MarkB
Member

You beat me to it! Thanks, I also like the ecological impact of MarkB it could be something like a fusion rocket. Depending upon the setting and the society, you could go for an ecological angle. The shuttle is designed with atmospheric flight in mind, and has a propulsion system that works well for that context. But the ship's engines produce waste products including radioactive particles, dangerous carcinogens etc. ...

A social interaction challenge (because combat and exploration are roleplay!) might be the ghost of a miner who died in a cave-in who isn't aware of it. If the PCs can figure out what happened and explain it to the ghost, he or she can move on to the afterlife. If the PCs are successful, the miner shares with them a tunnel that serves as a useful shortcut around a dangerous area (perhaps a cave filled with odorless, explosive gas) and/or leads to a cave that contains a treasure. Edit: Dang! MarkB upstaged me!

...r less entirely subjective. Mmmmm..... I give you all the points for "Paladin issues marinated[.]" It's like the worst steak ever. "Why does our kobold fillet taste so bad? It has to be the Paladin marinade!" Anyway, a quick point- OD&D- Paladin lost status by chaotic act; could not regain status. EVER, MAN! See Greyhawk supplement. 1e- If they perform a chaotic act, must confess and do penance. If evil act, cannot regain status. EVER. 2e- Same as 1e. Although it helpfully creates a rule because 1e had "knowingly commit" evil act, so 2e includes the whole, "You got charmed, yo, and now you have to atone!" So ... part of the problem, as it is with most things, is that weird translation from OD&D to 1e. "Chaotic" in OD&D meant, um, evil. Moorcockian. But by dragging out the whole different penalties in 1e/2e, it confused a lot of people, and (IME), most people just conflated the rules and made it, "If Evil, must atone." But contra what you are writing, and what MarkB is positing, these weren't the parts of the code that got people in trouble. There might have been some bad DMs out there, but as a general rule, the DM wasn't looking to strip you of your powers. Instead, and again IME, it was the rules about who the Paladin could party with ... um, who could be in the Paladin's party, that led to the whole "Jerky McJerkface telling the party what to do" reputation. That, and the fact that we all know Paladins suck and need to be excised from the game.

I came to that conclusion maybe ten pages ago. These peeps need this show to be the best, actual show be damned! Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app Who says it needs to be best? I like it. I am not seeing the issues that you are pointing to, or, rather, the issues that are being pointed to are very much not issues for me. IOW, MarkB hits it square on the head. Like I said earlier, I get that people don't like the show. And that's groovy. There's stuff I haven't liked too. Fair enough. The difference is, I'm not jumping through hoop after hoop in order to justify my feelings. I'm not misinterpreting tropes in order to "prove" how bad Disco is. I'm not playing silly buggers cherry picking games to "prove" that they don't care about canon. I'm not trying to prove anything. I like the show. That's the end of that conversation.

...yle mystery scenario, getting the GM to read you bits of his/her notes is the whole point of play: get the clue from here, find the tome there, find the cultists' ritual headquaters, etc. This is all about learning what is in the GM's notes. It's not (or need not be) the GM reading a story: the sequence may not correspond to any particular pre-planned sequence, and there may not be any particular structure of rising action, complication, climax, etc. You also continually use examples of bad GMing to make your point that option 1 is a bad thing.Well, I make do with the examples I have. I don't believe that you've posted any actual play examples. (If you have, and I've missed them, I apologise - can you point me back to them?) The example of the map came (I think) from Lanefan - at least, it has been established in lengthy back-and-forth with him. The example of the plot on the Duke came from Lanefan. The example of the attempt to find bribeable officials came from MarkB. Are you saying that these are all examples of bad GMing? So what does good GMing look like, in this context? What is a good use of secretly-established fictional positioning being used by a GM to establish that a player's action declaration fails, without regard to the action resolution mechanics? A good GM will not send his players on a wild goose chase through the mansion for a map macguffin.So what would the pre-authorship be used for? Even the fiction that I've "pre-authored" can be impacted (or changed entirely if the situation calls for it) at any time by the players' actions - they are the heroes after all.Can you give an example of what you mean? For instance - and I am going to give an example I am familiar with, as I don't have much to go on from your game - I have a PC in my 4e game whose goal is to reconstruct the Rod of Seven Parts. He got the first part at the start of 2nd level. The campaign is now 30th level and he and his friends are in a fight that will de...

