D&D 5E (2014) "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[TwoSix]

I thought we were in agreement?

Sorry, I just never expect to see that anymore.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think the Fear mechanics vs Taunt/Feint mechanics is instructive here. Autonomy of mental state and subsequent behavior contingent upon that mental state is adjudicated by a test vs your Will save/defense. If we're good with the mechanical resolution of Fear (this is magical and mundane):

1) Fear attacks challenge your bravery by proxy of your Will defense/save. The braver you are, the higher your Will save/defense (+ any bonsuses versus these effects) will be. Your Brave vs Afraid threshold is adjudicated by success or defeat of your Will (+ vs fear bonuses) defense/save. If your Will save/defense is defeated, then that failure means you are afraid in this moment and you move in the most direct path away from the source of the fear ("a push effect").

Then why aren't we good with the exact analog only in the opposite direction (toward the enemy):

2) Taunt/Feint attacks challenge your poise/composure/canniness by proxy of your Will defense/save. The more poised/composed/canny you are, the higher your Will save/defense (+ any bonsuses versus these effects) will be. Your Poised/Composed/Canny vs Rash/Uncomposed/Foolish threshold is adjudicated by success or defeat of your Will (+ vs Taunt/Feint bonuses) defense/save. If your Will save/defense is defeated, then that failure means you are Taunted/Fooled in this moment and you move in the most direct path toward the source of the taunt/feint ("a pull effect").

Its the exact same reasoning and mechancal resolution (and both attacks can be magical or mundane) only the movement effect, post-resolution dictating a failure, is in the opposite direction.

 

[Imaro]

Where's that Viking hat when you need it?

Well if I'm specifically choosing not to pick CaGi then I'm probably a player and not the DM... and being a player, if I have an objection to the power... it means I probably don't want a player having the ability to control my character like that either. Just saying.

 

[D'karr]

Well if I'm specifically choosing not to pick CaGi then I'm probably a player and not the DM... and being a player, if I have an objection to the power... it means I probably don't want a player having the ability to control my character like that either. Just saying.

Then it's a good thing that the power only has the potential to affect enemies you can see in the burst. Just saying.

 

[Obryn]

and in asituation where the character is under your control, that's how it would play out.

This circumstance has an external force in the game world exerting an influence. You are not running away because the character made the decision to retreat. You are running away because of an external compulsion that was too strong to resist.

The difference comes in how the player can resolve the actions of the character with the expected behaviours from personality and character design. The character didn't run because he's cowardly or rationally weighed the risk/reward ratio to be poor. He ran because he was compelled to run by an external agency.

When another player exerts narrative control, the controlling player doesn't get that luxury. He has to explain in his fiction what happened that he made the decision he did. Why did he approach the spider? How does that play off his complete revulsion to them?

This is the same logic that allows taunts to work.

-O

 

[Imaro]

Then it's a good thing that the power only has the potential to affect enemies you can see in the burst. Just saying.

So you've never had conflict arise between party members? I have and it didn't always end non-violently... just sayin.

 

[pemerton]

Have I ever seen a situation where one person simply said something to another person with whom no meaningful relationship or social structure existed, and the first person controlled the second's behavior? No.

I don't undestand what the scenario you describe has to do with CaGI, which describes a highly structured and meaningful situation - the PC fighter is exerting physical and technical domination over his/her mortal enemies.

The police officer or whoever can signal for me not to enter a place... but he doesn't then control exactly where I move to or stand outside of that area

It's not about control in the sense of mind control. It's about direction in the sense of compelling obedience. And a person can compel another to go to a particular place - for instance by pointing a gun at them, and then gesturing that they move up against a wall.

The immersion break for me comes in because the player literally controls the actions of the npc. I those real life situations, that isnt mind control or will that is someone choosing to do what they police officer or bouncer suggests with a glare because they want to avoid the consequences of being beat up or going to jail. It is a choice.

I discussed this in my lengthy post, with reference both to ingame factors - whether or not the NPC had a choice is irrelevant from the point of view of the PC; all that matter is that they chose to obey - and also mechanical factors - karma vs fortune in resolution.

There is nothing here inherently inimical to immersion.

I just dont get why you cant accept some of us have issues with it around believability, and I dont understand why people just can't accept that some folks find 4E unimmersive

Well, I don't get why you missed the bit in my post where I said I have no doubt that CaGI it breaks immesion for some players, especially those who have AD&D 2nd-ed understandings of authority distribution between player and GM. The point of my post is to deny Imaro's assertion (and he's not the only one ever to have asseted it) that CaGI (and similar powers with metagame elements) must, by its very nature, be inimical to immersion.

But it works so much better for a lot of is if you let something like a taunt be handled by the Gm and players sense of how the pc or npc in question would respond.

I note that this is not about whether or not CaGI can be understood from with the headspace of the PC, but rather about distributins of authority and role across player and GM. Just as I characterised the matter in my lengthy post.

Well, there can be a mechanic for it (as there have been for Charisma-based skills), but hardcode it? Hardcoding free will is where the issue is.

