General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
No one said anything about mundane. Conan, Legolas, Aragorn, and their ilk can hardly be called mundane.
What do you mean, no one said anything about mundane? And what are you doing propping this straw man back up again? The people using "mundane" to mean non-magical have been quite explicit about it. No one asking for "mundane" martial exploits is asking for humdrum martial exploits, just combat maneuvers that make sense and that seem possible without magic or meta-game weirdness.
The argument against powers that seem like magic-force-pulls is not that they're too cool and exciting; it's that they don't make sense. If I have to make up a different story each time I use it, just what is it that my character is good at that lets him pull off this stunt?
No one said anything about mundane. Conan, Legolas, Aragorn, and their ilk can hardly be called mundane.
If we are talking about "mundane" as "non-magical" as opposed to "common", I can certainly call Conan mundane. Legolas and Aragorn, no. Gimli, yes. Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin, yes. Boromir, yes.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raven Crowking
There's nothing wrong with your liking the system, of course, but imagining that some people have to work to have problems with it is.......well, more in the realm of imagination than in the realm of reality.
No. Not when you come here and complain about how you can't possibly see power x as martial and not magical in nature, then a dozen posters give you two dozen answers and you just shake your head and say nope, none of that works, I'll stick with my version which I can't reconcile it with how I want to see martial characters. It's disigenious and willfully obstinate.
Well, I'm not sure how to parse your response, so let me ask exactly what you mean.
Is the problem that I "come here"? Is EN World now a shrine to 4e in your opinion that can hold no dissent? I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is not so.
Is the problem that I can't see Power X as existing without being magical/mystical in nature? Frankly, it doesn't matter if 2,000 posters give me 4,000,000,000 answers if none of them actually answer my objection. And this has nothing to do with being "disingenious and willfully obstinante", it has to do with what works for me and what does not.
To give an example not related to D&D, if I was to give you a recipe for chicken that you did not like, and dozens of posters gave you dozens of reasons why they like it, would you suddenly like that chicken recipe? I guess the answer is "maybe", and the "maybe" would depend very much on whether or not those posters said something that made you reevaluate why you didn't like the recipe. And even if you did reevalute the recipe, it doesn't mean you'd suddenly like it. Seeing the recipe from my viewpoint might not change yours. You might even think (gasp) that your tastes are more important to you than mine are.
Perhaps, for example, you are a vegetarian. Then, perhaps, a poster might say something that makes you think, "Hmmm, perhaps I am wrong about this whole vegetarian thing." But not thinking the same isn't disingenous, nor is it obstinant.
Really, in order to successfully answer an objection, you first must understand that objection. You have to know why Frosty doesn't want to stay in Florida over the summer before you have any chance whatsoever of convincing Frosty that he is wrong. And, sometimes, just because you love the Florida sun, Frosty might be right. He might not be you. He might be looking at different things. He might not think that the word "martial" is enough to make something not feel like it is magical.
If someone is pretty certain that Conan is non-magical, saying Conan is not mundane isn't going to make that person suddenly do a 180 and decide that 4e feels just like a Conan story. Maybe 4e does feel just like a Conan story to you. If so, your experience isn't universal.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
The concept of taunting for effect is not new to the game. Roger Moore wrote up such an ability for the jester class back in Dragon Magazine issue # 60.
The ability was designed with a bit of thought and care. Using thier wit jesters could raise the morale of allies and lower the morale of enemies at the same time. There were limitations on the use of the power which made sense and thus the entire power made more sense.
A creature had to be able to understand the jester's language. Mindless undead and golems were of course immune because insulting a creature without a mind makes no sense.
This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.
The players are in effect saying that what happens on the grid is of the utmost importance and the action taking place in the imagination can be slapped together to fit what happened on the grid. You could play a game of Talisman in such a way and call it a role playing game.
This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.
Well, where you see failure, I see something fun that can be used to get all the players back into the narrative of a battle. It's not any different from any other edition, or any RPG in the history of the world ever.
That's all my experience, though. Different strokes for different folks.