...shing a story of an orc. If the person asserts (as I think Emerikol does) that "As a player I only want to add those embellishments that correspond to causal powers exercised by my PC in the gameworld, so I will embellish deaths caused by my PC, but not maps discovered by my PC" that's his/her prerogative. It's a type of aesthetic preference. (As well as Emerikol, Lanefan has advocated it strongly in this thread.) My claims about it are two. (1) It is not more "realistic", or less "Schroedinger-y" than embellishing other parts of the fiction. (2) It means that a reasonable amount of your play experience will involve the GM telling you stuff that s/he made up (either in advance in his/her notes, or stuff that s/he makes up as needed but that is to be treated the same by the game participants as if it were part of his/her pre-authored notes). The reason for (2) I take to be obvious given the extensive discussion of it in this thread, and the example provided by Lanefan, MarkB and others. And the more the game involves "exploration" - that is, the players declaring actions which have, as an outcome, their PCs learning about the gameworld (eg opening doors, finding bribeable officials, searching for maps, etc) rather than their PCs changing the gameworld (eg by killing orcs or befriending strangers) - then the more that (2) will obtain. Furthermore, given that a PC's success in changing the gameworld often depends (in the imaginary causal processes) upon unknown but relevant factors (eg the armour of the orc; the temperament of the stranger) then even changing the gameworld through action declarations can become hostage to a resolution process that does not permit the player to embellish other elements of the shared fiction. For instance, if we go from player action declaration through resolution mechanics through embellishment that reflects outcome, then it is possible to have combat systems like D&D (AC, roll to hit, determine outcome from that) and h...

...GM, that's not counterindicative at all of having trust issues about the GM being unfair.The last sentence is not something I intend to reply to. I'm not interested in analysing my own conjectured self-doubts in this thread. As I've said, a more prosaic explanation for my preferences is available - my pleasure in RPGing does not come from telling my friends stuff that I wrote in response to them making moves for their PCs that oblige me to engage in such tellings. As for the first bit, you are correct that I "seem to couch [my] arguments from a position where the DM is uses secret knowledge and fiat in ways that benefit the DM's ideas over the players". The reason it seems like that is because it is like that. (I didn't clarify that in my first reply because I assumed it was obvious.) And the reason I couch my arguments (I would prefer to say "analysis", but that's orthogonal) from that position is because that position is correct. Which is what I said was evident in the post from MarkB: inherent in the use of secret backstory as a factor in adjudication is that the GM's ideas are given priority in establishing the content of the shared fiction. I'll respond to the following bit too, though, if you like, though I think it's repetition: a GM may be fair or unfair in saying (on the basis not of action resolution, but of secretly established fictional content) that the map is not in the study where the players have declared that the PCs are searching the study for it. If every other bit of information points to the map being in the study, it's probably unfair. If the PCs have a potion of map detecing with a range that will encompass the whole house (kitchen as well as study) but are not using it, then what the GM is doing is probably fair. I don't care whether it's fair or not. The reason I don't like it is because I find it uninteresting. When I RPG, I don't want to engage in an activity in which my friends are spending most of their time trying to establish - by ...

...layer agency in a GM setting-driven game, as it was completely orthogonal from the GM's setting. (Eg we had fragments of a prophecy, and we spent a lot of time debating them, imagining how we could read various PCs into various roles outlined in the prophecy, etc. I assume that the GM had some conception, in his mind, of what the prophecy meant and how the events of play related to it, but they were absolutely irrelevant to what we players were talking about. We could have done our stuff just as easily if the GM had simply handed us three random prophecies downloaded from a Google search.) Clearly, you don't trust that players have any form of agency in any game that has substantive GM backstory and adjudication. You're denying that they do all over the place here and in your response to Lanefan. And you don't really seem to trust us when we say that player do have agency in the games we're running in which we do make use of substantial backstory and adjudication. Your response to MarkB here is fairly dripping with it. "you think it is" makes it very clear that you don't believe him or think it's true. It's like you're calling him out but acknowledge he's not technically lying because he seems to believe it's true.We're doing analysis here. Trying to dig down into the processes of play is not "calling someone out". I don't think MarkB is lying. I do think that the suggestion that I don't trust GMs is (i) false, and (ii) irrelevant - as if the only reason someone would play DungeonWorld rather than 2nd ed AD&D is because they don't trust GMs! But anyway, on to the issue of agency: Here is one of my assertions - if the GM is entitled, at any point in the process of resolution to (i) secretly author backstory, or (ii) secrety rewrite backstory, and (iii) to use that secret backstory as if it was part of the fictional positioning so as to (iv) automatically declare an action declaration unsuccessful ("No, the map's not in the study") - then I assert that every acti...

