PDA

View Full Version : When to use advantage/disadvantage in 5e



Fwiffo86
2014-06-23, 10:51 AM
I've been doing alot of reading in the last couple of days. It seems to me that there are two kinds of DMs where advantage and disadvantage come into play.

Those like me, that use adv/disadv when its called for by the system (power saves, special maneuvers, etc), which results in sparing use overall.

Those that doll the adv/disadv out consistently for various reasons.

Which is the better way to approach this? I'm fine with a middle ground, but it seems to me that too much adv/disadv can result in skewed numbers (making it entirely the DM's fault), but too little results in the players possibly not feeling heroic enough (for lack of a better term).

What are your thoughts? And lets try to stick to experience with the test packet and its numbers. Previous editions are not relevant for my question.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-23, 11:34 AM
I've been doing alot of reading in the last couple of days. It seems to me that there are two kinds of DMs where advantage and disadvantage come into play.

Those like me, that use adv/disadv when its called for by the system (power saves, special maneuvers, etc), which results in sparing use overall.

Those that doll the adv/disadv out consistently for various reasons.

Which is the better way to approach this? I'm fine with a middle ground, but it seems to me that too much adv/disadv can result in skewed numbers (making it entirely the DM's fault), but too little results in the players possibly not feeling heroic enough (for lack of a better term).

What are your thoughts? And lets try to stick to experience with the test packet and its numbers. Previous editions are not relevant for my question.

Rule Of Cool/Stupid.

Do something cool, advantage. Do something stupid, disadvantage. Impress me :).

"I charge the enemy by running up then across the wall, jumping off and attacking" advantage

Fwiffo86
2014-06-23, 11:57 AM
Rule Of Cool/Stupid.

Do something cool, advantage. Do something stupid, disadvantage. Impress me :).

"I charge the enemy by running up then across the wall, jumping off and attacking" advantage

Wouldn't that logically be disadv? Running along a wall?

Cool? Absolutely!

I guess if you want to reward them for awesomeness. Ok, I can see that.

Person_Man
2014-06-23, 12:05 PM
The Basic rules will most likely have very few explicit mechanics that grant Advantage or Disadvantage, and Bounded Accuracy (limited bonuses from limited sources) will probably be a real thing. In that system, I think that DMs can and should use Advantage/Disadvantage generously in order to help new players, reward smart tactics, encourage creativity, etc.

When the non-Basic (Advanced?) rules come out, there will be more explicit mechanics that grant Advantage or Disadvantage, and Bounded Accuracy will begin to slip as players gain more and more bonuses by optimizing their choices from among a larger variety of subclasses, Feats, magic items, spells, and Backgrounds. As additional supplements are published and options multiply, the capacity for the math to be broken will increase, and players will be able to achieve 95%ish success rates in many (or all) tasks. Because the game does not have any hard caps on bonuses, optimization will take over, to the extent that the DM allows additional options and the players choose to use them. In that system, I think that DMs should use Advantage/Disadvantage to make the encounters more challenging, to discourage munchkin behavior, to discourage spamming the same highly optimized combos over and over again, etc.

Either way, a smart DM should have a high degree of system mastery, especially as it pertains to the underlying math, and then use Advantage/Disadvantage mechanics as a tool to make the game as fun as possible.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-23, 01:13 PM
Wouldn't that logically be disadv? Running along a wall?

Cool? Absolutely!

I guess if you want to reward them for awesomeness. Ok, I can see that.

Oh god no, this is a fantasy game, lets allow non-casters the luxury of fighting fantastically. If you punish or even give a small penalty then people will be less likely to do cool or exciting things.

How I handle this as a DM?

First time player does X (COOL/AWESOME thing) for advantage, they get advantage. If they use it again in the same battle then they can get advantage again. However the third time they get no advantage. Fourth onward, doing the same trick X, they get disadvantage.

This represents enemies learning what the PC is going and how they will do it. If you spam a move then you will telegraph the move and it will be easier to block.