This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.
This.
The funny thing is that games like, Exalted and Earthdawn do the exact same kind of thing, but because they take the time to explain why it's possible within the context of their "worlds" (mostly because Talents and Charms are explicitly magical) they are much better, IMHO, games when it comes to this type of disconnect.. I feel like WotC copped out and really wanted to make "martial" powers mystical, but knew the game would fall into a smaller niche of who it appealed to if this was made explicit...so they just avoided it entirely (which was weaksauce IMO). Thus we have the giant disconnect in the room, that everyone argues over because it just isn't addressed and it's been made ambiguous by design.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
I don't see any Martial powers in this game which describe an occurrence happening which could never happen here in normal, mundane Earth, or which hasnever happened. I don't see a single Martial power which, when I read it, I think, "There's just NO WAY that could ever happen in the real world. What a fake superpower!"
Come and Get It? Is anyone on this thread actually of the opinion that the scenario described in this power is so impossible, so patently supernatural and contrary to the laws of reality as our science understands them, that this could never happen in the real world?
If you walked into a bar, and saw a big fight breaking out, and some guy in a karate stance looked around at the half-dozen people around him, taunted them, and dared them to "come and get it" and then you subsequently observed all of those people rushing to attack him, would you immediately think, "HOLY CRAP, OH MY GOD, THAT WAS MAGIC! There's NO WAY that could ever happen by natural means! I literally just witnessed a supernatural event! Who IS this sorcerer before me? Am I hallucinating? Is this some kind of movie scene being filmed? Is this a hoax? Am I being Punk'd? HOW COULD THAT POSSIBLY HAPPEN?"
Or, if the guy standing next to you, watching the same scene, started shouting the same things I suggested above, would you nod at him with a look of shared amazement, or roll your eyes at him like he was a moron?
Seriously.
If we're going to use these ideas of mundane versus magical, then it stands to reason that as soon as we can logically concede that such a thing has likely happened at least once in the history of Earth, or that it very well could happen, without all onlookers immediately assuming that magic was occurring, then the power which describes a character doing such a thing is perfectly mundane, and not magical.
Throwing a fireball at someone out of thin air with no apparent technological apparatus? Yeah, it's safe to say that most anyone would view that as something supernatural or mystical. But daring some dudes to "come and get it" and then watching them take that dare? Not exactly Hogwarts curriculum, there.
Magic: "an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source ; the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature"
Supernatural:"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe ; of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil ; departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature ; attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)"
Which Martial power(s) in the PHB, if you watched a guy do it in a bar fight tomorrow, would you declare to be unquestionably "magical" or "supernatural" according to the above definitions?
I, for one, can't find any.
Now, I already know what the argument is going to be. "Sure, someone could do that, possibly, in real life, in certain circumstances. But they couldn't do it anytime they want, once every five minutes, to absolutely anyone who happened to be within 10 feet of them!"
Well sure, I agree with you. If someone I knew in real life could, in fact, do exactly that, I'd consider it at least borderline mystical, if not outright supernatural. But D&D doesn't actually claim that any given Fighter could do that. All it claims is that, once per encounter, the character just happens to be in a situation where s/he can do it.
Unlikely? Yep. Obviously the charmed life of a fictional protagonist? Yep.
But that's what a D&D character is! That's what a D&D game is -- a fictional, fantasy story. (And a game, too, which is a fact that a surprising number of people seem to forget and/or really have a problem with.) The game, as in any fictional story ever created, is chock full of convenient concidences and incidents of near-miraculous serendipity, which just happen to allow the characters to be in the right place at the right time, to survive when "the odds" would clearly make them uninsurable at best, to allow the plot of the story to proceed.
Try to write a story where only the most likely thing happens in every single scene and circumstance. That's going to be a really boring story, and it wouldn't make for a very fun game, either. In fact, I'm playing that game all day, every day, and so are you! (No DM needed!)
