books. (It's the reason I dislike skill checks. 90% of them are things I'd allow anyway with a skill check).

Second, just because something is creative doesn't mean it's actually useful.
You mention throwing a torch. It's an improvised throwing weapon that deals maybe 1d4 bludgeoning and 1 fire damage. I think that's actually pretty fair. Have you ever tried throwing a torch? I can't imagine that they'd fly very well, or set anthing on fire instantly. Swords are just better weapons.
I could think of all manner of creative plans that would never work.

[AmberVael]

Has anyone found a way to encourage this, or at least make it more viable?

Part of the reason that I like very high level/high power play is that creativity and cleverness have much more opportunity to shine and come into play. When you're playing a spellcaster with a very nice number of spells immediately available, you have a lot of potential to combine them in clever and interesting ways. When the enemies are throwing down mean power combos and tricks against you, generally you'll need to come up with something more clever than "rawr smash."

However, high power play doesn't appeal to everyone, nor is it very easy to keep working and balanced. So that might not be an option.


I suggest looking at other systems that have encouraged this behavior, or have attempted to encourage this behavior. Not that I mean you have to stop playing D&D! Just that it can be good to see how other systems handle it, or have failed to handle it, in order to understand what house rules, scenarios, and ideas can help promote more creative play. In fact, most of the examples I'm about to mention can be reasonably adapted to D&D in some manner.

Exalted, for example, has Stunts. It grants some small mechanical bonuses that nonetheless add up if you do things that are more interesting than "I swing my sword" or the like. While it is a decent idea that does work well in PbP to help encourage more well thought out posts and descriptions, I find that it falls rather flat on the mechanical front. Your description may be awesome, but you'll still end up saying "I swing my sword, I swing my sword."

Mutants and Masterminds (talking about 2e here, I don't know all the changes of 3e) has two different little systems called Hero Points and Extra Effort. Both are built to try and help promote dramatic moments, give extra options to heroes in a tight spot, and in general just make play a little less predictable and interesting. I don't think that the system promotes constant creativity, but it does tend to liven things up and change them around a bit.

The Fate systems are my favorites though. While it's rules light and handles a wide variety of actions with the same kind of roll based on the same stat using the same modifier, it complicates things with the addition of the Aspect system. Basically, Aspects are just descriptions of anything that might be important. If your character is brawny, they might have an aspect called "Big Ol' Brute," and if someone tipped over a bucket of water, there might be an aspect relating to the floor called "Wet and Slippery." You can invoke and compel aspects, using them to gain bonuses, or apply penalties to others, so long as they're utilized appropriately in game. This encourages more creative play, even if the mechanics beneath are still rather simple.

[koboldish]

I heard about a game called Runequest several years ago. It used d100's and was supposed to be really balanced. Has anyone tried that?

[The Redwolf]

(It's the reason I dislike skill checks. 90% of them are things I'd allow anyway with a skill check).

:smallconfused:
Did you mistype something there? I was interested in what you were saying there, but this doesn't seem consistent...

[AmberVael]

:smallconfused:
Did you mistype something there? I was interested in what you were saying there, but this doesn't seem consistent...

I think he meant he dislikes Skill Tricks, which would definitely clarify the issue.

[Gwazi Magnum]

:smallconfused:
Did you mistype something there? I was interested in what you were saying there, but this doesn't seem consistent...

I think hes saying he dislikes skills because it's makes players roll for them where the DM would just be fine letting them doing it regardless.

------------

Personal Opinion on this topic though. D&D does address the creativity in two ways. It just takes a creative group to pull of.

1. Skills, these can be fleshed out/expanded to a lot or simply represent a lot. If allows you to make much more interesting characters than 'the fighter' or 'the wizard'. But relying to heavily on this can make classes like Rogue too over powered.

2. Variants/House Rules
D&D openly states you may change and alter their rules as you see fit for your campaign. You don't like how something in combat works? Change it. You want to add a new feature? Add it.

[Seleborn]

This is something I think 4e does really well. I remember in that DMG there is a chart for average damage per level, so that if a player decided to drop kick an ogre into a fire (the example that DMG uses) then that attack/fire damge would be around the the same damage as attacking it with a sword (I think it was only a few points weaker).

