D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[CreamCloud0]

Sure, but lifting 100+ tons seems like a lot for most D&D things?

oh i see your point, probably i assume but i've always been incredibly awful at estimating and envisioning what any measure of weight represent in 'stuff', if anyone is willing, would you spell out for me just how much weight a STR20 goliath with powerful build would be able to carry and how that stacks up to some of the hulk's feats? (lets stick with MCU examples cause i think the comics can go even more insane with how strong he gets?)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then let's clear the taunt ability up so we don't have to bother with that kind of hangup.

Addendum: "Oppressive Taunt: Every enemy within 30 feet who is involved in combat with you or your allies, or who could be reasonably provoked into combat given the circumstances will have to roll a wisdom save. <rest of the rules go here>"

Now the ability is clearly more limited while still being useful in social situations if the GM agrees.

Who determines that the target could be reasonably provoked into combat? If it's the GM I can make that work.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I understand the desire to make incontrovertible arguments. But it leads to entrenched positions that cannot move, and people butting heads. This is not constructive.

This statement, for example, is non-falsifiable. You can eternally retreat into the poorly defined "mauled" and "sheer luck", without ever having to recognize that maybe your position isn't great.

"Oh, that news story about someone surviving being "mauled by a bear".. that wasn't' a real mauling...." and so on.

Why should anyone engage with this argument?

OK, I agree people often do that sort of rhetorical stuff around here. Do you think I, as a specific poster, am one of those people? I'm not trying to get into anything with you or anyone else on this point. I am curious. Because I generally dislike and try to eschew those sorts of argumentative tactics. In terms of 'mauling' and 'sheer luck' there IS some wiggle room, sure. My guess is that in all of history somewhere sometime a few people might have squeaked by where this is kind of marginal. My thinking is that A) 'sheer luck' DOES cover a lot and was intended to, and B) I don't think it would invalidate my argument anyway, would it?

But in terms of sheer luck, there's another point to be made here. Over the years I've learned via their statements that many of the posters who tend to group around certain positions, @Micah Sweet and @FrogReaver , probably @Lanefan , perhaps @Oofta , etc. tell us that 'plausibility', and specifically a kind of sense that the PCs are 'not special' in a 'plot sense' is a key factor for them. For example in terms of rejecting any sort of player-side non-diagetic game elements, and 'narrativist' game structure which explicitly puts the center of attention on the PCs as being 'stars of the game', etc. Sheer luck is a direct assault on that, yet it seems to mysteriously get a by. That is, if we take @Manbearcat's fighter/lion analysis seriously, and I do as a starting point, then fighters MUST either be, in all respects, FAR beyond the range of human ability in multiple dimensions, OR they must be the luckiest people who have ever lived, by orders of magnitude! I mean, which is it? You have only doors A) and B), or else you must occupy a position I would call 'C', which is a completely incohorent mental state in which it is 'natural' for people to suddenly become 10x more physically capable as soon as lions (or orcs, etc.) show up. I don't see how ANY of A, B, or C is self-consistent with their view of plausibility.

I mean, I get that people CAN (and obviously in this case DO) simultaneously hold multiple mutually-conflicting views in their heads at one time. I just can't do this, at least in this particular case.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Who determines that the target could be reasonably provoked into combat? If it's the GM I can make that work.

I intended for the GM to do that.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Again, I think a lot of this is a misaligned rejection of narrativism.

The thing with the taunt is a perfect example:

People are trying to act like this is some kind of mind control or something when what's really going on is the player is taking narrative control to decide their character's taunt is effective against some NPCs.

So when people are demanding 'how can they do this (normal thing normal people do) without supernatural powers, they're forgetting the base reason: because it's part of the story.

This is why circumstances should apply. There will be situations where your target is just not going to attack you no matter how badly they roll. The ability as written doesn't allow for that. That's my problem with it.

Who determines that the target could be reasonably provoked into combat? If it's the GM I can make that work.

This is perhaps the missing ingredient. Given the breadth, power, reliability, ease of use, etc. of D&D magic, then narrative power could be a way for martial abilities to bridge the gap a little.

You can give this narrative power to the DM if you want to make things a bit more traditional.

So something like Come and Get It just doesn't go far enough. The ability could be designed to be more open ended so that the effect is everyone within 30ft ends up next to the Fighter and they get 1 attack each. The DM decides what this looks like depending on the circumstances --

• perhaps the Fighter runs over and headlocks the enemy Wizard and drags him, then taunts the minions into bum rushing him
• perhaps the Fighter weaves in and out of the Giants legs causing it to stumble forward, then leaps up and grabs the Strige yanking it to the ground for a strike.

