Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Play Like You Have To! => D&D Deliberations => : ImperatorK July 24, 2011, 04:22:28 PM
-
Does imagination play a role in D&D?
Do rules limit imagination?
Are rules supposed to limit imagination?
What other thoughts do you have on this subject?
This thread was inspired by this statement:
D&D isn't just a game of "imagine". Not just anything is supposed to be possible. The rules are in place to limit your imagination. Within those limits, there might still be considerable leeway - for example, you can imagine infinite amount of different numbers between 1 and 2. But again, not just anything is supposed to happen in the game because you can imagine it.
If you don't want to impose limitations on your imagination, why use a limiting ruleset? Why bring chessboard and pieces to the table if you aren't going to play chess? Again, not a rhetorical question; you can answer it.
... in a discussion about "Immutability of Fluff".
-
Certainly imagination plays a role in D&D. Even if you're not a Real Roleplayer and live for the wargame aspect of D&D, you're not actually fighting or even planning out fights, all the action is strictly imaginary (excluding dice-throwing after a bad call). The rules do serve to limit imagination, and rightly so. See, not everyone imagines the same thing at the same time, and nearly everyone is selfish to some degree or another (not a bad thing, just a survival trait). However, when you combine mismatched imaginations with selfishness in a collaborative project to imagine struggle and conflict, you eventually wind up in a little kid shouting match along the lines of "I shot you!" "No you didn't, you missed." "But I'm the best shooter in the world!" "I have super speed and can dodge arrows and bullets!" "I never miss, you're dead!" "No, I ran over to you and kicked you a hundred times before you could finish drawing your weapon, you're dead!"
I don't believe fluff should serve as a limiter, however. If it has no bearing on the mechanical outcome of a conflict (not always combat, the struggle between a puzzle's designer and the guy that needs to solve it to move on is conflict too), it's not necessary. Sure, it can serve to enhance the experience, but it can also degrade it. If the fluff is interfering with the players having a good time, it's having a negative effect, not a positive one, and it needs to butt out.
-
Weenog pretty much nailed it. Yes, imagination plays a role in D&D. While rules can limit imagination, it's important to have a working framework and baseline for rules adjudication if you're playing a game. Without it, the game just stops working.
I mean, if you want to play 100% Magic Tea Party, you can totally do that, but you probably shouldn't be paying money to do so.
-
So you guys are against refluffing?
-
So you guys are against refluffing?
Not at all. I love it.
Where did you get that idea from what I said?
-
So you guys are against refluffing?
Not at all. I love it.
Where did you get that idea from what I said?
Well, you where talking about Magic Tea Party, but nowhere did I suggest to ignore rules.
-
Fluff is more important than crunch because otherwise you're just doing your tax returns and throwing them at each other. On the other hand, crunch is more important than fluff because eventually you need an answer to the eternal question of, "Bang, is he dead?"
So if you want to tell me your monk with Throwing on his Necklace of Natural Attacks has rocket fists, that's grand. Just be prepared to explain any discrepancies and accept the limitations on what they can do according to the rules.
-
Fluff is more important than crunch because otherwise you're just doing your tax returns and throwing them at each other. On the other hand, crunch is more important than fluff because eventually you need an answer to the eternal question of, "Bang, is he dead?"
So if you want to tell me your monk with Throwing on his Necklace of Natural Attacks has rocket fists, that's grand. Just be prepared to explain any discrepancies and accept the limitations on what they can do according to the rules.
This.
-
So you guys are against refluffing?
Not at all. I love it.
Where did you get that idea from what I said?
Well, you where talking about Magic Tea Party, but nowhere did I suggest to ignore rules.
I see.
I said that from the standpoint that if rules do get in the way of some creativity, I still think it's important to have them. That being said, if you're fairly creative, you can typically come up with some way to refluff something and keep it inside of the rules. So, I think we agree. That, or I'm suffering from reading failure.
-
I'm all for refluffing. I understand that some people might not know that mechanic is just a metagame construct and the flavor isn't limited only to the fluff that's in the handbooks, BUT I don't get people who are saying that you can't change fluff. :banghead Yes, there are a few exceptions, so we can't exactly say that ALL fluff is mutable, but they're so rare (Paladin, Assassin)...
Refluffing is using your imagination, so if someone says that rules limit imagination then that means refluffing shouldn't be easy/possible. and that's silly IMO.