In many ways, they do the same thing, it’s just the puzzle is a little different, less constrictive, and possibly more complex. Instead of a relatively simple puzzle of doping out the best way to maximize treasure within a single dungeon, they might be working on visiting all of the adventuring sites in the region, foiling the impending invasion of the orcsish legion, stopping the predation of a wicked dragon, or just visiting interesting places.The last of these doesn't sound like a puzzle at all. As for the others, as I posted not far upthread (in response to Sadras and MarkB), I'm curious about how the puzzle-solving works, when there are so many (imaginary) elements in play which can introduce parameters to the puzzle to which the players have no access (in practical terms). I don’t see those as unsolvable, but then I don’t really buy into describing RPG gaming, even limited to dungeon crawls, as puzzles to solve. Unless the puzzle is figuring out how to have fun pretending to be a halfling Paladin or half-orc summoner.Right. As the OP said, I think puzzle-solving play is not so common in contemporary RPGing. Given that it's not, then, what is worldbuilding for?

...e notes on any of it. Having it pre-designed even if just in broad strokes makes the describing so much easier. Particularly at the start of the campaign when the players in theory know much less about the game world than their PCs do (canon lawyers for pre-fab settings notwithstanding) the DM has a lot of describing to do and as a side effect of that description is going to drop the PCs into a particular setting be it a steamy jungle, a city based on ancient Athens, a snowy Viking camp, or a pleasant sunny farm village. You'd probably call this railroading, but how else can it work? Of course, that's just the start; if the PCs in the Viking camp immediately decide to go someplace warmer then the DM has to react to that. (one hopes she has a broad-strokes regional or continental map showing areas beyond a short radius around the camp!) Are you able to say more about how you see the GM's work on the setting in advance of play feeding through to give the players that sense? MarkB might see it differently, but for my part it's much easier to figure out a character's motivations, beliefs, goals, etc. when there's a culture (or cultures) and common history to fit into. If, say, the setting history shows that our starting town was devastated by a war ten years ago and since rebuilt, that's going to influence my character and what she thinks; and probably influence other characters as well. But if the starting history shows no such war it's not our place as players to just add it in. We have no right to, as world design is not in our purview. And if there's no pre-designed history then what's the point? What happened before our PCs became PCs? What major events shaped their lives? (it should be obvious but I'd better mention: the DM sets the event but the player chooses what influence it had on her character, if any). Lanefan

MarkB I thought Force Awakens: Incredible Cross Sections was canon due to being written and published after Disney acquired Star Wars?

MarkB Maybe. But if so, that's a retcon of the Falcon's history. It was originally a freight pusher for orbit; that's why it had the cockpit to the side instead of the YT-standard central cockpit.

Yeah, I gotta go with MarkB on this one. What's the point of trying to draw boxes around whether something is a "game" or not. Like any genre discussion, it's ultimately a deep, deep dive down a dark rabbit hole. And, I would also point out that I don't think anyone has advocated completely taking death off the table either. Just making it a bit more rare.

I usually forget that one even can roll for hit points on leveling up. I doubt it's something the designers give much thought to as well. Agree with MarkB, incentivizing rolling for hp would be counterproductive — average hp should be the preferred option. Easier to keep track of, doesn't lead to pointless power differential between characters, takes nothing away from the RP. If rolling for hp, on average, gave you better results, we'd have players groaning and complaining when I said, "and we'll all just take average hp on level up." With the average being statistically better, nobody even notices that rolling for it is gone after a level or two. (If they ever noticed at all.) Roll dice for PC actions. Live with the consequences. But why randomize the squishiness of a character?

