The chess analogy is not about winners and losers. It's about the fact that a grandmaster can be very creative while still following all the rules of the game. Bobby Fischer is still considered by many (and I am one) to be the greatest chess player of all time. The reason? He was creative. You have to understand some chess to understand why... but he pulled moves that the other grandmasters would mark in notation with a ?! (where a ? means questionable move, a ! means great move, and a ?! means pretty much WTF?). It was a move that everyone else thought was questionable, but Fischer had a completely unconventional idea in mind, and not only did it work, it beat the other grandmasters. Here we go again with competition, but that is not the point -- the point is that he was being creative, within a very restrictive and utterly non-negotiable ruleset.
And if Bobby Fischer could be creative in chess, without having to break the rules of chess to do it, surely we, as D&D players, can be creative within the existing ruleset of D&D, which is far more flexible than the chess ruleset, without having to completely throw the rules out in the name of "creativity."
With due respect, you are incorrect.
"Creative" it terms of chess is like "creative" in any conventional wargame.
More to the point you keep insisting its value was proved by 'beating other grandmasters.'
Furthermore, if you feel the analogy holds, why aren't the two of you sticking with chess? I mean, chess gives no DM ability to house rule at all and is a far greater 'creativity challenge' than D&D, since it has such simple rules that one must actually be a grandmaster to find successful creative ways to win.
That is not a serious suggestion. You two are the ones who brought it up as an analogy, not I.
Chess is a silly analogy anyway. You don't get to be a grandmaster without rigorous study, and that includes Bobby Fisher. "Creative" in chess means using openings and strategies that are uncommon in order to surprise an opponent and invalidate their training, but there's very little spontaneity or whimsy involved - the creative grandmaster picks that strategy deliberately and researches and trains it before actually using it. It takes genius to see the opportunity in the first place, but also a lot of study to make it work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
But the fact that some player even considered talking about it enrages me. That player is a bad player.
It enraged you huh? I mean murder enrages me, **** enrages me, child abuse enrages me, animal cruelty enrages me, but someone having the temerity to ask if they can use their foot to touch someone and cast cure wounds.... nope. I guess my priorities are all out of whack huh? The DM did nothing wrong, the declined to allow most of the things and did allow a 6 second burst of super heated magical fire to melt a bit of non magical ice. because, you know, fire does melt ice. You specified that it was just a microsecond of flame, and yet the round lasts for 6 seconds. Plenty enough to cause a bit of ice to become unsteady or make a guy standing on said ice nervous enough to think that he was going to fall and so jump down before he actually did fall. I have no issue with the DM calls here, just your reaction to them.
The spell produces a fire capable of flash-burning an adult human to death in an instant (which is not normally how it works). It's remarkably silly to insist that it's simultaneously unable to melt nonmagical ice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
To be fair, shield walls didn't last in the face of cannons, and fireballs make a close approximation
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
To be fair, shield walls didn't last in the face of cannons, and fireballs make a close approximation
Sure, but these guys were facing archers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
LOL....like I said, the entire concept is thematically idiotic within the confines of 5e.
A shield wall is an idiotic concept in a game featuring lots of combat set in a fictional world where swords and shields are commonly used? That's... one opinion, I guess.
Of course, that doesn't really explain why I can move 60 ft in a turn if I tell myself to start but only 30 ft if I'm waiting for a buddy to yell "gogogogogo!" in my ear either.
To be fair, shield walls didn't last in the face of cannons, and fireballs make a close approximation
The shield wall as a tactic was abandoned well before cannons started making their battlefield debut. European armor-forging techniques produced heavier forms of armor that gave better protection, resulting in less need for a heavy shield while there was a simultaneous shift toward the use to large pole-arms as the primary melee weapon in battles. At that point, the shield wall formation largely gave way to the pike square formation. The development of field artillery that was light enough to be used on open battlefields against enemy troop formations wouldn't happen for several centuries after that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
But the fact that some player even considered talking about it enrages me. That player is a bad player.
It enraged you huh? I mean murder enrages me, **** enrages me, child abuse enrages me, animal cruelty enrages me, but someone having the temerity to ask if they can use their foot to touch someone and cast cure wounds.... nope. I guess my priorities are all out of whack huh? The DM did nothing wrong, they declined to allow most of the things and did allow a 6 second burst of super heated magical fire to melt a bit of non magical ice. because, you know, fire does melt ice. You specified that it was just a microsecond of flame, and yet the round lasts for 6 seconds. Plenty enough to cause a bit of ice to become unsteady or make a guy standing on said ice nervous enough to think that he was going to fall and so jump down before he actually did fall. I have no issue with the DM calls here, just your reaction to them.