Ultimately, with all of these issues related to apparent narrative disconnects in 4E due to thematic preferences or assumptions of realism, there are basically only four options:
1.) Accept the idea of shared narrative control, and then everything works out fine, as the players are literally storytellers too, and have the same power as the DM, on a perhaps more limited basis, to tell the story and describe the circumstances in which the characters find themselves, rather than merely the actual decisions made in the gameworld by their particular character.
2.) Accept the idea that the PCs are, in fact, not like normal Earth people, and even the most "mundane" of them simply have the inherent ability as fantasy heroes to perform impossibly heroic feats such as routinely altering their personal fate, forcing other creatures to do what they want on occasion, and recovering quickly from their own grievous physical wounds with or without outside help.
3.) Decide that the first two ideas are just not acceptable to you, not your idea of roleplaying, or of fun, or of verisimilitude, and then change the game to whatever extent you need to, in order for the rules, and the narrative which the rules imply, to make sense to you according to your thematic preferences and ideas of realism. Nearly every complaint I've seen in this category could be rectified with very minor house-ruling and reskinning of flavor text.
4.) As a last resort, decide that the first two ideas are just not acceptable to you, and that the third option to alter the rules is too much work or otherwise not worth your time, and just not play the game. (In my opinion, though, people who are willing to jump to this decision have very little right to complain about the game. Well, they have as much right as anyone else, but they should have very little expectation of being taken seriously.)
Now, having said all of that, some people might still have the complaint, "Yeah, but the designers of 4E D&D shouldn't have made the game in such a way that I have to make that choice!"
I can't say that's an invalid way to feel. I completely support anyone's right to think that, and to be displeased with the game as it exists, given that none of the four options above may be satisfying to a particular player.
But the game is what it is, and many, many people like it that way. So it's safe to say that it is designed for a target audience, and that target audience either has no real problem with it, or is willing to make one of the first three choices listed above, and go on with their enjoyment of D&D.
You can be unhappy that the target audience doesn't include you, but claiming that this somehow makes it a bad game is just silly, and I doubt you'll ever make a compelling argument to the contrary.
I have no interest in watching Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood. It's not for me. It doesn't offer the specific form(s) of entertainment that I look for in a motion picture. I'm really not in the target audience for that movie. But I'm certainly not going to sit here and claim that it's a bad film because of that.
D&D 4th Edition isn't broken, flawed, or badwrongfun. It's just designed from a different set of assumptions, preferences, and priorities than some people are coming from in their gaming philosophy. You can change your perception, you can change the game, or you can kick the dust off your feet and find something you like more.
All that I ask is that you consider, for a moment, that the first three options are options, before committing yourselves wholly to Reject and Attack Mode.
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
Last edited by firesnakearies; 21st November 2008 at 02:49 PM..
I don't see any Martial powers in this game which describe an occurrence happening which could never happen here in normal, mundane Earth, or which hasnever happened.
And I don't see anyone who has made that argument. You can knock down a straw man you propped up, but I'd prefer that we discuss one another's points. ExploderWizard made the point against 4E martial exploits quite clearly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExploderWizard
This is where 4E powers fail. They simply work in situations where it makes no sense for them to do so. Instead of having to wait for an actual opportunity to use an ability, we just say that joebob can "find an opening" once per day, per fight or whatever. Having to come up with a reason of why it works after the fact is what makes the play seem so board gamey.
As far as Magical Martial Powers of Mysticism, c'mon. Really? Are we really going to argue about what's magic and what isn't? Of course not. We're all better than that. If something feels too "magical" instead of "mundane," and you can't reflavor it, that's a personal problem with a system, not a general flaw.
Not that I'm saying anyone here is engaging in such inefficient discussion! Aheheh.
Wow...seems like a major attempt to shut down debate.
Note: When you point out something that others are doing and then say 'We're all better than that', you're really saying that YOU are better than the others, sort of 'above the fray'. I'm enjoying reading most of this discussion, including the posts that don't agree with me, and I've never felt the need to say that we're all somehow too good to argue one side or the other.
Following it with the 'Aheheh' reinforces this.