...the questions I'm trying to determine. How high up do you have to climb a building for there to be noticeable change in gravity. I think it would affect how high-rise type buildings were constructed, since the shearing forces (might be using the wrong term) between regular G and lower-G would require stronger building materials. Plus it might suggest activities happening at the upper levels of high-rise buildings would be substantially different...for example moving construction activities to the lower-G zones for increased efficiency. RangerWickett Really helpful on how to visualize entering at the zero-G "fixed" axis and seeing the entire station spin around you. I suspected some kind of shuttle or elevator would be necessary, but hadn't conceived of exactly why... I plugged a 500 m radius in and got a Tangential Velocity (or "rim speed") of 156 mph, which would be "splat your dead" for anyone moving or falling from the zero-G axis to the ground...in scientific terms :) MarkB That's another one of my questions. I mean, nothing we throw on Earth actually travels straight, technically. But in the rotational artificial G environment I'm wondering if it would be more obvious...or would it basically be a case of "throwing a baseball while in a moving car"? In other words, if everything/everyone is rotating at the same rate in relation to each other, there doesn't appear to be any change from Earth-standard gravity (assuming 1 g centripetal acceleration). But what happens if I punt a football down a field or fire a railgun at the elevator/shuttle tube along the central axis when the station is rotating at 1.3 rpms and the rim is spinning at 156 mph?

...epithet; @erf_beto ; @Eric V ; @eryndel ; @Evenglare ; @ExploderWizard ; @EzekielRaiden; @Fedge123 ; @fendak ; @FireLance ; @Fishing_Minigame ; @Flamestrike ; @FLexor the Mighty! ; @Forged Fury ; @Fragsie ; @Fralex ; @FreeTheSlaves ; @froth ; @Gadget; @Galendril ; @GameOgre ; @Garthanos ; @Ghost Matter ; @Giltonio_Santos ; @Gimul; @GMforPowergamers ; @Gnashtooth ; @Green1 ; @GreenKarl ; @Greg K ; @GreyLord; @Grimmjow ; @Grydan ; @GX.Sigma ; @Halivar ; @HEEGZ ; @Hemlock ; @Henry ; @Herobizkit; @Hussar; @IchneumonWasp ; @I'm A Banana ; @Imaro ; @Iosue ; @Irennan ; @JackOfAllTirades; @jacktannery ; @jadrax ; @Jaelommiss ; @JamesTheLion ; @JamesonCourage ; @JasonZZ; @jayoungr ; @JediGamemaster ; @JeffB ; @Jester Canuck ; @jgsugden ; @jodyjohnson; @Joe Liker ; @JohnLynch ; @Johnny3D3D ; @KarinsDad ; @kerbarian ; @kerleth ; @Kinak; @KingsRule77 ; @Kirfalas ; @Kobold Stew ; @koga305 ; @Lanefan ; @Lanliss ; @Leatherhead; @Libramarian ; @Li Shenron ; @LuisCarlos17f ; @lowkey13 ; @Manbearcat ; @MarkB; @MechaPilot ; @Mecheon ; @mellored ; @Mephista ; @Mercule ; @MG.0 ; @MichaelSomething; @Miladoon ; @Minigiant ; @Mishihari Lord ; @Mistwell ; @MoogleEmpMog ; @Mon @MonkeezOnFire ; @MoonSong(Kaiilurker) ; @MostlyDm ; @Mouseferatu ; @MoutonRustique; @Nemesis Destiny ; @neobolts ; @Neonchameleon ; @Nifft ; @nightspaladin ; @nomotog; @n00bdragon ; @Obryn ; @Ohillion ; @oknazevad ; @Olgar Shiverstone ; @Orlax ; @Otterscrubber ; @Pandamonium87 ; @Paraxis ; @PaulO. ; @Pauln6 ; @Pauper ; @payn; @pemerton ; @peterka99 ;@ Pickles III ; @Pickles JG ; @pkt77242 ; @pming ; @pogre; @PopeYodaI ; @Prickly ; @procproc ; @Psikerlord ; @Psikerlord# ; @(Psi)SeveredHead; @Quickleaf ; @Raith5 ; @raleel ; @Ralif Redhammer ; @Raloc ; @Ranes ; @RangerWickett; @Ratskinner ; @redrick ; @Rejuvenator ; @Remathilis ; @Ristamar ; @RolenArcher; @Roland55 ; @RPG_Tweaker ; @Rune ; @Rygar ; @Sacrosanct ; @Saelorn ; @Saeviomagy; @sailor-Moon ; @SailorNash ; @Saplatt ; @Satyrn ; @Shades of Eternity ; @shadowmane; @shead...

