Rules vs. "Creativity"

[Arturick]

Erm... even without taking "the laws of physics are different" into account, how would the characters know these things? They're represented by Craft (alchemy) and BAB/Improved Grapple/etc. That makes about as much sense as a player bringing a gun to the gaming session and having his character shoot the monsters with it.

Well, according to the guys on therpgsite.com, I'm a "crapsack referee" because I wouldn't allow OOC knowledge from a character with no ranks in the appropriate skill/knowledge.  Apparently, if the party wants to build a working bi-plane from logs and ship sails, they should have a "chance" to do it.

Apparently, my mistake has been to run D&D instead of "Muppet Babies:  the RPG."

[Dkonen]

I'd have to agree with the notion here that "rules" are not opposed to "creativity".

In fact, it's why we run the system that we do, with a number of additional sources and materials available.

There are a number of rules that have set a very good basis for nearly everything your characters might like to do, and with enough source materials, there exists groundwork for nearly everything.

* We personally, however, limit the "modern" influence of OOC knowledge and IC knowledge. If the setting doesn't have universities for applied thermodynamics, theoretical physics, abstract mathematics, etc, then no, your character would not possibly know what you, as person in just such a society, does. *

The rules are often vague enough and have sliding difficulties to be tailored to unusual requests. With everything that is out there, if you're finding that the rules are strangling your creativity, you're either playing the wrong system (trying to be a theoretical xenogeneticist- try Palladium, Star Wars, Shadowrun, etc...) or you're not looking hard enough.

The rules are there, and they are vague enough to fit damned near anything that would fit what the system is designed for. This is why I look through boards and the only reason I'm interested at all in builds. Not to make PunPun and watch other people (dms/players) cry, but to find a way to play the concepts I have in mind. To shore them up with numbers and see just how far the rules can and will go to support unusual ideas.

Sure sometimes the rules don't work as well as I'd like for concepts, but well.. some things are harder than others...that's fine. They should be, that's part of what makes it a game and keeps me interested. Trying to find new ways to do the concept I have in mind.

If anything, the rules *encourage* creativity, because nothing is so mind numbingly un-creative as being handed a blank sheet with "yes" printed on it.

[dipolartech]

Taking a look at the Trust Me, I'm an expert examples,

1) Sarin gas: Its a highly lethal chemical, ok arbitrate it, lethal substances are called poisons. There is a Knowledge/Skill system that when combined allows characters to know things are lethal (knowledges) and how to make them (skills give both knowledge of existence and how to make them). If you understand the scale of lethality to DC check already in place for the system set Sarin gas on the scale call it Dragon Farts and move on.

2) Arm bar to shoulder dislocation: its "Holding some part of a creature" with some part of your body and that is grappling. So theres a system for that too (albeit annoying to manage long term), arbitrate the "hold", and then tell the bum there aren't called shots in D&D only confirmed critical attack roles.

As for the working Bi-plane thing, well, are you a "yes DM", a "No DM", or a "maybe DM"? A No DM just says no the characters don't have any idea what a flying machine is, much less how to build one. A Maybe DM requires exacting descriptions and in character (failure to use charisma on the DM has foiled many plans) justifications on lots of steps to building the device and then lots of D20 rolls with varying difficulties. A Yes DM probably says come up with a plan that works out of your current resources fast and then describe it awesome mcCool style and i'll let you have the boot-turned-fake flying dragon thingie.


As the DM, you can always say No to something, but No is generally considered unfun so use it appropriately.

EDIT: As veekie said, me three. Its better entertainment to work through the rules and to ignore them. If I want to ignore the rules of D&D i'll just write a novel.

[Libertad]

In an ideal game, one should have fun because of the rules, not in spite of them.

In a rules-heavy game like D&D, you're bound to come up against some dumb rules. It's fine to use DM Fiat when things are really unclear, or when a rule is detrimental to the fun and enjoyment of the game.  But a DM needs to be careful; if he changes the rules too much or does it on the spot without informing players, then the session can become DM-centric to the point that it's more like a novel than a Table-top RPG.

I saw theMagical Tea Party phrase in an earlier post.  I understand where users of the phrase are coming from ("I don't want to pay money for a book if it tells me to make something up"), but a I disagree with how it's used by some people ("there's no rule for something!  This is a flaw!").  I don't mind that there aren't rules for taxes or supply and demand in economic systems in many RPGs, or an advanced, "realistic" rules for bodily harm ("broken shoulders impose a -2 on actions A, B, and C, while broken ribs impose a -4 on actions D, E, and F).  There doesn't need to be hard, codified rules for something if it slows things down to a crawl, or has little impact on the kind of adventures encouraged in a game.

It should be a "Rules vs. Creativity" question.  The question should be "are the rules currently in place enhancing the game, and do the rules cover enough ground on the things which are important in the RPG?"