It sacrifices some realism (fires don't all do the same damage), but it rewards creative play. Maybe work with your DM, or see if there are any average dmg charts out there for the system you use.

[ZamielVanWeber]

1. Skills, these can be fleshed out/expanded to a lot or simply represent a lot. If allows you to make much more interesting characters than 'the fighter' or 'the wizard'. But relying to heavily on this can make classes like Rogue too over powered.

I tend to do stuff with creative knowledge skills (aside from the cerebrex, no one has wide access and large skill points). Aside from that, I give bonuses sporadically. I tend not to reward creative spell usage though.

[Rhynn]

You have to be genuinely creative, and yes, you need a DM willing to roll with it.

Why would throwing a torch at an enemy be effective?

Now, throwing a torch at something flammable like oil you spread on the floor, or a mummy (or, say, setting fire to a huge tapestry or a curtain, then yanking it down on your enemies)... that's creative and efficient. Unless your DM is a jerk, in which case, good luck.

Old D&D was basically all about this - the further back you go, the less you were supposed to just duke it out with monsters. Negotiate, intimidate, bluff, strike a deal, flee, throw your rations on the floor to distract animals/stupid monsters, use crazy tricks and ambushes...

Edit: I do think that rules do, in some ways, restrict creativity. When there's a separate feat needed for various cool maneuvers anyone might think to try, you're suddenly a bit limited by its existence - you need it to do whatever you wanted to.


I heard about a game called Runequest several years ago. It used d100's and was supposed to be really balanced. Has anyone tried that?

RuneQuest is in its sixth edition (1-2e Chaosium, 3e Avalon Hill, 4-5e Mongoose, 6e The Design Mechanism (http://www.thedesignmechanism.com/runequest.php). No levels, lots of skills (exact makeup depends on version). It's not really a game about balance, but it's easy enough to control power levels so as to not let it become crazy. It's an awesome game and had the awesomest world (Glorantha), although I don't think TDM have the license to publish Glorantha material.

[Gwazi Magnum]

I tend to do stuff with creative knowledge skills (aside from the cerebrex, no one has wide access and large skill points). Aside from that, I give bonuses sporadically. I tend not to reward creative spell usage though.

Spells are broken as it is.

Once you reach level 6-8 and up, pretty much every encounter can be handled with some kind Wizard/Sorcerer spell.

Plus you then got the material components which is a pain.

Skills I personally find much more fun to use, but what do you mean when you say 'gives bonuses sporadically'?

[koboldish]

Thanks for the input. How good is GURPS for this? I DM sometimes, and we all love math :smallbiggrin:. It seemed really cool, what with all of the options and stuff. I will try to make an average damage table for 3.5, although that varies for classes. I think things like damage over time, debuffs, and battlefiled control without the use of spells or specific items is really what I want. I'll talk with people in my group and see what they think.

[Seleborn]

Thanks for the input. How good is GURPS for this? I DM sometimes, and we all love math :smallbiggrin:. It seemed really cool, what with all of the options and stuff. I will try to make an average damage table for 3.5, although that varies for classes. I think things like damage over time, debuffs, and battlefiled control without the use of spells or specific items is really what I want. I'll talk with people in my group and see what they think.

Odd, I DM and I hate math :smallbiggrin: Thus my love of pre-made charts. If you do math it out, maybe post it? :smallsmile: Hope you all come to a mutually pleasant solution!

[koboldish]

In an average(ish) op game, a wizard usually won't do damage, so I don't quite know how they would fit in. I wasn't referring to DMs in general, but just to my group, us beign AP math peoples.:smallbiggrin: Can people post the average damage of some 1st level fighters? I'm AFB at the moment. Thanks!

[Laserlight]

I've been thinking on this for a while, and was wondering how everyone else handled this problem. The rules encourage having one thing you can do (only if your not a wizard), and doing it over and over again. Trying new things in game, like throwing torches or whatever, is vastly inferior to just attacking with a big sword. Has anyone found a way to encourage this, or at least make it more viable?

I deliberately designed a character who could tear through mooks but couldn't expect to do significant damage to well-armored enemies. This forced me to think in combat instead of mindlessly flailing away. Sometimes I could use the environment (e.g. toss them off the roof), or set them up for my teammate to hit them , or use my actions to soak up their actions (pull down the drapes and wrap around the enemy's head). Sometimes all I could do is scoop up the civilians and carry them out of the path of the monster.