Eventually, if the move is spammed a lot, people may start knowing the PC for that specific move. A PC may get a reputation as "The Wall Walker" or whatever and then, if identified as such the PC won't be able to gain advantage the same way unless they come up with a new move.

I like to keep my games fluid and realistic on some fronts while allowing everyone to play a fantasy game.

If a magic user, figures out how to use a spell differently that impresses me I will give the magic user Advantage on an attack roll or the target Saving Throw Disadvantage. Like (note this is an example and may not be a real type of scenario...) if the mage uses a Ray of Frost to break a support beam in order to crash a ceiling down on an enemy, the attacks versus the beams would go as normal, and if the ceiling falls the target would take disadvantage to dodge due to the magic user, using magic in a way that is uncommon.

If the magic user becomes known as Carl "ceiling dropper" Benoit, then enemies will expect this to happen and be ready for ceilings to drop.

DM fiat in a good way.

But smarter monsters (or perhaps bosses) will use tactics like this against the players. This all helps get the surroundings in play and make the battle more realistic. A barbarian can throw a table with advantage the first time (screw non-proficient rules, a Barbarian is proficient with RAAAAGE) and then maybe known as a guy that throws items all the time. Bonny "Chair Chucker" McCarthy.

of course if the player goes a while without using the same tactic, and then surprises me with it again at some point, they get advantage again. Kinda like a great Baseball pitcher, if he is throwing his good stuff and you are waiting for his signature pitch, you may be surprised and put off by the pitch you are looking for.

Chaosvii7
2014-06-23, 02:35 PM
I'll probably award it more often for teamwork than individual displays of skill. Makes it easier to allow the group to coalesce than to have them individually try to one-up each other in the middle of an encounter, combat or otherwise. But rule of cool does deserve a niche for rewarding advantage.

As far as disadvantage goes, I'm not sure how to hand that out to the point where it's at least fair, if not balanced. I almost want to say that I'd reward it when something goes catastrophically wrong, but I don't know if that would be right, especially if it's two people who were previously trying to gain advantage together.

Perhaps I'll hand Advantage out to people who get creative, but if they're not getting creative with an ally then they run the risk of getting disadvantage if they fail. Adding a friend to the equation not only increases the chances of succeeding, but eliminates the penalty of disadvantage. Then I can save that for the actual mechanical assignments of disadvantage while still making it fair and giving gameplay an emphasis on player cohesion.

pwykersotz
2014-06-23, 02:43 PM
I'd probably award it mostly when a character comes up with a great plan, using roleplaying or logic or imagination in an excellent way, but where ultimately they need to roll a die. Alternately, where they describe the worst possible way to do something, then have to roll.

Knaight
2014-06-23, 03:31 PM
Oh god no, this is a fantasy game, lets allow non-casters the luxury of fighting fantastically. If you punish or even give a small penalty then people will be less likely to do cool or exciting things.

That's the point. One would give disadvantage to discourage that, and advantage to encourage that. It depends on what sort of fantasy one is aiming at, and essentially comes down to a style choice. If I were trying to use D&D 5e for some sort of high flying cinematic style (which it really isn't suited for) I'd give advantage. If I were going for something more down to earth (which 5e is at least better suited for), I'd give disadvantage.

Basically, it depends on the fantasy game. Qin is fantasy, and your example action is honestly less cinematic than a lot of typical actions. Torchbearer is fantasy, and your example action would be hilariously out of place.

Lokiare
2014-06-23, 03:52 PM
I won't be giving out advantage or disadvantage at all. Can anyone guess why?

Kurald Galain
2014-06-23, 03:53 PM
Those like me, that use adv/disadv when its called for by the system (power saves, special maneuvers, etc), which results in sparing use overall.
I seriously doubt this will result in "sparing use overall". For example, one of the playtest classes automatically had advantage on all attacks from a certain level.

pwykersotz
2014-06-23, 04:15 PM
I won't be giving out advantage or disadvantage at all. Can anyone guess why?

Wait, wait, let me try to guess! You want to let the rules speak for themselves? Your players are gerbils, and incapable of choosing between two rolls? You've turned them into stackable +/-10 modifiers?

:smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2014-06-23, 04:23 PM
I won't be giving out advantage or disadvantage at all. Can anyone guess why?

Because you TPK'ed your party in the last anecdote you posted, and will now be playing Wraith: The Oblivion instead? :smalltongue:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-23, 04:40 PM
That's the point. One would give disadvantage to discourage that, and advantage to encourage that. It depends on what sort of fantasy one is aiming at, and essentially comes down to a style choice. If I were trying to use D&D 5e for some sort of high flying cinematic style (which it really isn't suited for) I'd give advantage. If I were going for something more down to earth (which 5e is at least better suited for), I'd give disadvantage.

Basically, it depends on the fantasy game. Qin is fantasy, and your example action is honestly less cinematic than a lot of typical actions. Torchbearer is fantasy, and your example action would be hilariously out of place.

The problem with not allowing or straight up punishing a player from being fantasy (the way the PC wants it) is that you are once again making a game of "Exalted Caster" and "LotR Fighter", which if that is the case then why not just play an earlier edition?

This system actually had a neat tiny mechanic that can allow players, casters and non-casters to do fun things and feel like they will succeed, it gives you a sense of security to try crazy or fantastical things that belong in fantasy. By allowing this, you don't force so many people to play a specific way.

Heck, if a player wants to they can play LotR style or a more cinematic style. Though I guess even LotR had its flourish when it came to the elf guy.

rlc
2014-06-23, 04:51 PM
First time player does X (COOL/AWESOME thing) for advantage, they get advantage. If they use it again in the same battle then they can get advantage again. However the third time they get no advantage. Fourth onward, doing the same trick X, they get disadvantage.I haven't done the playtest, but I agree with this. You're rewarding people for constantly thinking creatively and having fun with their characters, which is the point of the game. Of course, that might be less fun for roleplaying characters that are less likely to do cool things, but then the person probably chose that character for a different reason anyway.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-23, 05:22 PM
I haven't done the playtest, but I agree with this. You're rewarding people for constantly thinking creatively and having fun with their characters, which is the point of the game. Of course, that might be less fun for roleplaying characters that are less likely to do cool things, but then the person probably chose that character for a different reason anyway.

I can't think of one reason why roleplayers would be less likely to do cool things... You would think those are the type (more engaging with the game) to do cool things.

Perhaps the Bard, in order to impress the village elder decides to put on a performance. Part of the performance the Bard will do something off the wall, perhaps a dance that incorporates a little bit of acrobatics by ... i don't know... Break dancing, spinning on his head. The Bard passes his dance check and does a charisma check (diplomacy) with advantage to see if the leader was impressed with his performance and will help the Bard out.

If the Bard failed his dance check, the bard could have disadvantage or nothing to his charisma check.

Like in 4e, mechanics don't suppress roleplaying.

rlc
2014-06-23, 05:26 PM
I didn't really have any examples in mind when I said that and it was more of a "well, I'm sure these escapes exist somewhere" type of thing. Like, maybe if someone chose a really slow moving race/class, or something.

Knaight
2014-06-23, 05:45 PM
I can't think of one reason why roleplayers would be less likely to do cool things... You would think those are the type (more engaging with the game) to do cool things.

They aren't saying roleplayers are less likely to do cool things. They are saying that roleplaying a character who doesn't do cool things will be made less fun than roleplaying a character who does do cool things. Basically the system disincentives playing more serious characters.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-23, 05:49 PM
I didn't really have any examples in mind when I said that and it was more of a "well, I'm sure these escapes exist somewhere" type of thing. Like, maybe if someone chose a really slow moving race/class, or something.

Well, say like a Dwarf, wouldn't have to be acrobatic.

Perhaps the Dwarf runs their axe/hammer across the ground until they get in front of the enemy before attacking in order to have dust fly in their enemy's eyes. Advantage on the attack roll.

Edit:

It doesn't hurt people who have boring character, though if they are to boring of a personality then why are they adventuring? However, they can still get advantage from class features, spell, or whatever. Or they can do things like what I described above. You don't have to be over the top to get advantage, just do something.