-
"Immutability of Fluff," ahah. People are so closed minded some times.
-
"Immutability of Fluff," ahah. People are so closed minded some times.
Have you read that thread? It's not about "Fluff is immutable", it's about "Is fluff immutable or not?", because there are many discussions about it (one big one was ended some time ago, it was an off-topic in a thread about ToB) and the OP was confused.
I encourage to read it. It's hilarious. :lol
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955
-
Oh, from GitP. Why am I not surprised. Thanks for the link, I'll go through it. :p
-
so if someone says that rules limit imagination then that means refluffing shouldn't be easy/possible. and that's silly IMO.
"I shoot the tarrasque! It should be easy for an expert like me to hit a target that big."
"You'd think so, but it looks like you rolled a 28 against his AC 35. Guess you'll have to kill all the witnesses to keep your rep for a perfect record intact. Again."
Remember that limiting imaginations includes reining in overconfident types who think they're so phenomenal they can one-shot anything by knowing it has a brain and mentioning they're aiming at it through an eye socket or something.
-
Remember that limiting imaginations includes reining in overconfident types who think they're so phenomenal they can one-shot anything by knowing it has a brain and mentioning they're aiming at it through an eye socket or something.
Well, there's nothing wrong with trying. If they're lucky, they'll roll well enough that they can even describe it that way!
-
Remember that limiting imaginations includes reining in overconfident types who think they're so phenomenal they can one-shot anything by knowing it has a brain and mentioning they're aiming at it through an eye socket or something.
Well, there's nothing wrong with trying. If they're lucky, they'll roll well enough that they can even describe it that way!
Sure, but thinking you're going to OHK everything with a 1d4-2 damage bow and not even a source of precision damage, just because your concept is world's greatest sniper and you the player have a rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, doesn't cut it.
I did have a DM once that kind of liked the idea of surgical strikes and he wound up granting (or improving existing) sneak attack for characters with sufficient Heal ranks, but that was an odd edge case at best.
-
People can think lots of things. How many of them are joining "Idol" or "I Have Talent" shows with the confidence that they win for sure? :p
I like to think that I'm the best lover around, yet in reality I'm probably just mediocre at best. ;)
-
To me, the key word you quoted in the OP is "just." Of course D&D uses imagination, and of course D&D uses rules to clarify how the collective imagination of the folks participating shapes events. The way this topic is phrased reads, to me, as a "yes/no" false dichotomy setup.
-
Yes, you can change fluff. They have official sources doing so, hence the Paladin variants in UA, for example. Alternatively, D&D is a game of imagination, which is why spellcasters dominate it; The more creative applications of a spell you make, the more you're able to bend reality to your liking.
-
Sure, but thinking you're going to OHK everything with a 1d4-2 damage bow and not even a source of precision damage, just because your concept is world's greatest sniper and you the player have a rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, doesn't cut it.
Well, clearly the concept and the mechanics don't really fix, now do they? If you want to play the world's greatest archer, you should probably pick classes and feats that make you good at archery.
I did have a DM once that kind of liked the idea of surgical strikes and he wound up granting (or improving existing) sneak attack for characters with sufficient Heal ranks, but that was an odd edge case at best.
These types of things can be cute and fun. If done right, they can encourage creativity, and I think that's a good thing. If done carelessly, they can throw off the balance of the game even more.
-
Well there are some places where the mechanics just doesn't support it very well without a lot of contortions. A single shot sniper type for example, or highly mobile melee.
Granted, homebrew solves a lot on that end.
-
Well there are some places where the mechanics just doesn't support it very well without a lot of contortions. A single shot sniper type for example, or highly mobile melee.
Well, from the player's standpoint, single shot anything is pretty terrible if it's being used against them. So, there are two ways to handle this:
1) PCs get special stuff that monsters don't (like one-shot sniping, or something), or
2) You're only expected to be able to one-shot stuff several levels behind you.
#2 already has a decent amount of support. If your concept is a guy who should be one-shotting ogres (CR 3), you might be looking at something more like a 5th to 10th level PC, depending on approach (full attack vs single attack). So, you don't get to play 5th level character concepts at 3rd level. It's just the way the game works.
Granted, homebrew solves a lot on that end.
But, other than that, I do agree with your statement in general. Some archetypes are represented very poorly in D&D, and house rules can help a lot with that.