MarkB beat me to it. Surprised it took to the second page. If you don't want them encountering/recognizing a troll...just use something else...Hill Giants seem to be the popular choice, but you could just go Ogres, Bugbears, heck make is a gaggle of Kobolds!...and let it regenerate and rend.

R2 and 3PO are both still in it. They haven't been replaced. That's good to know. MarkB - On the Death Star, they're low in the trench, but not as ridiculously low over the lake. Yeah, you can fly real-life jets ridiculously low, but the over-the-topness bothers me.

My wife says Danny shot her to save the Doctor getting his hands dirty. I'll have to rewatch. Like MarkB I assumed it was the Cyberman assumed to be the Brigadier keeping the Doctor's hands clean. But the FX did look more like a teleport. They could have just reused the SFX (those are pricey) or deliberately used that one to allow room to bring back the Master. But, while neat, the Brigadier semi-returning felt deux ex machnica. (Heh. A deus ex machina cyberman. Heh.) It was kinda foreshadowed and it makes total sense but it's so abrupt. Still, any excuse to namedrop Lethbridge-Stewart is fine by me. I liked the mutual lying at the end. Such a different way for companions departing. Despite being extra long it felt like there were some bits missing. I felt there was a scene missing between the graveyard and Clara's room where the Doctor explains that someone could come back. Likely cut for time/pacing but awkward from a story purpose. But I liked Danny sacrificing his life to return the boy he killed. That was such a nice bit of his overall character arc. Perhaps that's a...

Thanks for the replies, all! I like where this is going, a "jury-rigging" or "MacGyver" ability. MarkB, that's an excellent start, though it'll need to be streamlined and modified to be more 5E-like. (For starters, I'd probably drop the skill check and just require a certain length of time.) I'll try and take a stab at it myself later this weekend (not happening right now), but if anyone else wants to develop this further... As a sidenote, in this situation, I could see Use Magic Device sticking around as a feat. Mainly because feats are supposed to represent an unusual or exceptional talent (as opposed to UMD being something any Thief can do).

What they did to Anakin is just as bad. Instead of giving us a good man struggling to control his darker impulses, we get a whiny brat with so little self-control that it's hard to conceive how he ever earned the status of Jedi in the first place, Chosen One or not. This should have been a sympathetic character that we grieve to see corrupted to the dark side, so that we can cheer to see his ultimate redemption. Or, Youth Anakin should have been presented as something other than a cute helpful little kid. He was born a slave and his mother has no husband / boyfriend; he ought to be: - trying to be the man of the house (but has to learn it by observation and trial-and-error) - has a strong attachment to his mother, so much so that even blinded-by-the-prophecy Qui-Jon must think carefully about separating them - sullen and suspicious, tries to figure out how / if somebody is taking advantage of him - has Wild Force User talent that just screams out to any trained user. He cannot summo...

What they did to Anakin is just as bad. Instead of giving us a good man struggling to control his darker impulses, we get a whiny brat with so little self-control that it's hard to conceive how he ever earned the status of Jedi in the first place, Chosen One or not. This should have been a sympathetic character that we grieve to see corrupted to the dark side, so that we can cheer to see his ultimate redemption. Agreed. In this regard the "Clone Wars" cartoon series is a vast improvement over the actual films. Indeed, it's almost worth suffering the prequels as a price for getting that series.

Poe didn't make much of an impact because they basically killed him off in the first act and then brought him back in the third with only the most minor of handwaves. The character is solid, he was just poorly handled. Well, he was literally supposed to die until they wanted a familiar face in the X-wings and found the actor charming.