I've played system that actually penalizes you for not explaining how you attack or just saying "I move, I attack" type. It really pushes people to be more open.

Lokiare
2014-06-23, 06:08 PM
Wait, wait, let me try to guess! You want to let the rules speak for themselves? Your players are gerbils, and incapable of choosing between two rolls? You've turned them into stackable +/-10 modifiers?

:smalltongue:

Not even close. Nothing wrong with (dis)advantage by itself, mostly its just how WotC is using it without understanding its impact on the game.


Because you TPK'ed your party in the last anecdote you posted, and will now be playing Wraith: The Oblivion instead? :smalltongue:

Hmmm.... good idea.... but no.

The answer is I can't get any of my players to play it.

Person_Man
2014-06-24, 11:18 AM
First time player does X (COOL/AWESOME thing) for advantage, they get advantage. If they use it again in the same battle then they can get advantage again. However the third time they get no advantage. Fourth onward, doing the same trick X, they get disadvantage.

The FATE system (3rd party narrative focused OGL rewrite of d20 rules) has a really nifty mechanic for this. Everyone gets a limited number of Fate Points. And everyone gets a number of Aspects (Dumb Luck, World's Greatest Detective, I Must Protect My Family, Always on the Run, etc). A particular encounter can also have Aspects (A Dark and Stormy Night, Slippery Road, Impending Ambush, etc). Any player can just spend a Fate Point to gain a minor bonus. But if you can invoke one of your own relevant Aspects or guess a relevant Aspect for the encounter and use it to your advantage ("I try and push the wagon into him and knock him over in the Slippery Road!"), you get a bigger bonus. An optional rule allows you to invoke and stack multiple Aspects and spend multiple Fate points to basically auto-succeed. But you can't invoke the same Aspect more then once in a particular encounter, and the GM adjudicates whether or not an Aspect applies or not. The GM can also compel an Aspect, and make something bad happen to you. ("Wouldn't it just be your Dumb Luck if the dark assassins kidnapped you while you were on your way to your first date with the hot elf you met last night..."). If you accept the compel, you gain a Fate point. If you deny it, then you must spend a Fate point.

The down side is that combat in FATE is rarely tactical, it's about coming up with an interesting story collectively based on the available Aspects. But it is fun, and it does encourage variety.

da_chicken
2014-06-24, 12:10 PM
They aren't saying roleplayers are less likely to do cool things. They are saying that roleplaying a character who doesn't do cool things will be made less fun than roleplaying a character who does do cool things. Basically the system disincentives playing more serious characters.

Yeah, I have to think that iconic characters that are not roguish would suffer in such a system. How can you describe casting fireball in a unique manner?

There's also the issue that you can only describe an action so many ways. If a Barbarian's sophisticated style is to rage, charge, and smash an overhanded, two handed blow, you're relying on strength, not finesse. You shouldn't be punished for not being creative in D&D. It's a game about exploration, interaction, and combat. Creativity is not a requirement, even if it is appreciated.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 12:18 PM
Yeah, I have to think that iconic characters that are not roguish would suffer in such a system. How can you describe casting fireball in a unique manner?

There's also the issue that you can only describe an action so many ways. If a Barbarian's sophisticated style is to rage, charge, and smash an overhanded, two handed blow, you're relying on strength, not finesse. You shouldn't be punished for not being creative in D&D. It's a game about exploration, interaction, and combat. Creativity is not a requirement, even if it is appreciated.

I'm really not sure why only rougish types benefit.

Wizard: I cast my fireball spell but target the explosion at my enemy's crotch.

I cast my fireball just above the target's head, against the ceiling so it not only hits the target but some of the ceiling will get damage and fall thus screwing up his dodging ability.

Barbarian wants to smash? He runs up two handed weapon over head, snarls and spits in the enemy's face (right in the mouth), and attacks.

This doesn't punish anyone, it just rewards people who put effort into what they are doing. If you put a little imagination and effort into it then anyone can do awesome things no matter the personality of the PC.