However, the only way to make this viable is to have a DM who keeps the Rule of Cool above the letter of RAW. Otherwise you get "Can I push the heavy pot off the balcony to land on his head? No, the balcony railing keeps you from pushing it off the edge. Can I grab a rope and swing down and knock him over? That sounds like a Bull Rush and you don't have that feat. Can I...no? Ah, well, I stick him with my dagger, for d3+1 damage. I should finish him off by April."

[koboldish]

Well said. The problem is, many awesome things will be much more powerful than standard attacks, making people who just want to whack stuff near obsolete. I want to find out how to balance everything. Hopefully.

[DarkEternal]

What I don't like about "creativity" is the fact that players will not do something awesome once. If it works, they will repeat it. Again and again and again. I would be more then willing to let something slip if it was cool. I don't know, prep time against a much more dangerous foe that you can defeat by something that doesn't really work as it should by rules.

But then, the next encounter that is a bit tough will be handled the same way because you allowed it before. And that, no. Just no.

[Seleborn]

What I don't like about "creativity" is the fact that players will not do something awesome once. If it works, they will repeat it. Again and again and again. I would be more then willing to let something slip if it was cool. I don't know, prep time against a much more dangerous foe that you can defeat by something that doesn't really work as it should by rules.

But then, the next encounter that is a bit tough will be handled the same way because you allowed it before. And that, no. Just no.

I know what you are saying. I'm a player in an AD&D 2e group, and every situation, EVERY SITUATION, they try to solve with greek fire.

On the other hand, we were playing a one-shot pirate campaign in which the enemy ship was fleeing faster than we could catch it. We had catapults, thus I was trying to get my dwarven fighter shot at the enemy ships sails, and to cut them as I fall. My DM was not keen to let me do this, and he had some lame excuse happen (the wind dies down and you catch them) for how we eventually caught up. That was a big bummer. I really wanted to launch my fighter at them.

There needs to be a line in which the DM rewards creative behavior, but finds ways to keep it from getting out of hand. Not rewarding is a let down, letting it get out of hand sucks the fun out of fighting.

[1dominator]

Oh for the days when hitting things with pointy objects was the by far lesser part of roleplaying.
As for rules inhibiting creativity, that is the nature of rules. Rules are by definition things you can do, as opposed to things you cant do.

[Hylas]

A big problem with d20 is that a lot of creative actions get penalties. Let's say there's a bar fight and then a bunch of mooks run in to beat the party up. The fighter sees them and decides to pick up a bench and then rush at them to push them out a window/off a balcony/whatever. Well since he doesn't have the very specific feat of bull rush he gets 3 AoO on him from attempting, then a -4 penalty from an improvised weapon, and then...

Any time you hand out a penalty the player will think "gee, I'm getting punished just for trying something other than hitting with my sword. I better not do anything else again." Get rid of attack of opportunities, they're the worst kind of penalty. At low levels it's effectively "the enemy gets a free turn against you."

[koboldish]

Yeah... I think things that work well and are super awesome should only work once. There's no way to orchestrate that though.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Spells are broken as it is.

Once you reach level 6-8 and up, pretty much every encounter can be handled with some kind Wizard/Sorcerer spell.

Plus you then got the material components which is a pain.

Skills I personally find much more fun to use, but what do you mean when you say 'gives bonuses sporadically'?

My reasoning exactly for spells. I tend to block their creative on the grounds of massive selection already exists. As for sporadic bonuses, my most common use is for "monster lore" checks to show how much meta knowledge a player can use. Any other creative use of skills earns a small exp bonus.

[Rhynn]

I know what you are saying. I'm a player in an AD&D 2e group, and every situation, EVERY SITUATION, they try to solve with greek fire.

That's just standard for all AD&D groups. :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I only use fire for every problem when playing ninjas. (Because of authenticity; I swear the only thing actual Sengoku period ninjas did was set fires as distractions to sneak into castles...)

[Gwazi Magnum]

My reasoning exactly for spells. I tend to block their creative on the grounds of massive selection already exists. As for sporadic bonuses, my most common use is for "monster lore" checks to show how much meta knowledge a player can use. Any other creative use of skills earns a small exp bonus.