Poe didn't make much of an impact because they basically killed him off in the first act and then brought him back in the third with only the most minor of handwaves. He was originally dead in the TIE fighter crash. They brought him back as a late script change during filming.

I do love the final scene of the movie. The seemingly ordinary stable boy unconsciously reaching out with the Force to pick up the broom, then play-fighting with it as an imaginary lightsaber while contemplating Rose's Resistance ring is about the most perfect possible encapsulation of Star Wars's message of hope, optimism and heroes rising from humble origins. And visualising our childhoods? Am I the only one to pretend to use the Force or use a broom handle as a lightsaber? What you said may be why I keep going back no matter how bad the movie seems.

Hiya! Yeah, but there's a difference between something bad happening to the PC and something bad happening to the player. If the PC is reduced to a vegetative state, and the player has to basically wait around twiddling his thumbs while the party goes on an extended quest to restore him, that's in some ways worse than the PC just being outright killed. As you say there are other options, and in this case it sounds like the players found one of their own - polymorphing the PC into a beast to allow the character's continued participation, at least in combats - but anything which results in a player feeling unable to contribute effectively during a session is not going to enhance the fun. I get where you're coming from. Polymorphing, as the spell goes, is a good 'median' solution...maybe even one that could have some really cool RP'ing come out of it. Like, the PC likes his new form MORE than his old one. "Gee guy, I know we worked hard to get here and all, but honestly...being in thi...

That factor does have to be weighed against the question of where is the fun in playing a dribbling vegetable for the duration of the time it takes to complete a more extended quest? Ask anybody who plays a Rapier-wielding Gnome Paladin. They would know.

Ironically, all the links in the original 2011 article are now broken. An example of art becoming truth, I guess.I blame society. :angel:

Yeah, but there's a difference between something bad happening to the PC and something bad happening to the player. If the PC is reduced to a vegetative state, and the player has to basically wait around twiddling his thumbs while the party goes on an extended quest to restore him, that's in some ways worse than the PC just being outright killed. As you say there are other options, and in this case it sounds like the players found one of their own - polymorphing the PC into a beast to allow the character's continued participation, at least in combats - but anything which results in a player feeling unable to contribute effectively during a session is not going to enhance the fun. Assuming that the PC being dead isn't also "solved" by having the party go on a medium-length quest to restore him. Or wait an equal amount of time for a good point to have a replacement character show up. In this age of smartphones and mobile games, being asked to chill for an hour or two isn't the end ...

Hiya! That factor does have to be weighed against the question of where is the fun in playing a dribbling vegetable for the duration of the time it takes to complete a more extended quest? True enough, but then we start going down the whole rabbit hole of "If something detrimental happens to a PC, then the DM shouldn't have let it happen without providing a quick means of countering said thing"...which leads to "..and if we're gonna do that, then why bother with ANYTHING bad happening to the PC in the first place?". Slippery slope, IMNSHO. What we do is the PC of said character either pulls out another one from their character book, or (more favoured) they take over the roll of an NPC hireling or henchman. Hell, we've even let someone play another PC's pet...on more than one occasion. :) Anyway, my point is, is that sometimes bad stuff happens to PC's. It's part of the game. Is it "fun" to have you fighter reduced to a vegetable state? Not really. But without the possibility of ...

You beat me to it! Thanks, I also like the ecological impact of MarkB it could be something like a fusion rocket. Depending upon the setting and the society, you could go for an ecological angle. The shuttle is designed with atmospheric flight in mind, and has a propulsion system that works well for that context. But the ship's engines produce waste products including radioactive particles, dangerous carcinogens etc. ...

Alternatively, he could 'happen' to find a Headband of Intellect. That would make for an interestingly precarious character - a genius so long as he keeps the headband on, but literally can't remember how to tie his own shoelaces if he ever takes it off. One word: Yoink!

To be fair, the 4e PHB was published in 2008, and Galaxy of Intrigue was published in 2010. D'ope... I have always believed they were published in GoI before 4e...

