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

[Manbearcat]

I took that to be an argument that, as far as CaGI is concerned, it has inherent features that impede immersion. If your only claim is that some people can't immerse while using it, that is obviously true. But @Manbearcat (I think) once posted about a friend of his who couldn't play his mage unless rolling red dice for fireball and white dice for ice storm. No interesting generalisation can be drawn from those preferences to general properties or features of dice design and dice mechanics!

I did. He literally had to drive 1.5 hours (thus shortening our sessions by 40 %) back to his place to retrieve them before we could play. A curious fellow but not unrepresentative of the strange attachments to rituals and legacy arrangements for the sake of their "immersive properties" that plenty of D&D gamers.

I think I was posting about the unified mechanical arrangement of powers (arcane spells, primal evocations, divine prayers, and martial exploits) and how that (oddly) contributed to people actually feeling that "fighters cast spells". The aesthetic of the framework outlining the mechanical resolution of any ability has nothing to do with the game world itself. Nonetheless, just reading those entries has some jarring effect on some people's ability to immerse at the table during play. I don't understand it and I've never heard it explained in a way that makes sense but its nonetheless true. From my recollection, the colored dice anecdote reminded me of that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not if you want non-fiated action resolution. The principle function of NPC stats in many RPGs is to feed into action resolution.

To pick a good example here, Leverage. Leverage is a game about running cons and heists.

The stats for the villain of the week in Leverage are:
Power: D12
Strength: D12
Distinction: D8
Weakness: D4
Vulnerability: D4

(Normal pools involve rolling two dice from the list).

Which is completely different from the PC's stats. But the point of those stats is twofold. First PC stats under most circumstances top out at D10 - if they are going head to head against 2d12 they are in quite a lot of trouble. If the con goes according to plan in the final showdown the NPC is going to roll 2d4 to see whether he takes the bait then the bad guy is almost certainly going down hard.

So in this case the stats structure the whole adventure.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Not if you want non-fiated action resolution. The principle function of NPC stats in many RPGs is to feed into action resolution.

If.

Just as a mathematical aside, I'm not sure why. If the concern is that the PCs should always have a non-trivial chance of success and a non-trivial chance of failure, then regardless of the size of the bonus, the DC can always be set at an approprite amount (even a PC with a +23 modifier has a 50% chance to fail against a DC of 34).

If the concern is that there is too much difference between the modifiers of the best PC and the worst PC, then regardless of the size of the bonus of the best PC, the difference between PCs can be constrained by limiting the size and number of bonuses that would not apply to all PCs.

Hence, I don't see much downside in having a high (+20 and up) modifier in a d20 game. In fact, the idea that you could have a character that finds it trivial to accomplish tasks that would be impossible for normal men (DC 21 and up) is gaming aesthetic that appeals to me (and why I don't really like bounded accuracy).

Of course, YMMV.

In the d20 system, any bonus applied to a die roll means you can accomplish tasks that would be impossible to normal men, as each bonus increases you best possible result by 1. But given a +23 level modifier and some associated bonuses, the numbers get out of hand. You can't fail at tasks that would be impossible to normal men. Based on the default scheme for skills, a "heroic task" will be a given, and a "practically impossible" task will be routine. Failure at any meaningful task is essentially impossible. And you can get that good not at just one thing, but at quite a few things (which is a problem as well).

Now, I kind of liked the epic skill DCs and all that, but when characters that aren't even close to epic level can make the epic DCs with even a minimal effort to max out their skill mod, something's wrong.

One problem I have with skills as they have traditionally been done is that the PC's action, and resolution of that action, is wrapped up in the skill itself.

Bluff lists modifiers to the Bluff/Sense Motive checks and in-combat uses; Diplomacy has its little table; Intimidate has its rules for making characters Shaken.

This leads to "button-pushing" play, where the player says "I make a Bluff check to feint him" instead of describing a feint.

I get that "button pushing" play is a problem, but I'm not sure what gets us clearly away from that other than going rules-lite.

