This was from the Exalted questions thread but its not specfically a problem relating to Exalted but gaming in general. It feels like we're, a a hobby, becoming way to tied to published material and "professional" game designers in place of creativity and improvisation.

QuoteAre there non-offensive actions characters can take in physical combat to assist their fighty companions? We know that "social combat" can exist within physical combat, but I always seem to run into players who want to do clever things like knock over carts or shoot out lanterns or distract opponents rather than actually harm them or engage them in conversation."

Do you really need to ask if this is possible or the permission of specific rules to try it? It seems counter intuitive to the idea of role playing games. Of course you can do that. and a gm worth their salt should be able to moderate what happens.

Agreed, though I would bring up the obvious in that some systems, Like FATE, encourage improvisation by making it a core mechanic (i.e., "create a condition").  I've almost always had folks who tried weird stuff. The poster child for that sort of thing was my wife's halfling character, who liked to basicallyt scramble up on and ride anything big enough to carry him. Her reasoning was, "if they hit me, they hit themselves!" I'm not sure she EVER used a normal attack (maybe a crossbow here and there--most of the time it was weird stuff like that).

"We know that "social combat" can exist within physical combat, but I always seem to run into players who want to do clever things like knock over carts or shoot out lanterns or distract opponents rather than actually harm them or engage them in conversation."
:huhsign::jaw-dropping:
The GM seems to be saying this like finding players who want to do stunts is a bad thing. But that can't be right, can it?

I think their concern is that that rules might not specifically cover such actions like if they don't they can't make a ruling on it. In fairness it may be more "Do the rules make this sort of action effective?" but that, IMO, is up to the GM, the action in question and the situation not an objective mechanical standard.

But it seems that increasingly the attitude is that if the rules to specifically address and cover an action in detail, then it can't be done. Which just seems add especially for games with general action resolution mechanics which is most of the games I'm familiar with.

I think, Nexus, you are missing the key context... in combat.

There are a lot of people who have a sort of dualist view of actions. There's stuff in combat, and... everything else.

People are usually pretty open to winging stuff OUTSIDE of combat. But in combat, there are loads of horror stories of people 'breaking' systems because they tip over walls of iron or whatever, effectively finding some loophole that lets them turn some minor ability or idea into DESTROY EVERY COMBAT EVAR.

In THAT context, looking for 'permitted' actions, looking for rule bits to access, is specifically 'stuff that's compatible and balanced with the combat system without blowing shit up.'

Edit to add:
Of course people can say 'the GM should decide and let all sorts of stuff happen in combat!'
Except the point of having rules with details is to save the GM time in trying to create and judge actions and make sure they interact in a desirable manner. It's not weird to be reluctant to just drop in more actions and possibilities in combat that are spur of the moment.

Quote from: Will;815591I think, Nexus, you are missing the key context... in combat.

There are a lot of people who have a sort of dualist view of actions. There's stuff in combat, and... everything else.

People are usually pretty open to winging stuff OUTSIDE of combat. But in combat, there are loads of horror stories of people 'breaking' systems because they tip over walls of iron or whatever, effectively finding some loophole that lets them turn some minor ability or idea into DESTROY EVERY COMBAT EVAR.

In THAT context, looking for 'permitted' actions, looking for rule bits to access, is specifically 'stuff that's compatible and balanced with the combat system without blowing shit up.'

Edit to add:
Of course people can say 'the GM should decide and let all sorts of stuff happen in combat!'
Except the point of having rules with details is to save the GM time in trying to create and judge actions and make sure they interact in a desirable manner. It's not weird to be reluctant to just drop in more actions and possibilities in combat that are spur of the moment.

I grasp the idea that its in combat. I'm still baffled and somewhat dismayed that its come to the point that people don't feel confident and creative enough to try different things in combat (or out) without getting some kind of figurative nod from the game designer. Its very different from my experience.

For me the "point" of the rules is to provide guide lines for determining the success or failure of the character's actions. They help and save time but they can't possibly cover everything and one of the jobs of the GM is provide interpretation and judgement calls and so facilitate a more flexible experience than a video or board game provide while being interactive than a movie or novel. It one of the reasons I've been gaming for so long. These sort of things have been par for the games I've ran and played, at least the ones I've stayed with for long.

When your combat system is a giant, horribly swollen, overdesigned mess, anything calling upon GMs and/or PCs to improvise is... poorly received.

I usually handle this sort of thing well.

An important note for me is the Character/players intent. I'm fine with you doing stuff not covered by the rules but when you do tell me your intent. Flipping over the cart isn't as important as why are you doin it. Looking for cover, hoping the barrels of oil break and grease the ground etc.  With that I can adjudicate what the results are and at least inform the player what the odds are or possible effects.

the I want to surprise the gm with my plan players often do things so twisted that I have trouble seeing it happen the same way they do. I want us on the same page and doing things like that seems more adversarial to me.

