So, basically, you let the wizard cheat, because he describes things creatively?
That's fine, but you're not playing an RPG.
How is that "not playing an RPG"? It might not be the kind of RPG you'd like, but I could be perfectly happy in a game were the only rules was basically "say yes". Indeed lots of modern RPGs work more or less on that principle. I don't think it is a good fit for D&D (at least not as the default assumption), but RPG covers a lot more ground that D&D.
What you're describing is freeform roleplaying. Which is awesome. But freeform roleplaying is not an RPG.
So if somebody says "I want to shoot a flame arrow at the chandelier fitting and try to drop the chandelier on the troll!" you'll say "uh...no, that isn't in the rules, so you can't do it."?
The rulebook can't possible envisage every single scenario that a player might want to try, so saying that they're limited to doing things that are explicitly stated in the rules is a bit unfair. One clever player will always think of something that the rulebook hasn't, and a GM will have to find a way in which that task can be performed.
Remember that the GM and the players aren't in direct competition. The GM is helping the players have fun, so if a GM won't let them do anything that isn't in the rulebook, he may find himself without players before long.
Us younger players are not like how I have seen a lot of older players characterizing us. We do not want a simple easy game with no complexity. We do not want a grind-fest with no storytelling or depth. We do not want "MOAR LOOTZ AND KILLINGZ STUFFS" instead of deep engaging play.
Well I'm sorry but from what I read here, it seems like there are people who want exactly that. I never said that was true of all 4th edition fans, but it certainly seems to be true of a lot of people on this forum. Again, I'm sorry if that offends people, but that's how it sounds to me.
I very strongly believe that heroism and awesomeness need to be earned, and shouldn't just be handed to you because you make the decision to play the game. That's like saying "I decided to become a Doctor, so I should be able to earn a Doctor's salary before I've even gone to University! What do you mean I have to study first? I'm supposed to be a Doctor, darn it!!" Well, no. You're not. Not yet anyway.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
So, basically, you let the wizard cheat, because he describes things creatively?
That's fine, but you're not playing an RPG.
How is that "not playing an RPG"? It might not be the kind of RPG you'd like, but I could be perfectly happy in a game were the only rules was basically "say yes". Indeed lots of modern RPGs work more or less on that principle. I don't think it is a good fit for D&D (at least not as the default assumption), but RPG covers a lot more ground that D&D.
What you're describing is freeform roleplaying. Which is awesome. But freeform roleplaying is not an RPG.
So if somebody says "I want to shoot a flame arrow at the chandelier fitting and try to drop the chandelier on the troll!" you'll say "uh...no, that isn't in the rules, so you can't do it."?
The rulebook can't possible envisage every single scenario that a player might want to try, so saying that they're limited to doing things that are explicitly stated in the rules is a bit unfair. One clever player will always think of something that the rulebook hasn't, and a GM will have to find a way in which that task can be performed.
Remember that the GM and the players aren't in direct competition. The GM is helping the players have fun, so if a GM won't let them do anything that isn't in the rulebook, he may find himself without players before long.
I'm just to go ahead an point to 4e's "Page 42" like a good little 4rry. It's a set of guidelines to adjudicate actions not specifically covered by the rules. However, it's not calvin-ball. It tells you how hard something should be, if it does damage how much, and whether one should consider extra effects or not. See, here's the thing; rules can be broad and unspecific to allow for maximum rules coverage in situations like this. Rather than jumping straight out of the system the second a player (or the DM for that matter) does something creative, it gives the DM a tool to do his job; make a game awesome.
Us younger players are not like how I have seen a lot of older players characterizing us. We do not want a simple easy game with no complexity. We do not want a grind-fest with no storytelling or depth. We do not want "MOAR LOOTZ AND KILLINGZ STUFFS" instead of deep engaging play.
Well I'm sorry but from what I read here, it seems like there are people who want exactly that. I never said that was true of all 4th edition fans, but it certainly seems to be true of a lot of people on this forum. Again, I'm sorry if that offends people, but that's how it sounds to me.
I very strongly believe that heroism and awesomeness need to be earned, and shouldn't just be handed to you because you make the decision to play the game. That's like saying "I decided to become a Doctor, so I should be able to earn a Doctor's salary before I've even gone to University! What do you mean I have to study first? I'm supposed to be a Doctor, darn it!!" Well, no. You're not. Not yet anyway.