 

[Imaro]

In the canonical narration of CaGI, the player does not control the actions of the NPCs: the PC does. By imposing his/her will on the situation.

This "canonical narration"? ...

"You call your oponents towards you and deliver a blow they will never forget."

You're right, in that narration the player does not control the actions of the NPC's... of course there's nothing in that narration about exerting your will to control them either, yet you seem fine asserting that this is exactly how the power works...

Now, I don't think just calling to someone is going to account for the fact that they move exactly the way you want them to (within the constraints of the powers movement) and that they end up in the exact square you want them to, regardless of the other factors of the battle like moving into a flanked position or into a space where they are surrounded by enemies. This happens because the mechanics require that the player control the movement of the NPC's.

On another note, I thought the default in 4e was that the narration was up in the air and freely mutable as long as you didn't change the mechanics. Regardless... it is the mechanics that make you take over and move NPC's and monsters that are not your Character, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with narration... since you can narrate it however you please. In the end when using this power I am making a decisions for and controlling characters that are not mine... if you don't find that immersion breaking cool, but it does pull one out of actor stance and into directoral/author-stance... which many do find immersion breaking.

So now the objection to CaGI is that it will break down in PvP play? Givent the 100 other ways that 4e will break down in PvP play, I don't see any special need to fasten on CaGI for that purpose.

The answer was a bit tongue in cheek, and I think the poster I replied to recognized that... though technically, nothing in 4e disallows PvP combat regardless of what you claim the "default" is. That said how you got that this was the objection to CaGi if you've been following this thread is beyond me, since numerous issues from different posters have been brought up throughout the entire discussion about the power.

As to your earlier posts, at post 326 upthread you said "The difference is that hit points, as a mechanic, do not force you to play from author stance. . . as opposed to our favorite whipping boy CaGi, where no matter what, you will decide where the DM's character's has in fact decided to move if you use the power . .. deciding and moving characters explicitely under the DM's control, is not the same as controlling (for all intents and purposes) a character resource/abiltiy you have." (ellisions mine).

I took that to be an argument that, as far as CaGI is concerned, it has inherent features that impede immersion. If your only claim is that some people can't immerse while using it, that is obviously true. But @Manbearcat (I think) once posted about a friend of his who couldn't play his mage unless rolling red dice for fireball and white dice for ice storm. No interesting generalisation can be drawn from those preferences to general properties or features of dice design and dice mechanics!

You assumption was wrong since I haven't once claimed the people who said they could stay immersed while playing CaGi were lying or dishonest. FATE another game that often has one step out of actor stance during play also has it's proponents that have no problem staying immersed while playing the game. The problem is that you keep trying to "dis-prove" that some people have an immersion issue with a power like CaGi or other 4e mechanics, when what does or doesn't break immersion is something that is subjective. My commentary on hit points was just that, my commentary on why that mechanic as opposed to CaGi doesn't force a player to step into authorial/director stance if they don't want to. At no point during the use of hit points am I forced to view them in a metagame sense if I don't want to. CaGi will always force me to control the decisions and movements of characters that are not mine... regardless of the narration slapped on it.

 

[Imaro]

One problem I have with skills as they have traditionally been done is that the PC's action, and resolution of that action, is wrapped up in the skill itself.

Bluff lists modifiers to the Bluff/Sense Motive checks and in-combat uses; Diplomacy has its little table; Intimidate has its rules for making characters Shaken.

This leads to "button-pushing" play, where the player says "I make a Bluff check to feint him" instead of describing a feint.

Just a question out of curiosity... do you think the pre-packaged powers in 4e lead to the same type of "button pushing" play?

 

[Ratskinner]

Just as a mathematical aside, I'm not sure why. If the concern is that the PCs should always have a non-trivial chance of success and a non-trivial chance of failure, then regardless of the size of the bonus, the DC can always be set at an approprite amount (even a PC with a +23 modifier has a 50% chance to fail against a DC of 34).

