Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6047078" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>Only through the application of physical force.</p><p></p><p>When someone tricks you, they're not forcing you to do something against your will. They are withholding relevant information so that you make a decision on your own free will -- that happens to be disastrous. </p><p></p><p>That's quite a vital distinction for those of us who want to feel like we are making in-character decisions when relevant. It allows us as a player a chance to <em>not believe the trick</em>. As an orthogonal support for this position, D&D has long shied away from dictating what actions your PC is required to take. A doppelganger, for instance, doesn't have a rule that says "Your PC is tricked into thinking this character is what it looks like." Instead, if has a rule that lets it actually look different than what it is. If your character is to apply trickery to goblins, rather than simply dictating "I trick the goblins," it would seem that a better rule would be one to allow the character to <em>actually do that</em>, via things like ambush rules (stealth, perception, etc.) and feint rules (bluff, etc). </p><p></p><p>But like I pointed up above, this is mostly a side consideration anyway. There's clearly a lot of different ways that people break on the metagame level of the mechanics, and that's fine. Like I said, I think it should be something that is a dial that can turn. </p><p></p><p>The problem in my mind being that if you think a battle commander can only accurately be played using metagame mechanics, that this feels to me to be an unnecessarily restrictive idea of what a battle commander is and has been throughout D&D history. It limits it: if the only people who get good battle commander mechanics are people who accept metagame weirdness, that's a pretty unnecessary restriction in my mind. Favoring or enjoying or using the benefits of metagame mechanics is one thing -- <strong>requiring</strong> them seems like a line in the sand that doesn't need to be drawn, to me. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The GM doesn't need to be tricked. They just need to allow their creatures to be tricked. The GM needs to be able to <em>judge</em> if a creature makes that choice. That judgment call can be as simple as "this maneuver I'm using says I trick them," as long as that makes sense in the context of the world in the moment and allows for the DM to actually make that <em>choice</em>, as the monster, rather than having it dictated to them. </p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, if you don't disagree that Expertise Dice mechanics are a viable way to express these abilities, metagame or no, than that part of the experiment is a success, at least. If "getting the warlord right" relies more in your mind on the level of metagame in the mechanic than the nature of it, D&DNext's maneuvers system is still a workable home for them. </p><p></p><p>The level of acceptable metagame -- and how to turn that dial for different folks -- is kind of an orthogonal conversation. One that probably needs to be had, but one that is, in my mind, independent of "how might you model the combat-leader-type within the Fighter class structure as it exists now?"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6047078, member: 2067"] Only through the application of physical force. When someone tricks you, they're not forcing you to do something against your will. They are withholding relevant information so that you make a decision on your own free will -- that happens to be disastrous. That's quite a vital distinction for those of us who want to feel like we are making in-character decisions when relevant. It allows us as a player a chance to [I]not believe the trick[/i]. As an orthogonal support for this position, D&D has long shied away from dictating what actions your PC is required to take. A doppelganger, for instance, doesn't have a rule that says "Your PC is tricked into thinking this character is what it looks like." Instead, if has a rule that lets it actually look different than what it is. If your character is to apply trickery to goblins, rather than simply dictating "I trick the goblins," it would seem that a better rule would be one to allow the character to [I]actually do that[/I], via things like ambush rules (stealth, perception, etc.) and feint rules (bluff, etc). But like I pointed up above, this is mostly a side consideration anyway. There's clearly a lot of different ways that people break on the metagame level of the mechanics, and that's fine. Like I said, I think it should be something that is a dial that can turn. The problem in my mind being that if you think a battle commander can only accurately be played using metagame mechanics, that this feels to me to be an unnecessarily restrictive idea of what a battle commander is and has been throughout D&D history. It limits it: if the only people who get good battle commander mechanics are people who accept metagame weirdness, that's a pretty unnecessary restriction in my mind. Favoring or enjoying or using the benefits of metagame mechanics is one thing -- [B]requiring[/B] them seems like a line in the sand that doesn't need to be drawn, to me. The GM doesn't need to be tricked. They just need to allow their creatures to be tricked. The GM needs to be able to [I]judge[/I] if a creature makes that choice. That judgment call can be as simple as "this maneuver I'm using says I trick them," as long as that makes sense in the context of the world in the moment and allows for the DM to actually make that [I]choice[/I], as the monster, rather than having it dictated to them. Meanwhile, if you don't disagree that Expertise Dice mechanics are a viable way to express these abilities, metagame or no, than that part of the experiment is a success, at least. If "getting the warlord right" relies more in your mind on the level of metagame in the mechanic than the nature of it, D&DNext's maneuvers system is still a workable home for them. The level of acceptable metagame -- and how to turn that dial for different folks -- is kind of an orthogonal conversation. One that probably needs to be had, but one that is, in my mind, independent of "how might you model the combat-leader-type within the Fighter class structure as it exists now?" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top