It is advantageous to not be vanilla and predictable, just like in battle.

Edit: if you don't encourage creativity then creativity will die. You aren't punishing the non-crwative but you are encouraging everyone to participate and be creative more. Hell with a rule like this, more people may try to be creative.

Actually I don't think it is a creativity problem, I think the problem is that for so long there hasn't been a mechanic that pushes for people to do odd things like this. I had a player say "wait, you can target the ceiling" when a mage shot the ceiling with a magical bolt of energy as part of a trap. There is such a huge "you can only do this" problem that it gives people tunnel vision where they no longer think out side the box.

Knaight
2014-06-24, 01:36 PM
Yeah, I have to think that iconic characters that are not roguish would suffer in such a system. How can you describe casting fireball in a unique manner?

Pretty easily, honestly. To use a pop culture reference - does the term "Roy Mustang" mean anything to you? The character is basically a walking compilation of fun fireballs. Alternately, take a system like Wushu, wherein one can describe a bunch to get a better chance with every die roll. Play that for a while, and you see it coming up with the likes of board games (though it does punish being concise).

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 02:00 PM
Pretty easily, honestly. To use a pop culture reference - does the term "Roy Mustang" mean anything to you? The character is basically a walking compilation of fun fireballs. Alternately, take a system like Wushu, wherein one can describe a bunch to get a better chance with every die roll. Play that for a while, and you see it coming up with the likes of board games (though it does punish being concise).

I totally forgot about Roy Mustang...

Now I wish there was a magic system for d&d that emulated Full Metal Alchemist. Not sure if there is a 3rd part version.

rlc
2014-06-24, 02:42 PM
I'm really not sure why only rougish types benefit.

Wizard: I cast my fireball spell but target the explosion at my enemy's crotch.

I cast my fireball just above the target's head, against the ceiling so it not only hits the target but some of the ceiling will get damage and fall thus screwing up his dodging ability.

Barbarian wants to smash? He runs up two handed weapon over head, snarls and spits in the enemy's face (right in the mouth), and attacks.

This doesn't punish anyone, it just rewards people who put effort into what they are doing. If you put a little imagination and effort into it then anyone can do awesome things no matter the personality of the PC.

It is advantageous to not be vanilla and predictable, just like in battle.

Edit: if you don't encourage creativity then creativity will die. You aren't punishing the non-crwative but you are encouraging everyone to participate and be creative more. Hell with a rule like this, more people may try to be creative.

Actually I don't think it is a creativity problem, I think the problem is that for so long there hasn't been a mechanic that pushes for people to do odd things like this. I had a player say "wait, you can target the ceiling" when a mage shot the ceiling with a magical bolt of energy as part of a trap. There is such a huge "you can only do this" problem that it gives people tunnel vision where they no longer think out side the box.

But then your barbarian becomes known as "spitter mcgee." Plus, when ai think of "raging," it sounds a little too angry to think of clever things like that.
But seriously, nobody is arguing that creativity doesn't help you in combat, whether in a game or in real life. Some people just rely more on hitting really hard, or whatever else. And I can't believe this has turned into a semantic dispute.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-24, 03:09 PM
But then your barbarian becomes known as "spitter mcgee." Plus, when ai think of "raging," it sounds a little too angry to think of clever things like that.
But seriously, nobody is arguing that creativity doesn't help you in combat, whether in a game or in real life. Some people just rely more on hitting really hard, or whatever else. And I can't believe this has turned into a semantic dispute.

Wait, you never been so mad you spit on someone? Must be a southern US thing...

It ain't always about clever either, it can be spur of the moment "oh acre it, I'll do this".

People who rely only on hitting hard don't last long. Even Tyson and Ali didn't just "hit hard" and to think that barbarians can't use tactics is absurd. You really want to limit players on your notions instead of rewarding them for their ideas of their character?

rlc
2014-06-24, 04:10 PM
Wait, you never been so mad you spit on someone? Must be a southern US thing...

It ain't always about clever either, it can be spur of the moment "oh acre it, I'll do this".not since 4th grade.


