D&D (2024) Command is the Perfect Encapsulation of Everything I Don't Like About 5.5e

[Micah Sweet]

So I'm now being a puritan for not wanting on my table gross humor that makes me nauseated?

No, but praising a creativity-dampening rule change because it could be seen as restraining behavior you personally don't like is, IMO, somewhat problematic and should expect to experience pushback.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

No, but expecting the entire game to change to solve an issue that affects what would seem to be an extreme minority of players (of all the D&Ders I've ever interacted with either in-person or in forums you're the only one I know of who becomes nauseated by gross humour) is a bit much.

So because you didn't have a problem, it means anyone who does is dictatorial puritan? you sound to me like you cannot handle that not everyone are okay with the things you are okay with?

No, but praising a creativity-dampening rule change because it could be seen as restraining behavior you personally don't like is, IMO, somewhat problematic and should expect to experience pushback.

There is nothing creative in the "I want to make villain poop his pants", it's juvenile.

 

[the Jester]

Why do you assume every player is on that level, especially when I have been talking about how this spell enables people to try to force games NOT on this level into going down to it?

I can speak from my experience, if someone did thing like that on my table as a player I would probably have to leave the room, maybe vomit, because this is bloody disgusting. I think it owuld ruin the game night for me, I do not come to RPGs to be grossed out and be told I'm stupid for being invested into a collaborative story we're together creating.

Group playstyle discussions are exactly what you should have before starting play. If you know this kind of thing comes up and it's not for you, hey, maybe you shouldn't join that group.

Which isn't to say that you don't have the right to play how you want- you just need to find people who share your tastes.

 

[the Jester]

And I have said multiple times I feel Command was quietly enabling problem players to ignore what was established in session zero to do this stuff anyway, in the name of "being creative".


Again, why are we proving tools to enable that kind of players?

Well, I guess we should take the entire Enchantment school out, as it can be rapey, along with Necromancy, as violating the dead is creepy, and eliminate combat, since some people don't like vivid descriptions of blood and guts and you can always find someone willing to be descriptive about it.

Or maybe the problem is- still- that (the hypothetical) you are playing with the wrong people, and the solution is that ol' session zero. If someone you play with does the stuff you agreed not to do in session zero, then you have a simple solution- deal with the player.

 

[the Jester]

And yet I somehow do not see this kind of behavior in more open-ended games, so I do not believe this argument. it's not just that the players ignore session zero and you canjnot stop this kind of behavior, it's that in a more strict game some people's desire to "break it" through exploits may override respect for fellow players and poorly-designed spells like Command enable them to do exactly that. Maybe if D&D was overall more open-ended game, this would not be a problem. But not only it isn't, we're literally on forum of a website selling version of the game with 200% more specific rules. Command being so open-ended does not fit design philosophy and enables people trying to "break" the game to feel clever.

First of all, what do you mean when you say D&D isn't open-ended? I think it absolutely is. I have been running the same campaign since approximately 1981, depending on how you look at it, for thousands of sessions, largely driven by the choices and actions of past pcs and their repercussions. Open-endedness is in fact much of the point of rpgs.

Second of all, every thing you post on this screams "there's a problem player needs dealing with", not that the game itself is at issue.

 

[the Jester]

And they can play their gross games where they allow things like that. Why must enabling gross behavior be thedefault mode of the game?

It isn't, but why shouldn't it be?

There isn't a default setting for toilet humor in dnd. Once again, this is a session zero topic. Communication solves most of these issues, along with enforcing agreed upon consequences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is nothing creative in the "I want to make villain poop his pants", it's juvenile.

Do you understand that this is not the only thing one can use this creativity for?

 

[the Jester]

So I'm now being a puritan for not wanting on my table gross humor that makes me nauseated?

Nope, but there might be some reason to think of you that way when you try to force your preferences on everyone else.

Play how you want. Just don't think your is the One True Way to D&D and that other playstyles are invalid. It isn't and they aren't. You just need to find a group that shares your tastes instead of trying to force your tastes on every group.

 

[TiQuinn]

There is nothing creative in the "I want to make villain poop his pants", it's juvenile.

I assume this problem doesn’t come up often in your game because otherwise you wouldn’t be playing with those folks for long, but if that’s true, why do you feel the need to change the game for others based on your personal dislike of silliness in games?

 

[the Jester]

There is nothing creative in the "I want to make villain poop his pants", it's juvenile.

It is juvenile. That doesn't mean it can't also be creative.

It's both.