The spell produces a fire capable of flash-burning an adult human to death in an instant (which is not normally how it works). It's remarkably silly to insist that it's simultaneously unable to melt nonmagical ice.
I don't think I wrote what you think I wrote..... I added the bold effect to try and make it obvious what I said.
If you insist on being a stickler for the rules, it sounds like this is just not the game for you. Clearly the DM prefers a more improvised style, and at least one other player agrees.
You might ask for some concessions, like the opporrunity for a limited number of rules appeals per session. But ultimately once the DM has rendered their final decision, don't take up any more game time with arguments.
Creative players and the DMs who cater to them ..... in times of yore that would have been a Jerry Springer episode.
I agree that the players shouldn’t just expect a DM to allow something to happen because it’s cool, especially if it goes against what has already been established or rulings that have already been made. I also agree with players should know the rules and the mechanics that pertain to their particular class choice, with some exception for people who have never played before, of course.
That said, I also think that DMs need to leave a little wiggle room for the game to take unexpected turns and their players to do incredible things because it's not just their story. It is everyone story; the DM and the players make it together, and it is my opinion that the players should have an input into what is and is not impossible in their world, just as much as the DM should.
I will edit to ad, that as a DM, once I've riled on something, that's the way it's going to be, at least for that session. If I am wrong, and the rules say something else entirely, then I don't mind my mistake being pointed out after the session and at the start of next session is I will say something like:
“Seems I made a mistake last time; I said that whatever happened, but I was wrong, and the rules said this, so we are going to do it this way from now on.”
If it's just a fun one-shot or something, though, or if the majority of the group wants something to be the case, and it's not just ridiculous, then I'll go with it.
Chess is a silly analogy anyway. You don't get to be a grandmaster without rigorous study, and that includes Bobby Fisher. "Creative" in chess means using openings and strategies that are uncommon in order to surprise an opponent and invalidate their training, but there's very little spontaneity or whimsy involved - the creative grandmaster picks that strategy deliberately and researches and trains it before actually using it. It takes genius to see the opportunity in the first place, but also a lot of study to make it work.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
OK, so the analogy has limited utility to explain the concept. Granted.
This has zero to do with the main issue at hand, which is the Rule of Cool and how it works in gameplay of D&D.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Seems to have shifted to "the confines of 5E" as well.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The spell produces a fire capable of flash-burning an adult human to death in an instant (which is not normally how it works). It's remarkably silly to insist that it's simultaneously unable to melt nonmagical ice.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To be fair, shield walls didn't last in the face of cannons, and fireballs make a close approximation
Sure, but these guys were facing archers.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The shield wall as a tactic was abandoned well before cannons started making their battlefield debut. European armor-forging techniques produced heavier forms of armor that gave better protection, resulting in less need for a heavy shield while there was a simultaneous shift toward the use to large pole-arms as the primary melee weapon in battles. At that point, the shield wall formation largely gave way to the pike square formation. The development of field artillery that was light enough to be used on open battlefields against enemy troop formations wouldn't happen for several centuries after that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think I wrote what you think I wrote..... I added the bold effect to try and make it obvious what I said.
No, I was agreeing with you and adding another angle of why it ought to work.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
If you insist on being a stickler for the rules, it sounds like this is just not the game for you. Clearly the DM prefers a more improvised style, and at least one other player agrees.
You might ask for some concessions, like the opporrunity for a limited number of rules appeals per session. But ultimately once the DM has rendered their final decision, don't take up any more game time with arguments.
Creative players and the DMs who cater to them ..... in times of yore that would have been a Jerry Springer episode.
I agree that the players shouldn’t just expect a DM to allow something to happen because it’s cool, especially if it goes against what has already been established or rulings that have already been made. I also agree with players should know the rules and the mechanics that pertain to their particular class choice, with some exception for people who have never played before, of course.
That said, I also think that DMs need to leave a little wiggle room for the game to take unexpected turns and their players to do incredible things because it's not just their story. It is everyone story; the DM and the players make it together, and it is my opinion that the players should have an input into what is and is not impossible in their world, just as much as the DM should.
I will edit to ad, that as a DM, once I've riled on something, that's the way it's going to be, at least for that session. If I am wrong, and the rules say something else entirely, then I don't mind my mistake being pointed out after the session and at the start of next session is I will say something like:
“Seems I made a mistake last time; I said that whatever happened, but I was wrong, and the rules said this, so we are going to do it this way from now on.”
If it's just a fun one-shot or something, though, or if the majority of the group wants something to be the case, and it's not just ridiculous, then I'll go with it.
A caffeinated nerd who has played TTRPGs or a number of years and is very much a fantasy adventure geek.