People who rely only on hitting hard don't last long....and maybe i want to roleplay that. Or i want my dude to start off thinking that strength solves everything until someone shows hi, differently, then he smartens up.
Even Tyson and Ali didn't just "hit hard"bad examples. They outclassed people.
and to think that barbarians can't use tactics is absurd. You really want to limit players on your notions instead of rewarding them for their ideas of their character?
Where are you even getting this? I never said anything about imposing anything. I said that if someone is playing as somebody who's uncreative, then they won't be creative.
But maybe my guy just fights with a specific style.

da_chicken
2014-06-24, 04:20 PM
Wait, you never been so mad you spit on someone? Must be a southern US thing...

If you spit on someone around here that you've been arguing with, you should expect to dodge a punch.



People who rely only on hitting hard don't last long. Even Tyson and Ali didn't just "hit hard" and to think that barbarians can't use tactics is absurd. You really want to limit players on your notions instead of rewarding them for their ideas of their character?

To think that you have to be creative and unique in combat is equally absurd. Indeed, the person who tries whatever suits their mood is likely to die fast. The person who trains to be maximally deadly in the most brutally efficient manner possible will tend to win. Look at SWAT tactical operations training. They're not reinventing the wheel. They practice ram, flash bang, engage in a very precise and repeatable fashion. Schools of swordsmanship were the same. You practice your movements and get them precise because the masters that came before already solved this problem. All this training suggests that, yes, there really is a very narrow range of most effective attacks that you should stick to. Sure, Tyson and Ali had wildly different styles, but its not like they went out there trying to be creative in how they boxed. Ali was always an out-boxer, Tyson was always an in-boxer. Even though Ali's style was unconventional for any boxer, he still used the same style largely.

So having to come up with a new description every encounter or even every opponent is not only a fool's errand - I don't think someone can describe an attack as many ways as PCs attack in D&D - it's not even realistic. If on my first opponent I say, "I move in and strike using my school's favored opening against armed humanoids used to test their skill called Blue Dragon's Fang." Well, my character should probably be doing the exact same thing with every armed humanoid he faces for his entire career unless he happens to go out and learn a whole new school. So this player, who is legitimately playing his Fighter correctly, can never benefit from being creative.

Meanwhile, another player who says whatever comes to mind no matter how ridiculous gets a mechanical advantage?

rlc
2014-06-24, 04:40 PM
The best part is that nobody even really disagreed with anything at first. Hell, i still like those homebrewed rules. All i said was that some people might not benefit from it, but they probably won't care.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-06-25, 10:18 AM
The best part is that nobody even really disagreed with anything at first. Hell, i still like those homebrewed rules. All i said was that some people might not benefit from it, but they probably won't care.

Some stuff and then I'm done, I can't really discuss things when people have such a narrow view on what one can do with a class. Really a barbarian can only move and hit things really really really hard, barbarians can't have tactics? Sure some barbarians might, feel free to play them that way, but rewarding players for thinking outside such a narrow view is something I would rather support and make fun than ignore. This helps get rid of "I move, I atta k, I rolled a 8 hmm I might have hit..."


And if another person doesn't want to do that, fine, they can play their character how they want by getting advantage by the book and their class.

Rewarding those that try harder to do something isn't a punishment to anyone else that doesn't. They have the same opportunity as the other guy.

@ spit: I've seen fights where one guy will spit in the face of another to surprise them. They were already in the fight so no the spitting didn't start the fight. Gentlemen's agreements don't hold no weight in fist fights (except punching in one location... ). Or people will be yelling so hard (watch baseball managers yell at umps) that spit goes flying.

@combat: if you aren't creative or unique then you will be predictable. Predictable people die or get defeated. If you disagree with that then I'm not sure if you ever done competitive sports or know anything about battle history.

