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

[M_Natas]

But they all influence the mind, and characters use what they know to adjust their behavior, so my deception example holds.

Just no. There is a difference in talking to somebody and mind controlling them to do exactly what I want.

If I can convince the barkeeper that there is a fire in his kitchen, he will go do something about that.

Sure. But you don't controll if the barkeep is running screaming away or calling the firepaladins or running straight into the kitchen.

The fear example is obviously influencing the mind. This one is particularly interesting because someone else mentioned rational behavior and self preservation. I think it is actually fair to compare against older editions here, and it's worth noting that the old "panicked" condition actually forced the character to run away, disregarding self preservation.

And the panicked condition does not exist anymore. And also the DM decides how the panic is manifesting. The same way the DM decides what an NPC is doing with the fear condition.

The fact that we can't decide what a creature is doing is only because there are no mechanics to do so, not because there can't be any realistic mechanics that do so.

Of course their could be mechanics to do so. But that would turn D&D into something Not-D&D.
D&D at its core is: Players decide their Character actions. DM decides the rest.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know how many ways there are of saying the same thing, this is a good effort. I want the option to play a PC in D&D that only interacts with the world around them by what they say or what they physically do. Yes, that fighter can kill a giant with a sword but it is still the fighter swinging a sword. Can they sometimes goad people into a fight? Under the right circumstances, sure. Any PC can. But I don't want a set of rules that forces the DM to have the enemy respond in a specific manner unless there's a spell or explicitly supernatural ability involved.

There's this weird slippery slope argument "A fighter can survive X, therefore they should be able to do Y" going around. All I can say is that no game can be everything. If you want a PbtA game, play a PbtA game. It's just not for me and I don't think it fits the niche that D&D targets.

Well, sure, but I do! I welcome it in D&D. Heck, I like the D&D genre fine. I just have my particular tastes and there's no argument either of us can make for or against any specific thing being or not being in the game. I wish people would have let WotC support the sort of stuff in 5e that I liked, but nope! It was such an offense against someone's tastes that it had to be utterly eradicated from the game and never again countenanced in any form!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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!

That's not how 5e works though. 5e rules are relatively symmetrical, and NPCs with character levels are perfectly possible. And I wouldn't like if a NPC taunted me and removed my agency to decide what my character does.

 

[Gammadoodler]

nothing he does is outside the range of what I would expect a D&D Fighter to be able to do (if you ignore the setting / technology).

The same is not true for Ironman, Hulk, …

If you ignore the setting and technology, he hides in airvents and elevator shafts and kills one guy with a chain once.

Is that the goal we're striving for for our D&D martials.

 

[M_Natas]

How is it niche? I created the feature in the beginning to illustrate how difficult it is to add features to this game, because someone will argue that this feature does not belong because it is too much like a feature in a game. And now people are arguing that the feature is unrealistic, so I make sure the feature is explicitly, ridiculously, fundamentally realistic, and now you are saying it doesn't actually DO ANYTHING?

I'm not seeing how it's niche. It's intended for use in combat and it will work in combat unless you have a game master who can't read.

I'm not sure I even understand what your objection IS now. I think you are saying that every game master would allow you a charisma check to taunt all enemies within 30 feet to attack you and you get a free counter attack? Is that it? Because I don't think many GMs would do that. That's why I made it into an ability.

I as a DM would allow any character in and out of combat to try to taunt one or multiple enemies. If a PC wants to make them angry, so be it. I wouldn't give the Player Character more actions outside of the action economy (free attack) and the NPCs still have free will on how to react to that that makes sense in that situation.

That's what DMs are for in D&D. To adjudicate such PC actions.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Ok. Perfect. Let's say 5th level.

What is a scenario you would plan for a high level fighter, and how would you expect John McLain to fare in that adventure?

 

[M_Natas]

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?

Let's just say, that in D&D (5e, I haven't played the older editions) anything that compels Player Characters, NPCs, Creatures to do exactly something is a magical ability.
That is one of the Design principles of D&D 5e and I completely agree with that.

 

[Oofta]

Ok. Perfect. Let's say 5th level.

What is a scenario you would plan for a high level fighter, and how would you expect John McLain to fare in that adventure?

I still have no idea what you're getting at. You're comparing a guy who has access to modern weaponry to someone running around in armor stabbing people. Make the fighter a dex based fighter with training in stealth and you would get the same feel.

I'm done answering this the same way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's not how 5e works though. 5e rules are relatively symmetrical, and NPCs with character levels are perfectly possible. And I wouldn't like if a NPC taunted me and removed my agency to decide what my character does.

Well, I don't think that's an absolute. 4e has rules for applying character classes to NPCs as well (its a bit different from actually doing up a PC, but there are 'templates' for every PC class to apply it to a monster). NPCs effectively have a 'level' (5e obscures this a bit by calling it CR and using a bit different scale). There's no reason to assume that 'Fighter' is a profession (or Battlemaster for that matter). I mean, I'm not in charge of how you conceive of the game world, I'm just saying it is a perfectly valid way to look at it that PCs are unique and the fact that one has a given ability implies NOTHING about anyone else in the whole game world. I see nothing in 5e which undermines that view as a general thing. I get it, traditionally most classic D&D GMs and products have assumed that class levels are generic descriptions. I just don't and I am pointing out that it goes a long ways to solving people's objections.

 

[I'm A Banana]

An awful lot of people making these kinds of complaints are GMs though. I am. Do we also not really know what we're complaining about, or are we just lying?

GMs are players, too! If the story of the Fighter doesn't work for the GM, the GM isn't going to like the fighter in their game (however much a player might enjoy it).