So you let skills give players extra know-how on the enemy +small exp if used in a creative way?

[Rubik]

I like classes whose class features encourage creativity. My absolute favorite is shaper psion (with Linked Power to turn strategic options into tactical ones) for this very reason. Their options are restricted by a relatively small number of powers known, but DAMN do those powers have flexibility, and they're powerful enough to do the job without being total I-WIN buttons. I love looking at a problem and trying to figure out how to overcome it using a small number of flexible-and-just-powerful-enough tools. Shapers hit that sweet spot perfectly. Add in the constructor PrC to increase flexibility just that much more, and the only way it gets better is to gestalt it with factotum.

[Slipperychicken]

throwing torches or whatever, is vastly inferior to just attacking with a big sword.

Because it's the same way in real life.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Of course the rules hate creativity. You're playing a simulationist game that doesn't have thousand-page rulebooks.

[Eldan]

Yeah. I've heard people argue about that. Why is this giant two-handed sword so much better than my genius plan involving six pieces of broken furniture, some string and a bag of flour? Because one's a highly specialized expensive tool for killing.

[ZamielVanWeber]

So you let skills give players extra know-how on the enemy +small exp if used in a creative way?

Yes. It helps with metagame knowledge. I do not spam reward bonuses, but the first few times for an individual comes up with something cool they get a reward. I try to keep skills relevant deep into the game.

[Talakeal]

What I don't like about "creativity" is the fact that players will not do something awesome once. If it works, they will repeat it. Again and again and again. I would be more then willing to let something slip if it was cool. I don't know, prep time against a much more dangerous foe that you can defeat by something that doesn't really work as it should by rules.

But then, the next encounter that is a bit tough will be handled the same way because you allowed it before. And that, no. Just no.

This. If you let something work once the players will go for it over and over again, at which point it is no longer creative.

[king.com]

Honestly what I've found to be the best tool to encourage creativity is to play a variety of games. I had players stuff running the same thing over and over and we jumped to a different game. A player asked "how do I do mechanic x from system y?", as there was no rule for it, we improvised. This lead to players trying to use a variety of skills and actions based on their past experiences.

[koboldish]

I didn't think much when I wrote this, and throwing torches is obviously a bad example. If the recipient was standing in a pool of oil, I could still do more damage with a sword, which is not quite the same in real life :smallbiggrin:. Sorry about that, as I'm not the most creative person in the world.

[TuggyNE]

I didn't think much when I wrote this, and throwing torches is obviously a bad example. If the recipient was standing in a pool of oil, I could still do more damage with a sword, which is not quite the same in real life :smallbiggrin:. Sorry about that, as I'm not the most creative person in the world.

Actually… if they were standing in oil, it could reasonably ignite, which would do ongoing fire damage and maybe catch them on fire. :smalltongue:

I think the rules actually cover that OK!

[koboldish]

Okay! I have created a terrible example yet again due to my lack of creative genius! Hmmm... Better suggestion... I think people shouldn't need a feat to bull rush, because it is so awesome and cinematic. Also not creative or relavant. I think some other people had some suggestions, but not me!:smallbiggrin:

[Greenish]

I think people shouldn't need a feat to bull rush, because it is so awesome and cinematic.You could make that argument for most combat maneuvers. Without the related feat(s), the ones worth it are basically trip with a trip weapon and disarm with a reach one, and even those are only useful when fighting creatures that aren't huge and mean.

[koboldish]

I don't really like AoO's either, but that can't be helped.

[Guizonde]

easy solution for increasing creativity output?

psycho dm + underpowered pc's + overpowered encounters = think fast or die.

turns out that by following the dm's twisted logic, we've come up with our own antilogic.

beautifully odd examples:

-the rogue shooting arrows through my searing light for a crossfire on one undead i was roasting (me cleric) while the other one got hit by a flaming arrow while trying to flank me. don't ask how lucky we were with the dice...