I don't recall anyone speaking of a 'general flaw' so much as saying things like "these specific powers seem to ascribe the mystical to things that should simply be the actions of powerful fighters" It was also pointed out by a few that MANY powers in 4e are hunky dory in terms of non-magical actions.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
I don't see any Martial powers in this game which describe an occurrence happening which could never happen here in normal, mundane Earth, or which hasnever happened. I don't see a single Martial power which, when I read it, I think, "There's just NO WAY that could ever happen in the real world. What a fake superpower!"
.
You're kind of flipping the argument in a direction I don't think I ever suggested (a bit strawman-y, to be Whedonesque).
Even CAGI could happen in the real world - I taunt everyone and they all rush me. I don't know that I've ever suggested that it could NEVER happen....you are using your argument that it COULD happen to try to dismiss my issue with the fact that it ALWAYS works, and ALWAYS draws in all foes regardless of their own statistics, abilities, and desires.
Could the martial artist say 'come and get it' and every drunk yokel who's already itching for a fight in the bar does indeed move adjacent to him? Absolutely it could happen...this isn't the argument I'm making at all.
The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target...because you know what these towers of intellect do in 4e? They forget all else and rush the fighter...this is where it becomes mystical (FOR ME, remember).
EDIT: ALSO, as a former player and someone who LOVES Earthdawn, my memory was sparked by an earlier post. I had no problem with powers of the warrior class in that game being odd and hard to explain in mundane (=non-magical) terms, because that's the world/campaign that's being run....EVERYTHING is magical. If I wanted that in D&D, I would (like many here) not have this issue with 4th edition.
__________________ PHlooGSL: PHlooG hereby grants a limited and revocable license to respond to this post under this contract. This contract may be revoked without warning. Responding to this post constitutes acceptance of the PHlooGSL, which supercedes all previous replies. Those replying to this post agree to destroy all earlier replies to non-PHlooGSL postings within 90 days, and to not respond to posts made under any earlier agreements. Respondents agree to pay any and all legal fees for PHlooG should that cheerleader press charges.
Come and Get It? Is anyone on this thread actually of the opinion that the scenario described in this power is so impossible, so patently supernatural and contrary to the laws of reality as our science understands them, that this could never happen in the real world?
I wouldn't say never. If your bad dude walked into a bar full of robots which were not programmed to respond to such commands (golems) or islanders who only spoke an obscure foreign language would the power still work? If so why?
If you walked into a bar, and saw a big fight breaking out, and some guy in a karate stance looked around at the half-dozen people around him, taunted them, and dared them to "come and get it" and then you subsequently observed all of those people rushing to attack him, would you immediately think, "HOLY CRAP, OH MY GOD, THAT WAS MAGIC!"
If it happened to me, then yes, my experience of that would be like some sort of magical mind-control. Because my character is not to run up to fight people, especially people I don't who are doing advanced karate in a bar. And I can't get away from intepreting it that way for the NPC's in that situation, as well.
__________________ ADVANCED DUNGEONS &DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. (1E DMG p. 9)
If your bad dude walked into a bar full of robots which were not programmed to respond to such commands (golems)
I myself wouldn't cast that situation as one likely to happen in "the real world".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExploderWizard
or islanders who only spoke an obscure foreign language would the power still work? If so why?
Body language trumps vocal language when it comes to agression.
/M
__________________ iAltdorf. An interactive map of the capital of the Empire in WFRP! Download today! Can be used in any fantasy campaign!
http://altdorfer.blogspot.com - Check out the Altdorf Correspondent! A WFRP blog about life in the Imperial capital.
"All editions of D&D are awesome." - Fifth Element (EN World Forums, 2008)
”The tendency to confuse personal taste with objective quality is nearly universal.” - Robin D. Laws – Robin’s Laws of Good Gamemastering (Steve Jackson Games, 2002)
You're kind of flipping the argument in a direction I don't think I ever suggested (a bit strawman-y, to be Whedonesque).
