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

[M_Natas]

"The game mechanics" decide whether or not the NPC is goaded into attacking. So that fits with your first line.

If you mean the GM decides, well that's not true if you apply the D&D combat rules as written - the GM can't just decide that a creature dodges a PC's attack, or is not scared by the Battle Master using Menacing Attack.

Of course the DM decides, if a creature takes the dodge action

Ingame, an attack is an attack, if that Hits it Hits. That is not comparable to speaking and having the exact same 100% reaction.
And I already said, that player characters and monsters can impose ninmagically certain conditions on others that can reduce or increase their options. But they don't controll the characters Intent.

As others have pointed out, earlier editions had morale rules that worked similarly.

 

[Pedantic]

I never said it's anything anyone should be able to do. You know just to keep this as funny as possible, I propose to make this an ability that the fighter and barbarian get at level 5 and for maximal hilarity: Let's nerf it a bit by making it a limited use ability. 3 uses per long rest.

We could just say all the unstated premises instead of dancing around them for a while.

Here's a list of basic premises half of the audience will assume are implicit:
Barring historical exceptions, abilities in D&D...
1. should be forward facing in time.
2. should be causally constrained to the player's choice to use them.
3. should be constrained to mental or physical actions taken by a player's character.
4. should operate on specific, internally specified time scales.

Then you get to the definition of "mundane:"
Barring historical exceptions, mundane abilities in D&D...
1. should be repeatable.
2. should not produce effects physically independent of a player's character.
3. should be subject to plausibility review by the DM.
4. should be available via a general player facing system, not a class ability OR should be an improvement to an ability available via a general player facing system.

If you take those as design goals, the problem is greatly simplified. There is no high level appropriate Fighter in the traditional sense, or the abilities that aren't "mundane" offered to high level characters are inappropriate.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Please show where anyone said that. You can taunt all you want, the reaction of the target will be up to the DM's judgement because barring magic the DM is responsible for the reactions of NPCs. There are some battlemaster maneuvers that I consider explicitly supernatural which is fine. I don't have to play that subclass. But they still don't force an enemy to use their reaction to approach and they certainly don't affect every enemy within 30 feet.

Explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent

If you have to "consider" something to have another characteristic, it is almost certainly not explicit.

Furthermore, I see nothing in the Battlemaster maneuvers that even hints at a supernatural origin or mechanism for any of these maneuvers. I'd love to know where you are getting that from.

 

[Oofta]

Says who? You? On what basis are you making that claim? Your opinion? I bet that argument's worth something somewhere, but it's not worth anything here with me.

I am indeed an expert on my opinion on this subject.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not relevant, and easy to fix.

I'm not claiming that a game couldn't be designed/intended otherwise, but in the Fifth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, clear distinctions are made between PCs and NPCs.

For example, lots of the explanations of how rules are used to adjudicate declare actions are addressed to the player, "When you..." They are neither written more inclusively as "when a character..." nor are they repeated in the DMG to apply to monsters/NPCs.

Also there's that bit about (sorry I don't have page number and I'm paraphrasing) "You the player decide what your character thinks and does." There are exceptions to that principle, but they are clearly defined (as in spell descriptions).

So, yeah, it is relevant, and while it is definitely easy to fix I have to assume it's not a mistake that needs fixing, but WotC's intent.

 

[Oofta]

Explicit: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent

If you have to "consider" something to have another characteristic, it is almost certainly not explicit.

Furthermore, I see nothing in the Battlemaster maneuvers that even hints at a supernatural origin or mechanism for any of these maneuvers. I'd love to know where you are getting that from.

My opinion.

 

[Gammadoodler]

High level D&D fighters are ridiculous.

High level D&D PCs are allllll ridiculous. It's not like the fighter is out of place.

Hell, by the standards folks like you are applying, they're the most "realistic" of the bunch.

 

[Gammadoodler]

My opinion.

Fine. Not explicit except at your table. Cool.

 

[M_Natas]

No they don't have that. It's entirely up to GM fiat and Mother May I and plz plz gm plz can I.

Yeah, I already get that you disrust the DMs you play with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not claiming that a game couldn't be designed/intended otherwise, but in the Fifth Edition of Dungeons and Dragons, clear distinctions are made between PCs and NPCs.

For example, lots of the explanations of how rules are used to adjudicate declare actions are addressed to the player, "When you..." They are neither written more inclusively as "when a character..." nor are they repeated in the DMG to apply to monsters/NPCs.

Also there's that bit about (sorry I don't have page number and I'm paraphrasing) "You the player decide what your character thinks and does." There are exceptions, but they are clearly defined (as in spell descriptions).

So, yeah, it is relevant, and while it is definitely easy to fix I have to assume it's not a mistake that needs fixing, but WotC's intent.

I seem to recall someone saying that, since this a D&D general thread, we get to look at the entire history of the game, and not just WotC's current take on it. Is that no longer true?