-the mage wearing the cultist-du-jour's robes, passing a bluff check, and silently killing 9 sleeping mooks with a dagger. (it was messy, but it worked)

-the elven rogue and the halfling monk/drunken master doing bounding cover recon while the rest of the party was busy consecrating an evil altar that wound up exploding. turns out that fire is not for every occasion (nothing too bad happened to us)

-throwing the pc's for a loop: "your cover for eliminating the chaos cultist caravan is as an itinerant circus: what can you do?"
sailor:"i can juggle!"
interrogator:"prove it"
*ace dice roll*
interrogator:"cool. next."
guizonde:"i uh... can shoot darts? and i'm kind of a lizard here..."
interrogator:"what."
silvertongued mage:"guizonde, demonstrate how gravity hates you, please"
*ace shooting rolls, hilariously appropriate fumbles, with obligatory faceplant*
interrogator:"great, we've got a beast taming act. the elf can play a buffoon and help the lizard do slapstick"

it wound up with a stand up improv to boot. we survived (again), despite the odds.

-the half-ork paladin making the halfling barbarian infiltrate through the second story of a church by throwing him. instant flanking, and exactly the bonuses we needed at the time.

if your problem is that "i hit it with my sword" is the easiest solution, make it so that is the worst solution. sessions become headache worthy since you overthink everything, but it's so much more satisfying because it's not a simulation anymore, but a story evolving with different unique protagonists. which, frankly, should be the only reason you role-play.

my 2cp...

[ButtSoup]

If you're trying to encourage creativity- lead the way. If you're DMing, make random combatants do cool things beyond the simple 1. Move to hero 2. Attack hero.

I like to throw bonuses at my PCs when they go outside the box or against the grain. For instance, a player in a game had the opportunity to charge an ogre next to a wall. He chose instead to run up to the wall and jump off it to make a much more dramatic airborne attack... as a DM, this makes me giddy. He succeeded on the jump check so I let him add a momentum bonus to the damage. Just let the players know its a "cinematic" or "stunt" bonus and doesn't equate to Jumping = more damage.

[Geoff]

I've been thinking on this for a while, and was wondering how everyone else handled this problem. The rules encourage having one thing you can do (only if your not a wizard), and doing it over and over again. Trying new things in game, like throwing torches or whatever, is vastly inferior to just attacking with a big sword. Has anyone found a way to encourage this, or at least make it more viable?The game does, perhaps, over-reward specialization. Even casters (you exempt the wizard from your complaint) are often best served to specialize in a particular sort of spell (SoD) or combo of spells (stacking buffs).

That doesn't mean you can't do anything else, just that, if you're optimized to do one thing, you won't often want to do anything else. One solution, though its not terribly helpful, is simply not to specialize. You won't be as good as the next guy who is specialized, but you'll have reason to cast about for creative ways of overcoming your inferiority...

Another is to place things in the adventure that the party can leverage with improvised moves. If a vat of acid does a bit more damage than even the specialist's blasting spell or full attack, then bull rushing someone into it might be worthwhile. Similarly, if a recurring enemy has come up with defenses that greatly reduce the effectiveness of each characters specialty, they might have to get creative to finally take him down. That kind of thing.

[Zeful]

Actually… if they were standing in oil, it could reasonably ignite, which would do ongoing fire damage and maybe catch them on fire. :smalltongue:

I think the rules actually cover that OK!

Still mechanically worse than hitting him with the big two-handed sword. After all it's just 1d6 damage per round.

[Rubik]

If you want to deal in the RAW, you have to be creative with the rules as they are. Toss out jars of brown mold before the party fires off flaming arrows. Use bags of flour to reveal invisible enemies. Train badgers to use as wall-sappers. Etc.

You have to figure out ways to use the rules as-is with a flare of creativity, if you don't want to rely on your DM allowing things like "rule of cool" and "real world physics" into the game.

[Coidzor]

Well, two things.

First of all, there's a lot of potential in the skill rules as mentioned above. You can use skill checks for all manner of things not mentioned in the books. (It's the reason I dislike skill checks. 90% of them are things I'd allow anyway with a skill check).

I'm sorry, what? :smallconfused:

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Rubik
Use bags of flower to reveal invisible enemies.

I assume the flowers should be dainty and plentiful, like bluets, rather than one big Rafflesia.