You stand a much better chance telling me what you hope happens cause if it sounds cool the chances radically increase of a success.

My experience with detailed systems (rules medium to heavy) is that 'being creative' in combat is usually 'trying to fuck the system hard and HAHAHAHAH'

Which is one reason I prefer lighter systems where people have more freedom to improvise without the system falling apart.

Quote from: Will;815603My experience with detailed systems (rules medium to heavy) is that 'being creative' in combat is usually 'trying to fuck the system hard and HAHAHAHAH'

Which is one reason I prefer lighter systems where people have more freedom to improvise without the system falling apart.

I prefer more "crunchy" systems (Hero, GURPS, for example). If/When I have to improvise I find it much easier when I have a solid basis to work with and build on.

Quote from: Nexus;815615I prefer more "crunchy" systems (Hero, GURPS, for example). If/When I have to improvise I find it much easier when I have a solid basis to work with and build on.

I would prefer a combat system like Final Fantasy games, where there is a straightforward, quick, varied, yet rigid fight structure segregated from the rest of the game's mechanics that's done in a couple of minutes so we can get back to the the exploring or/and story or rapidly chain a dozen fights as needed. Wham bam, thank you man.

In such a system, "improvisation" would actually be the name of a combat action that has a random effect, or a debuff, or something fixed, whatever. If a player complained I would just say, "Do interesting shit outside of combat to make up for it."

I say I "would" prefer such a system, except there aren't a lot of games that fully embrace this paradigm, and I don't think I could get players on board with it.

Quote from: Nexus;815596For me the "point" of the rules is to provide guide lines for determining the success or failure of the character's actions. They help and save time but they can't possibly cover everything and one of the jobs of the GM is provide interpretation and judgement calls and so facilitate a more flexible experience than a video or board game provide while being interactive than a movie or novel. It one of the reasons I've been gaming for so long. These sort of things have been par for the games I've ran and played, at least the ones I've stayed with for long.

Agreed.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;815600An important note for me is the Character/players intent. I'm fine with you doing stuff not covered by the rules but when you do tell me your intent. Flipping over the cart isn't as important as why are you doin it. Looking for cover, hoping the barrels of oil break and grease the ground etc.  With that I can adjudicate what the results are and at least inform the player what the odds are or possible effects.

Good point. Sometimes the plan that the player thinks is oh so clever comes across to the GM as WTF?!? Explaining what you are trying to accomplish by flipping over the cart helps to avoid that frustrating impasse which is often a consequence of the player seeing the scene differently than the GM either because the player forgot part of the scene description or because the GM didn't describe enough of the scene.

Quote from: Will;815603My experience with detailed systems (rules medium to heavy) is that 'being creative' in combat is usually 'trying to fuck the system hard and HAHAHAHAH'

That's my experience of certain playstyles, rather than certain systems.

My experience is that if the player wants to do something that he thinks is an auto win maneuver. I remind them that if you can do it, then the bad guys can do it.

Had a player wanted to stab someone in the eye using a magic summoned dagger. (in a game without called shots or hit locations) I said sure as long as I could stab him the eye under the same circumstances. The wizard decided that was not a good idea.

Usually solves the I do crazy shit to win versus its cool or a nice tactical idea but not some "Ah ha" I win move.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;815621 I would prefer a combat system like Final Fantasy games, where there is a straightforward, quick, varied, yet rigid fight structure segregated from the rest of the game's mechanics that's done in a couple of minutes so we can get back to the the exploring or/and story or rapidly chain a dozen fights as needed. Wham bam, thank you man.

In such a system, "improvisation" would actually be the name of a combat action that has a random effect, or a debuff, or something fixed, whatever. If a player complained I would just say, "Do interesting shit outside of combat to make up for it."

I say I "would" prefer such a system, except there aren't a lot of games that fully embrace this paradigm, and I don't think I could get players on board with it.

D&D originally tried for both: a quick, abstract system for when we just want results and then to get on with the adventure, plus supplemental "chrome" rules adding this or that detail.

The big problem came in with people who insisted on using the whole nine yards (and growing!) all the time.

Quote from: Artifacts of Amber;815638My experience is that if the player wants to do something that he thinks is an auto win maneuver. I remind them that if you can do it, then the bad guys can do it.

Had a player wanted to stab someone in the eye using a magic summoned dagger. (in a game without called shots or hit locations) I said sure as long as I could stab him the eye under the same circumstances. The wizard decided that was not a good idea.

Usually solves the I do crazy shit to win versus its cool or a nice tactical idea but not some "Ah ha" I win move.

That's my experience, too. It's a two-way street, kids!