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

[FrogReaver]

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.

I brought this same thing up earlier. Didn’t gain much traction.

I seen a few others bring it up in various ways as well.

In short in a game not utilizing narrative mechanics the only remaining explanation for such abilities is supernatural. People are just bad at articulating their objections. Doesn’t mean their objections are invalid.

And yes, insisting others adopt narrative mechanics so they can have the kinds of fighters they want is part of the reason such strong pushback to narrativism gets expressed. It’s not D&D players coming to threads about PbtA games and telling them they should play their game different and adopt d&d style mechanics for their games.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

And that is a wonderful thing, IMO.

Break it like a Bat, but finish the job.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In short in a game not utilizing narrative mechanics the only remaining explanation for such abilities is supernatural.

Except for the crowd that are insisting perfectly normal things normal people do like taunt is supernatural because they don't like them.

 

[Azzy]

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.

And what does having a player-facing ability make the DM not be able to make rulings when it's not applicable? Like the DMG says, the rules are not in charge.

 

[M_Natas]

I just have to note there are all kinds of models for how PCs are handled that do not make them appreciably tougher than real world humans and still don't get them killed constantly; they usually focus more on avoidance than just taking the hit. Even ones that do make them tougher don't do so to the same degree frequently. The "big bag of hit points" approach is a legacy thing with D&D that only its close kin (i.e. games that share other D&Disms like classes, levels and so on) tend to do.

If you want them to fight, they need to be tougher. D&D is an action RPG. 80% of the rules are in support of combat.
Of course there are RPGs with "weak" characters who can be easily killed like us mere mortals. But these are not D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So if you qualify as sentient, you're one failed Wisdom check away from charging into melee with someone who insults you, regardless of circumstance? I'll pass.

Come now. You are only one failed wisdom check away from MY PC, Fighty McFightface, from baiting you into melee. And this is one place where our view of PCs differs vastly. In my conception, Fighty isn't some generic thing, the Fighter class is a unique description of HIM, and nobody else! In all of history there is only one Fighty granted with the ability to do this! I mean, OK, maybe there are legends of others before him, way back when, etc. So, you are right, people are NOT vulnerable to this, except there's this one amazing guy... legends will be made about that guy!

 

[FrogReaver]

Except for the crowd that are insisting perfectly normal things normal people do like taunt is supernatural because they don't like them.

No one has done that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Come now. You are only one failed wisdom check away from MY PC, Fighty McFightface, from baiting you into melee. And this is one place where our view of PCs differs vastly. In my conception, Fighty isn't some generic thing, the Fighter class is a unique description of HIM, and nobody else! In all of history there is only one Fighty granted with the ability to do this! I mean, OK, maybe there are legends of others before him, way back when, etc. So, you are right, people are NOT vulnerable to this, except there's this one amazing guy... legends will be made about that guy!

Yeah, that idea of PCs is far too "PBtA Playbook", among other things, to work for me. We are indeed far apart on this.

 

[Oofta]

Because we're saying John McLane should be a high level fighter example in D&D.

Where are his high-level adventures that he addresses the way a high-level fighter would?

Did I say he was a "high level" fighter? Has anyone? As far as an actual module, there have been a few solo adventures over the years. I've run them myself, but there's no way to answer your question. It depends on what level you want.

I could easily run a session that had a fighter infiltrate a tower and take out bad guys. It would be easier to set up if the fighter has a few levels, they don't need to be higher than, say 5th. To really replicate the feel it would likely be a dex based fighter with a decent stealth. Been a long time since I watched the movie, but it's likely that McClane even did a second wind at one point when it looked like he was about to lose a fist fight and suddenly turns the tide.

So I still don't know what you're getting at.

 

[M_Natas]

This is wrong.

The taunt ability as I outlined in my initial post is explicitly not supernatural.

Non-magical and non-supernatural features can obviously affect the minds of people

1: The deception skill is a trivial example that influences the mind of a target. You lie to them. They may or may not fall for it.

2: The frightful presence of a dragon is another one, one that compels movement.

3: Menacing Attack: "When you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can expend one superiority die to attempt to frighten the target. You add the superiority die to the attack's damage roll, and the target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it is frightened of you until the end of your next turn." Ie the mind of the target has been affected.

4: The Battle Master's ability that grants an ally the ability to take an extra reaction is not about compelled movement, but demonstrates that you can have abilities that are non-magical and which grant movement to other characters.

So I have proven that the system as it is already allows the non-magical characters to influence the minds of opponents. Therefore the taunt is realistic.

The deception skill is not mind control. You do not influence the mind. Your character is doing something (lying) and the NPC makes an insight check against that. It also doesn't prescribe behaviour. Yes, it may think you tell the truth but it doesn’t tell the NPC what to do with that false information.
The same is true with all other non magical abilities.
Yes, you can instill fear, that has some effects, but you don't decide, what the NPC is doing with that fear the same way that the DM is not deciding what you as a player do when your chatacter is frightend.
You can impose conditions non magically that can reduce the options a creature has or you can grant bonuses, butnyou can't decide what the creature is doing.