You're not seeing the viewpoint of people who don't play your game. It's not that these kind of players don't want to "earn" (a dubious term, if I every heard one; in a game of dice and referee calls, does one ever "earn" anything?) their heroism; they want to feel that they CAN earn these heroic moments. Play a character with 6's in every stat and doing well isn't earning much; it's play a game outside the game.
Players have embraced RPGs AS GAMES; not between Player and DM, but between character and system and the game world. This gives the players of the game a stable platform to play their story-game, and still allows them to indulge in pushing the boundaries of the system to do things. This players want to earn their victories; hard-fought battles and close calls make for the best stories. However, they don't want to feel like their fighting the system to do so; they want to fight things in the game world. So that's why when you say something like "class strength doesn't matter" or "improv should be the formost form of interaction" these players don't agree. Using rules is how they interact and tell their stories, not by ignoring rules.
So don't dismiss these discussions because you see competant characters as ones who don't "earn" their victories. Otherwise, I don't think we can have a dialogue about what this game should be.
So if somebody says "I want to shoot a flame arrow at the chandelier fitting and try to drop the chandelier on the troll!" you'll say "uh...no, that isn't in the rules, so you can't do it."?
No, I'll say that's not explicitly allowed in the rules, but the world exists for us to interact with it rather than being an abstract combat simulator. Roll to attack.
Whereas what was being described was the wizard overcoming the as-written limitations on spellcasting, limitations that are there for a reason. It's the same reason I wouldn't allow a fighter to swing his sword at the orc that's 50 feet away, no matter how well he describes why he should be able to.
You can choose to allow these or not as you see fit - you're the DM, it's your call. But know that you are, in fact, breaking rules when you do it. As in, not just doing something that isn't explicitly called out, but rather violating a rule. And if you only let certain players do that and not others, no you're not being fair and I think that makes you a bad DM.
You can choose to allow these or not as you see fit - you're the DM, it's your call. But know that you are, in fact, breaking rules when you do it. As in, not just doing something that isn't explicitly called out, but rather violating a rule. And if you only let certain players do that and not others, no you're not being fair and I think that makes you a bad DM.
And this statement underscores an additional reason for having rules explcitly laid out - consistency not just across multiple groups (for the sake of any organized "living" campaigns Wizards wants to create), but within the same group. If Wizards does not do their best to account for as many scenarios as possible (or at least a solid set of guidelines for things they cannot explicitly lay out), then the DM will be making all sorts of judgement calls based on their own perceptions of what is fair and reasonable for a character to accomplish.
So, the first time someone shoots that chandelier and causes it to come crashing down on an enemy, you will need to write it down so as to remain consistent for the next time a character gets the idea for shooting a chandelier down. Otherwise, you get a lot of "last time player A did something like this, you did X, but now that player B is doing the same thing, you're doing Y - how is this time any different?" The difference could be the chandelier's AC, the damage it does, the damage the player has to do to knock it down, etc. So now, the DM has to not only be aware of all the rules of the system, but now they also have to maintain a list of every occurrence of houseruling or judgement calls they had to make, and under what conditions, just so they can remain consistent and fair.
And then what if a group has two different campaigns (and therefore 2 different DMs)? Each of these DMs may be different in how they call the same actions. Now, the same group is operating under two different sets of rules.
I understand that this is something that will likely be addressed as more packets come out. Just bear in mind that most of us arguing for more mechanics are operating under this basis: it is far easier to take a comprehensive set of rules and either discard or houserule them to fit the kind of campaign you want to run than it is to take a very loose set of rules and then build up a set of consistent judgement calls. This is especially difficult to do when you consider aspects of the game such as character power (i.e. class balance).
And, of course, this is only my opinion. So, take it with a grain of salt. I am just stating my observations of what I've seen from several DMs over the years as well as the little DMing I have done.
Anecdotal Edit: I had a DM in the past (that I no longer play with) that tossed the 3.5e rules out the window for some things and not others. That's fine, but these rules were not established before I tried the action, and wouldn't let me take that action back as a result of these sudden rule changes. And then they would rule the exact opposite way a session or two later, usually during their monster's turn. So, I have something of a pet peeve for a lot of "on-the-fly" houseruling.
