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

[Azzy]

Not as its written, no. That ability is formatted like a 4e power, and 4e powers generally don't care about anything that's not in the write up.

No, it's not. That's you projecting it on it.

And making someone attack is different than making them run away.

Look at those goalposts moving!

 

[Pedantic]

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.

But now you're just back to the tyranny of power source. A magical effect doesn't need to have that restriction, because "magic" as a power source is defined by superseding those limitations. If you have an explicit justification, you don't need to write caveats to get buy-in. A berserker's deep cultivation of anger allows them to eventually inflame the passions of others as they inflame their own, we're done, great, problem solved.

It's why the "mythic" fighter continues not to actually solve the problem; it's not settling on a justification, just describing the desired result.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

"Martial Power Aura"? Show me that in any non-4e book.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The reaction is called fight or flight because one is absolutely impossible for outside stimulus to trigger. IT is entirely voluntary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it's not. That's you projecting it on it.


Look at those goalposts moving!

You don't think there's any difference? You're welcome to believe that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'm having a hard enough time engaging with @MuhVerisimilitude as it is, since their username seems to be calculated as an assault on my mode of play.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But now you're just back to the tyranny of power source.

We are constantly living under it. All power must got to the magical. Nothing non-magical can be fun or useful or by god, you will pay.

 

[M_Natas]

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.

The players decide what their character is doing. The DM and the game mechanics decide what the rest is doing in reaction to Player Characters Actions.
Having a mechanic that makes certain that a player can get always the same reaction from NPCs breaks that.

I'm not saying that their couldn't be a Taunt mechanic in D&D, but the implementation I saw so far would feel game breaking to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But now you're just back to the tyranny of power source. A magical effect doesn't need to have that restriction, because "magic" as a power source is defined by superseding those limitations. If you have an explicit justification, you don't need to write caveats to get buy-in. A berserker's deep cultivation of anger allows them to eventually inflame the passions of others as they inflame their own, we're done, great, problem solved.

It's why the "mythic" fighter continues not to actually solve the problem; it's not settling on a justification, just describing the desired result.

Yup. I have said this many times, but folks keep insisting that no explanation is required.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Skill checks people.