The Find Familiar spell says that "you can see through the familiar's eyes", so it is you doing the seeing, which should be valid for any "that you can see" requirement. Note that it requires an action to do so, and lasts until the end of your next turn, so you would need to take the action to activate familiar-vision on one turn, then cast your spell on the next, and would lose your familiar-vision at the end of that second turn. I read Find Familiar and it actually says, "you can see through your familiar's eyes and hear what it hears until the start of your next turn" so that makes it a lot more difficult to do. Here's another question then. Say you are using Arcane Eye (a concentration spell) to spy on enemies a few rooms over. You then drop a Wall of Force around them (a concentration spell), which makes your Arcane Eye disappear. Wall of Force says it appears "at a point you choose" which I assume means you need to see the point... so does the wall appear before Arcane Eye disappea...

I love the idea of Mordenkainen building in a literal secret backdoor to his Mansion which only he can access, leading to the Astral Plane. Originally an escape route from his own mansion, it also serves as a way for him to sneak inside anyone else's. If you ever lost anything in the Mansion, now you know why.....

Sure, if you very specifically want to grapple characters. But if you just want to impede their movement, shove them around, or knock them over, an Open Hand monk gets to do all that - and any monk can gain access to Stunning Strike. Monks have their own toolkit for harrassing opponents - why do they also need to be experts at the default toolset? I dunno. But if the particular player wants to be able to grapple as an Open Hand monk, why wouldn't I try and make that possible for them? Where's the harm? I mean it's not like grappling in of itself is some great groundbreaking ability that can level a campaign... after all, other characters can already do it. So if other characters can grapple, then obviously the ability isn't going to destroy anything. The only thing it does is "give something away for free" as has been said. But if that something isn't really all that worthwhile to begin with and is merely just a little extra perk to help flesh out a character idea... is it really ...

A nice modification. On a related note, I've seen a pretty good take on a Monk improvised-weapons-master subclass. Unfortunately I can't re-print it here, as it's someone else's playtest material, but it essentially revolved around treating improvised weapons as Monk weapons, and incentivising the player to change out their weapon regularly for increased bonuses. It felt very much like a Jackie Chan fighting style, being able to pick up whatever's handy and turn it into an effective weapon. The other tweak I'm thinking of is broadening it to "a melee attack" so that for instance Druids can get the bonus grapple with their wild shape's claws. What do you think? Edit: "attack" not "weapon", with the appropriate hedging "if it is within your unarmed reach."

For me their offense have never been the problem, its their defense. Unless they have very good stats in dex and wisdom their AC is terrible compared to other martial. And unlike rogues and barbs they don't have ways to halve damage. They have their extra dodge but that burns ki very quickly. I find they suck down healing much more quickly than other martial classes, and unless they are pouring ki into defense they don't have the longevity. That, and their mobility tends to be a two-edged sword. It's great for engaging enemies quickly, but it makes it easy for the character to get out of position compared to the rest of the party if you're not careful. I haven't found much trouble with that in my games, especially running a Drunken Master monk, but also with my Shadow Monk, even before level 6. IME, most Monks have AC between Leather and Studded Leather, at level 1, and decent HP. They're defensively comparable to Rogues, but they do it differently. I also wouldn't classify 1ki on a tu...

That, and their mobility tends to be a two-edged sword. It's great for engaging enemies quickly, but it makes it easy for the character to get out of position compared to the rest of the party if you're not careful. This. Monks too often are used to show the party how the "monster works". They become the "red shirts" of a D&D party.

Yeah, it's just making the class marginally more flexible. Monks can already hinder opponents in similar fashion to the effects of Shove and Grapple, especially Open Hand monks. Making them more proficient with Grapple and Shove allows them to do so without a cost in Ki points, but it does so at the expense of them not dealing damage along with those effects. Roughly, it's giving them a feat (the Tavern Brawler "half-feat" and the Grappler feat do roughly what the OP described). But the question isn't about Monk power (nothing in the OP suggests says that this is a power question), it's do the rules as written mechanically support what the character is doing? (Usual caveats about doing whatever the hell you like apply.) As for Monk power, their issue is not how well they grapple (and it would be a railroading approach to fixing them if the fix was - grapple better). The issue lies mostly around anaemic damage and bad defenses. They suffer a high degree of contention for their bonus actio...