Does power limit creativity and cunning?

[Agrippa]

I've noticed a lot of talk, mostly from old school gamers, about how character power deminishes in game creativity, or at least the need for it. The argument is that many heroes in fantasy fiction (modern day pulp-like fantasy fiction) relied mostly upon their cleverness and ingenuity as opposed to raw power. These non-superpowered heroes would include the likes of Cugel, Farfd and the Grey Mouser, Conan, Solomon Kane and John Carter. While those heroes with greater, and often times supernatural, power and resources don't have to think and plan as much to get by and triumph against their adversaries. The basic theory is that this makes the non-superheroes far more interesting than the more fantastic and powerful heroes and therefore worthier of interest. Also that such characters would make for better gaming as well. So does anyone here agree with that statement at all?

[sirpercival]

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1907.0

[Jackinthegreen]

I mostly disagree.  Character power won't limit creativity if the characters are adequately challenged and have the option of truly being creative.  In some cases, more powerful beings can even have more creative ways to deal with a situation than weaker ones.

I think this ties pretty well into the Gimped characters are more fun fallacy.

[Ryu Hayabusa]

There is a nugget of truth to that. After all, necessity is the mother of all invention. When you can't do much and your options are limited, you get creative or you die.  Also, you don't need to be particularly creative if throwing a fireball at a target ends the problem. On the other hand, more options and more power do mean more ways to solve problems. You have more tools to work with to be creative, if you desire to or need to be.

[ImperatorK]

I agree, but with a caveat: More power limits creativity and cunning IF your char. is much stronger than his opponents or is too overpowered for level appropriate challenges.
Jackinthegreen, obviously, if the DM accommodates for the PCs power (i.e. heightens the encounter CRs, optimizes the encounters, gives harder obstacles, etc.) then it becomes more fun and exciting, because the players can deal with the problem in many ways. But if the PC is so strong that he doesn't have to come up with a plan how to defeat that dragon because he can simply kill it with one or two hits, then it's not that creative.

[TuggyNE]

I'm inclined to think as well that there's a point (probably easily visible with any new player of a high-level Wizard) where "analysis paralysis" sets in, and there are so many possible solutions that it is no longer practical to figure out which of them to use. So there may well be a sweet spot between, on one axis, insufficient power and excessive power (which lead to frustration or boredom respectively); and on another axis, insufficient variety and excessive variety (which lead to boredom and giving up respectively).

Obviously all of this depends very largely on the individual players.

[Kajhera]

Interestingly, in D&D 3.5, the classes viewed as most highly-powered require the most creativity and cunning - and definitely planning - to play effectively.

[wotmaniac]

There is an inverse relationship between character power and the need for tactical creativity/cunning.

But, then again, that's so obvious and generic as to be meaningless.

[oslecamo]

Interestingly, in D&D 3.5, the classes viewed as most highly-powered require the most creativity and cunning - and definitely planning - to play effectively.

Only by the most twisted definition of "effectively" you could dream off. All casters have more than enough spells on their list to be able to fairly overcome challenges whitout need of any loopholes or shenigans. The druid with its wildshape and animal companions is basically impossible to screw over. Its key feat, natural spell, can only be taken by him even!

It's precisely when you start abusing loopholes and obscure monsters "geting creative" like armies of bounded outsiders with abilities that are much stronger than anything else the game has at that level that you're way past effective. you're simply curb stomping anything that gets in your way and there's absolutely no need for any creativity or cunning anymore.

[ImperatorK]

Interestingly, in D&D 3.5, the classes viewed as most highly-powered require the most creativity and cunning - and definitely planning - to play effectively.

Only by the most twisted definition of "effectively" you could dream off. All casters have more than enough spells on their list to be able to fairly overcome challenges whitout need of any loopholes or shenigans. The druid with its wildshape and animal companions is basically impossible to screw over. Its key feat, natural spell, can only be taken by him even!

It's precisely when you start abusing loopholes and obscure monsters "geting creative" like armies of bounded outsiders with abilities that are much stronger than anything else the game has at that level that you're way past effective. you're simply curb stomping anything that gets in your way and there's absolutely no need for any creativity or cunning anymore.

I think Kajhera meant that casters have to get "creative" with their spell selection, because even if spells are powerful, there are some that sound cool but are either sucky or have to be used wisely.

[veekie]

Its a bell curve if you can plot these things numerically. You need a certain minimum of power to be able to obtain a creative application.

Take the standard Fighter for example, his sole option is to hit hard. For other things he simply does not have the resources to creatively exploit, no acrobatic stunts or improvising scenery because of inadequate skills. 'Creative' solutions here are engineered or fiat solutions, you have to specifically build these solutions into the problem, so they're more like puzzles than actual creative processes.

On the other extreme, take the prepared caster. Yes, they have the resources to be extremely creative(most of the open ended spells really), but at the same time, they also have an enormous golf bag of perfect solutions. So they have no need for creativity or improvisation, you don't turn into an ant, crawl under a bolted door and open it from the other side because you can just teleport past, magically open it, or disintegrate the door entirely.