Using this ability forces the DM to make it work if at all possible to get the effect.

But the means to get the effect do not have to play within the action economy and the DM can make the environment comply to make it happen.

The same thing could be used for things like action hero movement -- Action Hero Movement -- you move from point A to point B within 120 feet if at all possible. The DM can manipulate the environment to make this happen (E.g., vine comes off and you swing over, the dragon swoops down and you jump off its head).

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is perhaps the missing ingredient. Given the breadth, power, reliability, ease of use, etc. of D&D magic, then narrative power could be a way for martial abilities to bridge the gap a little.

You can give this narrative power to the DM if you want to make things a bit more traditional.

So something like Come and Get It just doesn't go far enough. The ability could be designed to be more open ended so that the effect is everyone within 30ft ends up next to the Fighter and they get 1 attack each. The DM decides what this looks like depending on the circumstances --

• perhaps the Fighter runs over and headlocks the enemy Wizard and drags him, then taunts the minions into bum rushing him
• perhaps the Fighter weaves in and out of the Giants legs causing it to stumble forward, then leaps up and grabs the Strige yanking it to the ground for a strike.

Using this ability forces the DM to make it work if at all possible to get the effect, even if unlikely.

But the means to get the effect do not have to play within the action economy and the DM can make the environment comply to make it happen.

The same thing could be used for things like action hero movement -- Action Hero Movement -- you move from point A to point B within 120 feet if at all possible. The DM can manipulate the environment to make this happen (E.g., vine comes off and you swing over, the dragon swoops down and you jump off its head).

See, now you have something akin to a PBtA "move", where the DM is forced to make it happen for the player regardless of circumstance if the roll goes in their favor, or a 4e power where the mechanical effect is king and the DM is required to make something up to explain it. In other words, mechanics over fiction. That is a perfectly viable way to play, but it doesn't work for me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

people who were out to get him already anyway

No one say it never happens, just that it doesn’t always happen

Sure, and while, TECHNICALLY, a 4e fighter can just walk into the town square and invoke 'Come and Get It' on randos have any of us ever seen this actually done in play? I call this sort of objection to such mechanics a spherical cow. OTOH if people are complaining that some archer minions OVER THERE would have to be mighty stupid to suddenly rush into melee with Fighty McFightface, and it seems like magic is the 'only answer', I think there's still a fair grey area here. Maybe one of those guys knows Fighty from way back, maybe he's just a fool who thinks he's a bigger man than he really is, etc. And on the third hand, Fighty is already supernaturally capable in combat, so why not assume his Martial Power Aura can't simply compel opponents to 'Come and Get It'? I just don't see how that's a problem, except as others have stated that it treads on some specifically D&D genre trope about fighters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, I think a lot of this is a misaligned rejection of narrativism.

The thing with the taunt is a perfect example:

People are trying to act like this is some kind of mind control or something when what's really going on is the player is taking narrative control to decide their character's taunt is effective against some NPCs.

So when people are demanding 'how can they do this (normal thing normal people do) without supernatural powers, they're forgetting the base reason: because it's part of the story.

This is another branch of the whole discussion, which is probably the REAL heart of the controversy, which is the "its an assault on my mode of play" thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then let's clear the taunt ability up so we don't have to bother with that kind of hangup.

Addendum: "Oppressive Taunt: Every enemy within 30 feet who is involved in combat with you or your allies, or who could be reasonably provoked into combat given the circumstances will have to roll a wisdom save. <rest of the rules go here>"

Now the ability is clearly more limited while still being useful in social situations if the GM agrees.

Can’t fully elaborate right now but I have some issues with this as well or at least potentially so depending on how the blanks are filled in.

More importantly - D&D players can already do this without a specific ability. At some level we need to ask why is such an ability even needed when this is the case.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

See, now you have something akin to a PBtA "move", where the DM is forced to make it happen for the player regardless of circumstance if the roll goes in their favor, or a 4e power where the mechanical effect is king and the DM is required to make something up to explain it. In other words, mechanics over fiction. That is a perfectly viable way to play, but it doesn't work for me.

Yeah, I mean for D&D I guess you could put a caveat that says "The DM might judge that the ability is not usable in certain circumstances". That would still open up more design space than today, and I imagine there would be some incentive for the DM to try and make these abilities work if it fits within genre/circumstances. Put some guidance in the DMG.