If the concern is that there is too much difference between the modifiers of the best PC and the worst PC, then regardless of the size of the bonus of the best PC, the difference between PCs can be constrained by limiting the size and number of bonuses that would not apply to all PCs.

Hence, I don't see much downside in having a high (+20 and up) modifier in a d20 game. In fact, the idea that you could have a character that finds it trivial to accomplish tasks that would be impossible for normal men (DC 21 and up) is gaming aesthetic that appeals to me (and why I don't really like bounded accuracy).

Of course, YMMV.

The biggest problem as I see it is monsters/challenges becoming obsolete (ACs, Saves, etc.). It puts a soft limit on campaign design. e.g. I want to run a campaign where bandersnatchi are the main threat/enemy. But Bandersnatchi in the MM are only really appropriate threats from levels 9-12. Now my campaign has the added cost for the DM of re-working Bandersnatchi for all levels up to 9 (or at least a smattering of them) and maybe beyond. Another example, consider all the changes you need to make to run a module beyond its native level. For every opponent in the module, you might need to adjust AC, DCs, spell lists/effect, HP attack values; each and every trap might need to have its save DCs, damage, and other effects modified. Anything you can do to (from a design point of view) which makes this kind of thing easier is a good idea. (The sales dept will also thank you for making adventures more useful and thus saleable.)

Now, I see your desire as well. Some folks want their 18th level PCs to border on demi-divinity. However, I think that's much more easily handled with a module (bunch of feats, prestige classes, etc.) than having it baked into the game's math from the outset. That would also possibly provide the benefit of individual campaigns to pick different levels for "ascension".

 

[Ratskinner]

One problem I have with skills as they have traditionally been done is that the PC's action, and resolution of that action, is wrapped up in the skill itself.

Bluff lists modifiers to the Bluff/Sense Motive checks and in-combat uses; Diplomacy has its little table; Intimidate has its rules for making characters Shaken.

This leads to "button-pushing" play, where the player says "I make a Bluff check to feint him" instead of describing a feint.

I agree. IIRC, WotC has made the occasional mumble about making skills less-defined, but has also seemed hesitant to fully embrace the idea.

 

[Ratskinner]

Not if you want non-fiated action resolution. The principle function of NPC stats in many RPGs is to feed into action resolution.

You could do it if Action Resolution worked more like Dungeon World. It'd be massive change for D&D, but might make a better game. It would certainly reduce the math overhead. Also, not sure how modular such a system can be made, especially considering the variety of "feels" that WotC is targetting...I must contemplate further.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree. IIRC, WotC has made the occasional mumble about making skills less-defined, but has also seemed hesitant to fully embrace the idea.

I much prefer 13th Age's implementation of skills. If I do wind up getting Next, it will definitely be something I house-rule in.

 

[Bluenose]

No. I make decisions based upon my understanding of the situation and character nature. The environment, including other PCs, may or may not react to my choices. My choices may trigger other events, but I as a player am not controlling those events or choices external to my character. How other characters choose to react in under the control of other people.

No. Your character is doing things all the time that are purely reactive, not based in decisions at all. Decisions are often too slow; sometimes you just react. If you do that in some situations, you'll do that in others. And perhaps regret it later.

But, let's not get too far out of context here.

For that crossbowman eschewing his more natural attack form, he has to be, at most 15 feet, 5 steps, away from the fighter. I mean, 15 feet away isn't exactly an optimal distance from some sword wielding maniac if I've got a crossbow. He takes three steps and he can stab me. Context is very important.

In that situation, realizing that your crossbow bolt is going to be very ineffective and likely leave you completely open to the guy with the sword isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. Reversing the crossbow and trying to butt stroke the guy with the sword might not actually be a bad tactic.

Fifteen feet is within the distance at which police officers assume a man with a knife can reach them before they can fire twice- yes, it has been tested. Make your choice whether to fire or not now. You might not get two openings.