So for maximum creativity, you'd need a small number of open ended abilities with relatively weak linear power, such that solutions cannot be easily brute forced, but always accessible.

[Kajhera]

Factotum says hi.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Right from the start, and in every edition since,
taking on Orcus has been part and parcel of the game.



Technically, to beat Orcus requires taking on a whole entire
plane in the Abyss, but with some rather dangerous "help"
from other demonlords (who want a hand in THE cookie jar).

Unless of course, someone thinks Demogorgon is supposed to be soft and fluffy.
 


**


My 1e PHB has the spell "Wish" in it ... oooo  ... I'm quaking in my boots.

[CaptRory]

The problem is when one tactic or power or ability is too powerful. I'm reminded of a group that got an adamantine weapon and simply bashed down any doors or walls or floors or ceilings or anything in their way. It kept working so they kept doing it. The DM wasn't adept enough to cope with it and it broke the game.

You've noticed how on TV or in stories where the heroes come up with a great new technology or magic or technique to solve the Problem of the Week and it's never referenced again even if it would be helpful or even fix everything? Same basic problem. To keep things interesting you have to do new things.

It's about trying to keep things new and interesting. About keeping the group challenged so the same solutions aren't always the best over and over again. The problem stems from the GM and the Players. The GM has to keep coming up with new content, but the group has to agree to try and vary things themselves or it's all going to be the same anyway.



Does too much power make the game boring? Kind of.

Imagine a scale. One one side, you have a collection of red marbles. This represents the conflict. And on the other side, you have green and blue marbles, one representing power and the other tactics. The more power you have the less need you have for the thinking part of the equation. If you can bull past your problems there is not much reason not to.

If you can batter down every door, you don't need to bother with riddles. If you have so much health and invincible saves you can ignore traps. If you have an army of demons you can ignore, well, everything basicly.


So there has to be a sort of gentleman's agreement there. The GM does his best to keep the game new and fresh and the players try to take each situation on anew without trying to just bash through with whatever gimmicks and gizmos they can bring to bear. Making your GM tear his hair out is only fun for so long if its because you keep doing the same thing over and over and over.

[Basket Burner]

Party develops plan.

"How do you intend to implement that plan?"

The capable party describes the abilities they will use to follow through.

The incapable party does not have the abilities they will need to follow through.

The capable party gets to implement their plan. It might not work - but they can try. Having power not only did not limit creativity and cunning, it enabled it.

The incapable party can't do anything but empty talk, as no matter how effective their plan might be they can't actually back it up. Lack of power clearly limited their creativity and cunning by rendering it entirely irrelevant.

Capable party thinks and does and fights foes that can also think and do. They can play in an interesting, dynamic campaign.

Incapable party is walled by a wall and loses 4-0.

[sirpercival]

What limits the creativity of the plans is the creativity of the players.  I play hi-op full casters normally, and nothing stops me from using my resources intelligently and creatively.  I love coming up with awesome, outside-the-box plans with interesting usage of my character's abilities.

[littha]

The problem is when one tactic or power or ability is too powerful. I'm reminded of a group that got an adamantine weapon and simply bashed down any doors or walls or floors or ceilings or anything in their way. It kept working so they kept doing it. The DM wasn't adept enough to cope with it and it broke the game.

That comes from not reading the Ineffective weapons section of the rules for breaking objects. Generally a sword shouldn't be capable of smashing through a wall or floor.

Breaking doors is fine usually, the rogue (or other skill user) could be opening them anyway so breaking them down is about the same, solution wise.

[CaptRory]

The DM being too stupid or lazy to read or understand the relevant rules doesn't mean it wasn't a game breaking tactic they kept abusing XD

[ariasderros]

The DM being too stupid or lazy to read or understand the relevant rules doesn't mean it wasn't a game breaking tactic they kept abusing XD

Yes. Yes it does. Your argument was that the DM needs to come up with new stuff, so the players should too. The players never need to if they can just power through. It was a game breaking tactic b/c the DM didn't adjust to the strategy by reading the rules. This is not an issue with the players power, which is what this thread is about. This is an issue with a DM. Period.

Also, adamantine would ignore the hardness, but how were people just powering through the 500hp of the wall. If you stand there bashing the wall long enough you'll eventually get through, regardless of weapon. Adamantine makes it faster, but not instant.

Seriously, this is a case of "95% of all brokenness is caused by an inability to follow the rules, so RTFM".

[veekie]

Well in real life if you were to keep hitting a wall with a weapon, the weapon would often wear through before the wall does(if edged weapons didn't get ruined by violent impacts with hard surfaces they'd wreck stone up for the same amount of impact force), but D&D doesn't track durability like that. In real life it'd also take you some long, tiring and noisy hours to plow through, assuming you know to avoid supports.