It's not a strawman. Posters have been arguing throughout this thread that MANY martial powers don't work unless explained as mystical or inherently magical. When I hit this line above with examples related to heroic acts from fiction the response from the people raising those issues was "well sure, not THOSE powers, but others". He's just asking - what others? It's an honest question.
Quote:
and ALWAYS draws in all foes regardless of their own statistics, abilities, and desires.
This is a disconnect of design intentions. With 3e, the designers saw the need to tackle every corner case and created a lot of subsystems and a lot more corner cases each time. They learned from this with 4e and decided to leave corner cases to be handled by the groups that had a problem with them. It's a corner case, deal with it how you see fit. Disallow the power, modify it so it does basically the same effect, without the forced move (make it so the fighter feigns an injury so his opponents drop their guard just a bit, then he explodes in a burst of speed himself, and shifts himself, attacking everyone in a burst 3).
The silliness ensues when people like exploderwizard claim that the 4e powers fail because you can find a corner case or two to throw at 1 or 2 martial powers that create a situation that is a bit difficult to explain. When it has already been explained as design intent by the designers that they aren't going to fret over the odd corner case, its hard to rationally call that "fail".
The shared narrative control works both ways. If one of the surrounding NPCs woud not possibly ever charge the fighter, the DM can simply say this guy doesn't do it. The no armed, naked guy with no means to attack doesn't bull rush the fighter along with everyone else. But is it really inconceivable that the wizard does? The wizard who sees the fighter going down, who sees his minions rushing in for the kill, he doesn't charge in preparing to blast the fighter with one of his close burst powers (something he might well do on his own on his turn, after having allowed or positioned himself within 15' of the deadly fighter anyway)? Powers he took specifically for melee damage? He couldn't conceivably be tricked or taunted by the wily fighter? "I'll show you why I am the master of Thunder!"
It wouldn't be outside the spirit of the rules to allow someone for whom it would clearly be a huge mistake to charge the fighter to get a save either, like when a forced move effect is going to throw you off a cliff.
Quote:
The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target
Why don't you work a bit harder to build up your Super-Corner? He could also have a gimped leg and walk with a cane, so that movement is not easy for him, and he also has an extreme phobia for violations of personal space, and is enveloped by a magical force shield that makes him impervious to all damage but stops working if he is within 5' of anyone...
Quote:
EDIT: ALSO, as a former player and someone who LOVES Earthdawn, my memory was sparked by an earlier post. I had no problem with powers of the warrior class in that game being odd and hard to explain in mundane (=non-magical) terms, because that's the world/campaign that's being run....EVERYTHING is magical. If I wanted that in D&D, I would (like many here) not have this issue with 4th edition.
So you open your post accusing someone who asks for examples of the magical nature of these martial exploits by claiming that's a strawman argument that you aren't actually making, then close by saying that if the martial powers were just magical like in Earthdawn you wouldn't have any problem with it... Interesting.
The argument I'm making is about enemies who are not drunk, who have incredible ability to size up an opponent, supreme willpower, and who are armed with a magic wand that does insta-kill damage so long as they are not adjacent to their target...because you know what these towers of intellect do in 4e? They forget all else and rush the fighter...this is where it becomes mystical (FOR ME, remember)
D&D 4e (above all things in my opinion) seems to be about all players involved telling a communal story of some type. The story of your campaign.
A power like come and get it isn't about your character forcing his opponents to do anything. It's about the player placing some input into the overall story.
The player getting to say:
1. "At this point in the fight scene, my character is rushed by his enemy."
and
2. "This is how my character responds when he is rushed by said enemy."
The "character" doesn't know the player did anything. He's just responding to the fact that he was rushed by an enemy. It's like one participant in an improv situtation introducing a new element the others can play off of.
I personally think it's great for a number of reasons.
1. The game shouldn't (in my view) be about the DM telling a story and the players just playing parts. It's an improv story. The DM sets the overall plot, but all the actors take it in different directions and in the end we hopefully create soemthing wonderfull.