-
Well, less 'one-hit-kill' and more single shot effective(ala ubercharging for ranged attacks). D&D archers tend to have rates of fire comparable to semiautomatic firearms, but the precise, deadly shot is lacking. Even sneak attacks, the most flavorwise closest to the concept, strongly favors a multitude of attacks that add up to one whopping hit. Thats another thing.
-
But uber charging also benefits more from multiple attacks. Pounce isn't considered one of the top melee abilities to get for nothing. Single attacks are just too easy to negate at medium-higher levels, and whetever melee or ranged, sneak or power attack, you always want more hits per turn.
-
Hence the lack of support bit. :)
Its not necessarily optimal but it should be effective enough to be usable.
ToB does throw in some effective single hit melee, though even that pales to a effective full attack.
Spells have effective mass ranged, but being spells they do that and more to begin with.
Imagine, say, a Death Attack/Final Shot that requires a move action to study the target, which bestows triple sneak attack bonus damage on the next sneak attack. Thats one way.
-
It isn't. Then you just have people geting other ways of geting extra move actions and whatnot for more boosted attacks.
Just like most of the top spellcasting power comes from geting more spells in a single round.
Heck even the top ToB maneuvers are the ones that allow you to get more attacks. Time stands still, White Raven tactics, whatever mongoose, you name it.
Really it's basically inevitable. If one attack is good, then of course multiple attacks are better. The only way to avoid it is make it extra-hardcoded like 4e rogue's sneak attack. You can get it once per round, and that's it, no ifs or buts.
-
The difference and the point is that they don't have to be optimal. The way the mechanics work is that multiple attacks are superior. However, you just need to be effective enough to make it playable.
-
Which would be all fine and dandy if we had anything resembling a consensus on what is "playable".
After all last time I checked single attacks are all the rage at low levels, but now you claiming they're unplayable.
Other people would go as far as claiming that if you don't have the ability to rewrite reality at every turn, you're unplayable as well.
-
I think it is general knowledge that something resembling a consensus on what is playable is "Your Mileage May Vary", or so it would seem.
-
There is still basic competence.
As it is for example, you can charge with a lance/Leap Attack and be effective.
You can also charge with Pounce and be effective.
You can also slap on more multipliers, combine pounce with charge multipliers and achieve great overkill.
You can full-attack with a two handed reach weapon and be sorta effective(seeing as you need to get them in reach first)
You can use Rapid Shot Hasted archery and riddle opponents with arrows.
Those are all effective.
On the ineffective end though, you have:
-Sword and Board, losing out on the basic multipliers of two handing, yet gaining only a narrow defense
-TWF, you have the flaws of the full attack method, with less damage, less accuracy and more money sunk in.
-Unarmed fighting, ahahaha.
Its a matter of return on investment. For this many levels, feats and equipment, for this amount of effort, how much gain are you getting? To be effective, not making a loss can suffice.
-
-Sword and Board, losing out on the basic multipliers of two handing, yet gaining only a narrow defense
At low levels the extra damage from two-handed is negligible and the extra AC quite valuable. At high levels you get an animated shield.
-TWF, you have the flaws of the full attack method, with less damage, less accuracy and more money sunk in.
It always has been playable with sneak attack for extra damage, and with ToB suport it can become quite potent.
-Unarmed fighting, ahahaha.
Get natural weapons, not that hard. Profit.
-
Exactly.
So just provide that same level of minimal support for other styles that the system doesn't cover well enough yet.
-
Ok fine.
1-Buy/craft a wand/staff with ray/orb spells shaped like a bow.
2-[spoiler]
(http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh121/MisterSinister13/motivator6225250.jpg)
[/spoiler]
3-Profit!
-
/necro
I've never played any kind of archer. But isn't manyshot a single attack roll? Refluff it as one single arrow, boom, bam, you're done. Greater manyshot if you're a swift hunter.
In a fantastical game, the crunch should support anything fantastical while maintaining challenge (and to a lesser extent, balance). The catch is, that's hard.
So the answer to this question is basically 'is fluff mutable? Derr yes. Is crunch mutable? Yeah, if you're good enough to rewrite it without cocking it up.'
-
There's also a PF feat that lets you combine all your shots, so there's that.
I think *most* archetypes and concepts are supportable in 3.5 D&D, it just takes varying levels of headache and opti-fu to do it. That doesn't necessarily make me happy, but I've gotten good enough at thinking around corners w/ the system to make it work for me/my group at the level of optimization we usually enjoy.