:smallbiggrin:

[limejuicepowder]

I'm gonna weigh in on the other side of this discussion and say "the rules are only restrictive if you take them too literally, or are comparing them to real life improperly." I will explain:

Example: Someone above made an example of a bar fight where the fighter wants to grab a bench and bullrush 3 people with it. Without improved bullrush, he would get 3 AoO against him, plus a -4 penalty for improvising a weapon.

For starters, why would he get a -4 penalty? He's not actually using the bench as a weapon, and bullrushes don't require an attack roll. Really, the bench is entirely thematic; he could just as easily spread his arms and run in to three guys standing side by side.

Next, the defenders would get AoO's...if they were prepared for the attack, and hadn't used their single AoO for the round already. In a chaotic bar fight, either of those are very possible. For the sake of argument though, let's say they all get the AoO. 3 untrained unarmed or improvised attacks from level 1 commoners against a, say 2nd level fighter - 1) Fighters have good armor, meaning the attacks are probably going to miss, and 2) even if they hit, they do maybe 1d3+1 nonlethal, or 1d4+1 lethal damage. This is nothing to the fighter's approximately 20 hit points. In-game, this translates to the fighter powering though the attack with no effect (attacks miss), or he just shrugs it off (they hit). Either way, the bullrush is most likely going to plow back all 3 guys.

It's easy to always think about the penalties of improvised tactics and how debilitating they are against viable foes - and they are, and they should. Against a foe that presents real danger, the character should NOT being screwing around with benches and torches; they should be fighting for their life using the best tactics and abilities they have.

When they fight mooks or punks that aren't in the same league as the PC, then the crazy tactics can be used effectively because the PC is that much better. They can eat the penalties and still have a higher chance to succeed. This is how it is in real life and this is how it is in DnD.

Lastly, DnD is meant to be a heroic game, especially as the levels go up. Rightfully so, it takes more and more to defeat enemies. The arch-lich should not be defeated because someone broke in to his castle of doom and set up a clay pot to fall on his head - that works fine on level 1 average people, but not on powerful villains or heroes.

[nedz]

Okay! I have created a terrible example yet again due to my lack of creative genius! Hmmm... Better suggestion... I think people shouldn't need a feat to bull rush, because it is so awesome and cinematic. Also not creative or relavant. I think some other people had some suggestions, but not me!:smallbiggrin:

You don't need a feat to Bullrush.
Without the feat you provoke an AoO, which if they don't happen to have a weapon in hand is irrelevant.
Also it gives you +4 on the opposed roll, which is handy.

Same goes for trip, disarm and grapple.

[Rubik]

I assume the flowers should be dainty and plentiful, like bluets, rather than one big Rafflesia.:smallbiggrin:Use flour flowers. They're small and puffy and--

*amnesia dust!*

Flowers? What?

[Slipperychicken]

I'm sorry, what? :smallconfused:

I think he meant Skill Tricks, like those listed in Complete Scoundrel. And dislikes them because he already allows ordinary skill rolls to accomplish many of those things.

[Hiro Protagonest]

All of these solutions I'm reading are still harder than just putting your D&D books back on the shelf and getting FATE. You want rules for pushing someone with a bench in FATE? Roll Physique/Strength/Might vs whatever skill is deemed appropriate for defense (in this case, usually the same one, although a guy could try to jump over it with Athletics). If successful, you have "Aspect - Dazed/winded/stunned/knocked over" which can be invoked/compelled once for free. Only works on one guy, but hey.

[navar100]

It's not the rules; it's the DM. Doing more than "I attack" is only as useful as the DM lets it be. Some DMs have a "fighters don't deserve nice things" mentality and believe if a warrior player wants to do something fancy if the DM even allows it at all there's going to be a large penalty and will only succeed on a Natural 20, maybe 17. Spellcasters get to do anything they want because unlike warriors, they have to spend a resource - a spell slot. These DMs can't stand players getting to do something "for free". There's also the more common factor of spellcasters can do anything because it's magic while warriors are limited to real world physical limitations.

The one area where the game could interfere is if there's a feat for it. Some DMs might believe that if you don't have the appropriate feat you can't do it at all. That is not entirely true. For many feats, what having the feat does is allow you to do whatever without provoking an attack of opportunity with maybe a +2 bonus to the roll. You can still do whatever without the feat; it just provokes an AoO - tripping, grappling, disarming, and sundering being the more common.