2. It takes a bit of the burden off of the DM. I want the players to be able to use their abilities and powers in the game. I don't have to do as much in order to make it possible.
3. D&D has always promoted the idea that the DM is impartial, and not on the monster's "side." Sometimes I fall into the trap of being slightly on the monster's side even if only subconciously... You get a bonus when an enemy rushes you? Ohhhh too bad no one rushed you... I start using my knowledge and abilities to think FOR the monsters and not AS the monsters... Which ends up damaging the overall "Story" of the game. When I'm writing a book or a movie, I don't think for the villains. I don't have them avoid bad tactics simply bvexcause as the author I know it will end up allowing the hero to win... They do what they need to for the overall story, and sometimes that means rushing the enemy. (Or leaving them in an insanely complicated trap that no one could possibly escape from, despite the fact that they have a long time to work on it with no one there to prevent it, while they go off to prepair for their plan to come about...)
4e gives me extra tools as a DM to help promote the overall story.
It's not a strawman. Posters have been arguing throughout this thread that MANY martial powers don't work unless explained as mystical or inherently magical. When I hit this line above with examples related to heroic acts from fiction the response from the people raising those issues was "well sure, not THOSE powers, but others". He's just asking - what others? It's an honest question.
No, it's not, And neither is your reply. There was no concession that CAGI can be explained in purely mundane terms.
That CAGI it an explained mundanely when fighting humans or orcs is great. But:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thasmodious
This is a disconnect of design intentions. With 3e, the designers saw the need to tackle every corner case and created a lot of subsystems and a lot more corner cases each time. They learned from this with 4e and decided to leave corner cases to be handled by the groups that had a problem with them. It's a corner case, deal with it how you see fit. Disallow the power, modify it so it does basically the same effect, without the forced move (make it so the fighter feigns an injury so his opponents drop their guard just a bit, then he explodes in a burst of speed himself, and shifts himself, attacking everyone in a burst 3).
It is not a corner case. It works on swarms. It works on slimes and oozes. It works on purple mushrooms that don't even have the power to move on their own. It works on grimlocks that neither speak common nor see body language. It works on rabbits that just want to run away. It works on clams. It works on skeleton butlers who have no commands to attack the fighter.
These are not corner cases in D&D. If you were playing a fighter would you be happy if the GM started declaring your powers don't work on any non-humanoid because they don't share your body language?
__________________ -Andor
"Congratulations. You just invented 'negligent regicide.'" - Schlock Mercenary
And I don't see anyone who has made that argument. You can knock down a straw man you propped up, but I'd prefer that we discuss one another's points. ExploderWizard made the point against 4E martial exploits quite clearly:
It isn't that powers don't make sense; it's that there's a breakdown of immersion, a barrier between PC and player. That's what makes it seem boardgamey or videogamey to some people.
Come and Get It features a mechanic that allows the player to choose how the bad guys act. That is a big change in player authority from previous versions - there was no resource a player could spend in order to take control of the NPCs in the same way.
Having a player take control of NPCs for a moment means the player cannot be "inside the head" of the PC as easily in earlier editions.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
It is not a corner case. It works on swarms. It works on slimes and oozes. It works on purple mushrooms that don't even have the power to move on their own. It works on grimlocks that neither speak common nor see body language. It works on rabbits that just want to run away. It works on clams. It works on skeleton butlers who have no commands to attack the fighter.
Swing and a miss. Swarms, slimes and oozes live to attack, drawing them in is not very challenging. It would not work on something that cannot move. The power says they must shift IF POSSIBLE. Something that cannot move cannot shift. Grimlocks engaged in a fight with the PCs are enemies, it works on them just fine. It would not work on rabbits or clams, they are not "enemies in burst that you can see", same with the skeleton butler.
I'm just going to say it. High levels of immersion and people who require it were not a priority of 4E. It was a design choice to dump support for that playstyle and those players. They decided that to most players, it just isn't that big of a deal, and I think this was a correct decision. Pleasing the fanatics would have required too many sacrifices to overall gameplay.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