-
When the designers were making D&D they poured all of their imagination into magic. This is actually USUALLY the case in most roleplaying systems I've played. When they were working on non-magic things, they poured all of their knowledge of reality into them. This again is usually the case in most roleplaying games I've played. The magical people get all the imaginative energy (which is waaaaaaay more powerful) and the mundanes get recoil and armor check penalties.
It's easy to forget the imagination is there when you're playing someone for whom no imagination was offered. If you're playing a mundane the developers spent more time thinking about what you couldn't do than what you could. If you're playing someone magical, then you're playing someone's fantasy brainstorm.
The really sucky thing is that the developers were kinda stupid. That's why a creature who is fine size can jump 5 in the air with as much ease as something that's colossal. Furthermore, the colossal creature will have a very hard time jumping higher than most average humans, despite the fact that he can simply lift his foot higher.
To answer your question: Yes. You may not realize it, but there are people who simply can't play tabletop RPGs. They just don't get how you can pretend like that. My GF is one of them. It amazes her how I talk about games because I speak in first person about something my character did. She doesn't realize she pretended like that once or twice when she came over, but some people just can't turn it on and off like a gamer can.
-
While it's technically true that rules "limit" imagination...
It's a bit like saying that only free verse is truly imaginative poetry -- once you start writing sonnets or haiku or requiring the poem to scan or rhyme you've just killed all the imagination.
Or like saying that using paint limits the imagination of the painter.
There's nothing wrong with free form rpging or collaborative storytelling -- but if it's something you're doing with other people, there are going to be "rules" even if you aren't quite so explicit about them. There's *something* another player/writer could do that you would consider to have "broken" the story/game and you'd be mad at them. And the other players/writers probably know what they are.
Extreme Example: Five of you are sitting around playing a freeform game, telling each other your parts of the bigger narrative. One player, on his turn, gets up, goes to the fridge, grabs a beer, then goes to the PS3 and starts playing Call of Duty. You cry, "WTF, man? I thought we were playing <Freeform RPG>?" He replies, "I am. This is my turn -- what, is this against your precious rules? WTF? You're squashing my imagination here with your fascist rules!" Free form can work well for good writers, actors, and storytellers. Not so good for performance artists. End-Extreme-Example.
Whether the D&D rules are good for collectively telling a good story? That's another issue. There's still a lot of miniature-based tactical wargaming in the rule set. Personally, I'm starting to gravitate towards Fate systems, since the Dresden Files RPG came out.
-
If you're playing a mundane the developers spent more time thinking about what you couldn't do than what you could. If you're playing someone magical, then you're playing someone's fantasy brainstorm.
This is the best summary of the dichotomy between casting and noncasting I've seen in a while. I'm going to keep it in mind.
-
^^
That is totally siggable.
While it's technically true that rules "limit" imagination...
It's a bit like saying that only free verse is truly imaginative poetry -- once you start writing sonnets or haiku or requiring the poem to scan or rhyme you've just killed all the imagination.
Or like saying that using paint limits the imagination of the painter.
There's nothing wrong with free form rpging or collaborative storytelling -- but if it's something you're doing with other people, there are going to be "rules" even if you aren't quite so explicit about them. There's *something* another player/writer could do that you would consider to have "broken" the story/game and you'd be mad at them. And the other players/writers probably know what they are.
Extreme Example: Five of you are sitting around playing a freeform game, telling each other your parts of the bigger narrative. One player, on his turn, gets up, goes to the fridge, grabs a beer, then goes to the PS3 and starts playing Call of Duty. You cry, "WTF, man? I thought we were playing <Freeform RPG>?" He replies, "I am. This is my turn -- what, is this against your precious rules? WTF? You're squashing my imagination here with your fascist rules!" Free form can work well for good writers, actors, and storytellers. Not so good for performance artists. End-Extreme-Example.
Whether the D&D rules are good for collectively telling a good story? That's another issue. There's still a lot of miniature-based tactical wargaming in the rule set. Personally, I'm starting to gravitate towards Fate systems, since the Dresden Files RPG came out.
To elaborate on the restrictions matter.
People are lazy, they naturally tend towards the path of least resistance.
When creating a story without restrictions, lack of resistance means most players would take the path of least resistance and make something 'standard' either a common archetype, or taking straight from popular media.
Restrictions cause the path to meander, they force their own story to grow. Each limitation both narrows the range of available stories and pushes it deeper still.