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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

This is a big reason why 'arcane' is not a power source in Heroes of Myth and Legend. I got real tired of that logic! Martial is a power source, you can muster and practice and enhance the internal 'Chi' to a point where 'stuff happens'. Wizards still exist in HoML as an archetype, they just don't tap into some universal do-all go-to power source. Instead they have to figure it out on a case-by-case basis, but with their deep knowledge of power sources, they have some nice advantages of their own. It makes the various archetypes a lot easier to distinguish (and wizard gets to actually be a bit more interesting itself as being an exception to the normal one-source-per-calling setup).

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

It’s almost as if there’s more to the issue than simply whether an ability influenced an NPCs mind.

Isn’t that exactly what we have been saying?

No you have been saying that it shouldn't work, because you can't influence the minds of people with a non-magical ability, because it would have to be supernatural or magical whatever you want to call it. I am saying that you can manipulate the mind without magic. It's fundamental to the art of psychology, advertisers and stage magicians.

 

[FrogReaver]

No one has claimed that taunting someone to attack you is supernatural?

Despite it being the core argument for twenty pages?

The Core Argument was that one specific hypothetical ability was supernatural (or once articulated more clearly - either supernatural or narrativist).

There’s not a single person here that would say a PC can never try to taunt any NPC. So please stop acting like that’s anyone’s actually position.

 

[M_Natas]

And that is a wonderful thing, IMO.

Break it like a Bat, but finish the job.

No. It breaks D&D. It would make it unplayable and it would stop to be D&D.
You need to build an RPG around narrative control of the players. D&D is not that RPG and if it transform into that I definitely wouldn't wanna DM it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am saying that you can manipulate the mind without magic. It's fundamental to the art of psychology, advertisers and stage magicians.

We all agree with this. It’s very tiring to get told continually I hold an absolutely irrational position, especially when I’ve directly replied that is not my or anyone involved’s position.

 

[M_Natas]

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.

Ah, come on. If you have a player facing rule that says "use (mundane) ability X to always (saving throw) get reaction y" and than as the DM decide it is not applicable for reasons you get a 40 page thread on EN worlds about that rule discussion.

 

[Campbell]

There are several things being conflated in this thread.

1. Desire for discrete mechanics versus GM rulings.
2. Desire for players/GMs to have the ability to always determine what their characters think and feel regardless of fictional circumstances.
3. Personal aesthetic tastes over what sorts of prowess a high-level martial character should possess.

If you want to express a preference in regard to 1 or 2, please do so. It's distinctly unhelpful to imply that games that rely on more discrete mechanics or where the system has a say in what characters think or feel must involve supernatural powers. It implies that those of us playing and running games where such techniques / mechanics are in effect are wrong about the underlying fiction of our games. Is that an argument anyone wishes to genuinely make?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You were replying to me saying magic is supernatural, but not everything is supernatural is magic.

But, as I said, there is no substantive difference. In any way which matters for this sort of argument magic and supernatural are cognates. Once someone acknowledges the logically inevitable (IE as per @Manbearcat) supernatural nature of fighters, then 'using magic' in the sense of an overt magical ability is a non-issue, as magic is simply a manifestation of the supernatural. I am fine with an argument about how to COLOR that (IE only wizards get to color it as 'spell casting' and the fighter player has to depict it in some other way). But the LOGIC of being able to do supernatural/magical stuff is a non-issue.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, come on. If you have a player facing rule that says "use (mundane) ability X to always (saving throw) get reaction y" and than as the DM decide it is not applicable for reasons you get a 40 page thread on EN worlds about that rule discussion.

The flip side of that is that if that power is limited to a certain class or subclass, some DMs will then rule that in order to taunt an enemy into a fight it is only possible if you have that specific power. After all, they don't want to step on the toes of people that do have that special power.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

I mean it was literally rephrasing of "come and get it" a controversial 4e power...

In any case, as noted, there already is a 5e way to do this, and that is "goading attack." I think it is better mechanic, as opposed to forcing the target to act certain way, it merely gives them a penalty if they don't act that way. I feel that is generally a better way to format mental influence.