I note that this is not about whether or not CaGI can be understood from with the headspace of the PC, but rather about karma vs fortune in resolution - just as I discussed in my lengthy post. D&D traditionally glosses over small likelihoods of spell failure (even though that is part of the ingame fiction) and favours karmic resolution of casting. CaGI it does the same thing for the choices of NPCs/monsters when (pre-errata) CaGI is used (post-errata invovles an attack roll vs Will).

But there is nothing inherently more chancy about NPC's choices than about tripping on a low bump and losing a spell, such that one must be modelled by fortune and the other by karma if immersion is to be preserved.

As a GM I have no issue with players getting narrative-control abilities and in fact have introduced some like Whimsy Cards into more procedural games like D&D and run games like Strands of Fate (a FATE spinoff) where the players can make direct contribution to the game-world on the spur of the moment.

<snip>

As a player, the only thing I want to control is my character. I want to see the effects the PC can accomplish by pulling the levers inside the game world.

The point of my lengthy post is that there is nothing inherent to CaGI that is at odds with what you describe here (though of course that only establishes a necessary, not a sufficient, condition for immersion). CaGI, canonically, does not involve making direct contributions to the gameworld on the spur of the moment, and is about an effect the PC accomplishes by pulling the levers inside the gameworld. That is because CaGI it, canonically, involves the PC imposing his/her will upon enemies.

Probably because many D&D players identify strongly with their characters and don't like it when their characters do things they feel are out of the player's control.

This has no bearing on CaGI, which is a power that players, via their PCs, use on NPCs/monsters.

 

[billd91]

I think the Fear mechanics vs Taunt/Feint mechanics is instructive here. Autonomy of mental state and subsequent behavior contingent upon that mental state is adjudicated by a test vs your Will save/defense. If we're good with the mechanical resolution of Fear (this is magical and mundane):

1) Fear attacks challenge your bravery by proxy of your Will defense/save. The braver you are, the higher your Will save/defense (+ any bonsuses versus these effects) will be. Your Brave vs Afraid threshold is adjudicated by success or defeat of your Will (+ vs fear bonuses) defense/save. If your Will save/defense is defeated, then that failure means you are afraid in this moment and you move in the most direct path away from the source of the fear ("a push effect").

Then why aren't we good with the exact analog only in the opposite direction (toward the enemy):

2) Taunt/Feint attacks challenge your poise/composure/canniness by proxy of your Will defense/save. The more poised/composed/canny you are, the higher your Will save/defense (+ any bonsuses versus these effects) will be. Your Poised/Composed/Canny vs Rash/Uncomposed/Foolish threshold is adjudicated by success or defeat of your Will (+ vs Taunt/Feint bonuses) defense/save. If your Will save/defense is defeated, then that failure means you are Taunted/Fooled in this moment and you move in the most direct path toward the source of the taunt/feint ("a pull effect").

Its the exact same reasoning and mechancal resolution (and both attacks can be magical or mundane) only the movement effect, post-resolution dictating a failure, is in the opposite direction.

The problem as I see it is taunt effects that require a target to aggressively close with the perpetrator push the control too far out of reasonable behavior. If the target has a loaded crossbow in hand and the PC taunts him, why can't the crossbowman just shoot at him? A taunt mechanic that allows the target to respond with an attack from where they are would, in my opinion, be a superior design capable of respecting differences in the character of the target. Getting the target to respond aggressively to a taunt is reasonable, but the result of that aggression should be more open than trying to advance into melee. If that happens to be the target's goal in the first place, fine. But if it isn't, then I'm not so keen with it being fine.

 

[Imaro]

Well, I don't get why you missed the bit in my post where I said I have no doubt that CaGI it breaks immesion for some players, especially those who have AD&D 2nd-ed understandings of authority distribution between player and GM. The point of my post is to deny Imaro's assertion (and he's not the only one ever to have asseted it) that CaGI (and similar powers with metagame elements) must, by its very nature, be inimical to immersion.

Emphasis mine...

Whoah, where did I make that claim at? What I've noticed is you claiming it cannot in any way break immersion and I've been arguing and trying to show you that yes, for some it can.

EDIT: My main example being the fact that you must stop controlling your PC and decide what movements and where the enemies decide to go during the usage of the power.

 

[Imaro]

It's not about control in the sense of mind control. It's about direction in the sense of compelling obedience. And a person can compel another to go to a particular place - for instance by pointing a gun at them, and then gesturing that they move up against a wall.

Using the threat of immediate violence and possible death is alot different from a situation where you actually move close enough to the source of danger and death for it to affect you, taking the exact path the person who wants to kill you wants you to take and ending in the square he wants you to (regardless of every other circumstance involved in the combat)... because. IMO, and many others that is alot closer to mind control or magic than even the cause fear example given earlier in the thread. Not only that... it requires me to step out of the headspace of my character and physically control characters that are not my own... this can be immersion breaking for many because they are now deciding where these characters have decided to move based on whatever excuse was given to implement CaGi.