Kendo, Basketball, Football, and Soccer are all sports that emulate battle (because that is what sports is all about, a humane way of fighting). If you stay predictable and do the same thing over and over, no matter how talented, you will get defeated. Heck, the NBA finals were a great example of this. The heat relied on Lebron for everything and the Spurs exploited that. Let Labron get what he was going to get (most explosive guy on the court) but shut down the predictable members of the team. Who won the championship? Most other teams tried to shut down Lebron and the rest of the team but the spurs went a different direction.

pwykersotz
2014-06-25, 11:10 AM
Some stuff and then I'm done, I can't really discuss things when people have such a narrow view on what one can do with a class. Really a barbarian can only move and hit things really really really hard, barbarians can't have tactics? Sure some barbarians might, feel free to play them that way, but rewarding players for thinking outside such a narrow view is something I would rather support and make fun than ignore. This helps get rid of "I move, I atta k, I rolled a 8 hmm I might have hit..."


And if another person doesn't want to do that, fine, they can play their character how they want by getting advantage by the book and their class.

Rewarding those that try harder to do something isn't a punishment to anyone else that doesn't. They have the same opportunity as the other guy.

@ spit: I've seen fights where one guy will spit in the face of another to surprise them. They were already in the fight so no the spitting didn't start the fight. Gentlemen's agreements don't hold no weight in fist fights (except punching in one location... ). Or people will be yelling so hard (watch baseball managers yell at umps) that spit goes flying.

@combat: if you aren't creative or unique then you will be predictable. Predictable people die or get defeated. If you disagree with that then I'm not sure if you ever done competitive sports or know anything about battle history.

Kendo, Basketball, Football, and Soccer are all sports that emulate battle (because that is what sports is all about, a humane way of fighting). If you stay predictable and do the same thing over and over, no matter how talented, you will get defeated. Heck, the NBA finals were a great example of this. The heat relied on Lebron for everything and the Spurs exploited that. Let Labron get what he was going to get (most explosive guy on the court) but shut down the predictable members of the team. Who won the championship? Most other teams tried to shut down Lebron and the rest of the team but the spurs went a different direction.

An observation: it seems more that you're rewarding how entertained your players make you than anything else. This might not be true, but it seems to come across this way in some of your descriptions.

I'm definitely a GM who appreciates innovation, but sometimes you're just reinventing the wheel, and doing it in a less effective way. Do note, I don't say there's anything wrong with a more cinematic approach, but I would put forward that a lot of these comments are not 'supporting a narrow way of thinking' nearly as much as 'using their best tools whenever they can'.

rlc
2014-06-25, 03:23 PM
Nah, it's cool, Morbo. I get it. You urge everybody to think about things in different ways all the time, but the second they think differently than you do, they're narrow-minded. Makes sense, bro.

da_chicken
2014-06-25, 03:53 PM
Nah, it's cool, Morbo. I get it. You urge everybody to think about things in different ways all the time, but the second they think differently than you do, they're narrow-minded. Makes sense, bro.

While that's hilarious and makes a valid point, it's not exactly fair to put it like that.

I don't object to rewarding creativity, I just object to rewarding ONLY creativity. If players get a benefit only from being creative, then that is an implicit requirement to be creative. It's fine if that's what you and your players like, but it's not going to be suitable for everyone. That's my only point. I also know that my group, which consists of a professional actor, an English teacher and writer, a gas station manager, a lab chemist, a systems analyst, a hotel manager, a small business owner, a caretaker, and a web developer, there's going to be wildly different levels of creativity. Some of us live on it, some of us don't really do it. The game has to be fun for all of us.

Fwiffo86
2014-06-26, 02:43 PM
While that's hilarious and makes a valid point, it's not exactly fair to put it like that.

I don't object to rewarding creativity, I just object to rewarding ONLY creativity. If players get a benefit only from being creative, then that is an implicit requirement to be creative. It's fine if that's what you and your players like, but it's not going to be suitable for everyone. That's my only point. I also know that my group, which consists of a professional actor, an English teacher and writer, a gas station manager, a lab chemist, a systems analyst, a hotel manager, a small business owner, a caretaker, and a web developer, there's going to be wildly different levels of creativity. Some of us live on it, some of us don't really do it. The game has to be fun for all of us.

I want to be in that group. They sound absolutely fascinating.