This. If you let something work once the players will go for it over and over again, at which point it is no longer creative.

Therefore some DMs never allow such things to work so players don't bother trying, and we're back to "I attack" as the only option. Players aren't allowed to get anything "for free".

[Rukia]

As a somewhat new DM I'm always open to allowing my players to get creative occasionally. However I won't allow them too much leeway if they attempt to do things that are specifically covered in the rules or are handled by a feat/other class speciality/etc.. In another game where I wasn't the DM we had a half orc fighter who always wanted to do "cool things" that the Rogue could do without understanding how unfair it'd be for the Rogue if he was allowed to as well. No you can't pick that lock, no you can't find a trap now matter how hard you search, no you can't sneak up and backstab that guy, etc... He always wanted to "swing my weapon really hard so that if it kills this guy, it will also hit the one next to him..". It took awhile to explain to him that there was a feat called cleave that allowed that so he couldn't just do it at will because he took 5 minutes explaining his attack routine.

The guy was however fun to play with due to his creative mind, even if it didn't always work out. One of the most fun nights we had was when we were ascending a multi-level treehouse. There were 3-4 floors, each with a 10' round opening in the floor and a single rope hanging down from the top. On the 3rd floor we got assaulted by a ton of rats and we were already pretty beat up. All of us but the fighter were able to escape the rats by climbing up the rope but unfortunately he was on the other side of the room with all the rats between him and the rope. He was low on hps and would never have been able to fight them all off so he came up with a plan. He asked the DM if he could make a running jump, leap over the rats and hang onto the rope like a swashbuckler. DM agreed and he did his heroic jump.. except that he rolled a 1 and missed the rope falling 2 stories subsequently knocking himself out. Valiant effort, poor execution.

That said I like when my players come up with crazy schemes, but depending on how obscure they are I will give them a proper difficulty check and if they fail they suffer. Such are the risks for a risky plan. I'm running Village of Hommlet right now for my group and one of the players is a Beguiler who's plan next game is to head to the moathouse and try to bargain with the Bandits(he hasn't seen it yet, he only assumes they're there in which he's correct). Not a bad plan.. except he wants to do it alone. It may not end well for him depending on what he plans to do and how his rolls go. The bandits on the ground level know little about what goes on underneath so even if everything goes the way he wants it won't get him far. However if he roleplays it well and doesn't get himself insta-gibbed(he's level 2) then I may throw the group a bone and give them some info of what they're truly walking into.

[Draz74]

Yeah, basically you've got three options.

Method #1
Basically what Rubik said:


I like classes whose class features encourage creativity. [... snip ...] shaper psion [... snip ...] factotum.

Shaper Psion is a decent class for this if you ban its few broken tricks (e.g. Linked Psionic Minor Creation --> Black Lotus Extract). But I actually think Factotum is the best (pre-published) example of this that 3e has to offer.

Ban Font of Inspiration and probably Iaijutsu Focus; now the Factotum (outside of maybe a couple specialized builds) is pretty pathetic in combat if all he does is walk up to something and whack it. But he has tools to help him pull off whatever more-creative stunts he comes up with: ability to boost skill checks super-high, ability to gain extra actions, ability to copy other classes' features, and a per-encounter pool of "do something awesome points" that the DM can use to regulate these tricks. Admittedly, once he starts getting beyond the basics of creativity, this evolves towards a hybrid with ...

Method #2
Have a DM that is willing to improvise ways for your creative ideas to work well, but not too well.

This is really just a compromise between "anti-creative-style" D&D and ...

Method #3
... play a rules-light system, where the rules pretty much demand that the players come up with more freeform descriptions of their characters' actions. Like Fate or Risus.

So why doesn't everyone use Method 2 or 3? Well, basically, because they require a lot of skill from a GM to pull off well. More so if you don't want this:

What I don't like about "creativity" is the fact that players will not do something awesome once. If it works, they will repeat it. Again and again and again. I would be more then willing to let something slip if it was cool. I don't know, prep time against a much more dangerous foe that you can defeat by something that doesn't really work as it should by rules.

But then, the next encounter that is a bit tough will be handled the same way because you allowed it before. And that, no. Just no.