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

[TiQuinn]

Sorry, but, that's just a long winded way of saying the problem lies in antogonistic players/DM's. Blaming the players/DMs for the fact that the mechanics are vaguely written.

At what point can we say that the problem lies in poorly written mechanics?

Show us a poorly written mechanic first.

 

[TiQuinn]

A favorite with my group is "Cooperate," especially when paired with zone of truth.

Writing that one down for the next time!

 

[Minigiant]

Where is this well known? Is there a blog, or a YouTube video or something?

Dozens

Almost every "Why I left 5e" blog, vlog, or video says it.

Ok, and now those DMs have been DMing for a while (up to a decade if they started in 5e) and can teach others. Or is that not veteran enough for you? How much experience does a DM need to meet your criteria as an experienced DM?

It's too late.

Those initial 5e DMs were burned by the lack of help and want restrictions now.

That's one reason why Command was claimed down.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

shrug

An ongoing sequence of short arguments that disrupt the game is no less alien to me, and I remain unable to understand how or why anyone would play like that.

I would not game with the sort of people who go to Sage Advice (or Reddit, or whatever) seeking ammunition to win an argument at their table, and thus I have no need for rules designed to keep such players quiet.

Your players do not grasp for every advantage they can find?

There's no need for anyone to go to Sage Advice or Reddit or anywhere else. They may genuinely just be wanting to use their spells powerfully, coming up with off the wall ideas, and being quite confident that their interpretation is correct. Being told "no"--especially a flat "no" with zero discussion allowed--comes across as quite draconian in that context.

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn't define the sort of thing we're talking about as vaguely or poorly written rules, I consider them written in an open-ended fashion, leaving room for interesting interpretations and GM adjudication on edge cases. This is a good thing, in my opinion, not a problem. But yes, I do consider the problem to be with the participants, not the rules.

Again, you're simply spinning things with longer winded explanations. What do you think "open ended... leaving room for interesting interpretations" means? That's the definition of vague. But, at least we've managed to get over the hurdle of getting you to clearly point at what you see as the problem.

See, to me, it's not the players at all. Not really. If the rules weren't written in vagu... oh, sorry... open ended fashion, then the players wouldn't be constantly testing the boundaries of what the rules allow. IOW, no one ever argues about a fireball or magic missile spell. It does precisely what it says on the tin. No one ever argues about how Produce Flame works. It's clear what it does and how it works.

And it's still an incredibly versatile spell.

Being va... err... open ended does not make a spell more versatile.

 

[KYRON45]

The way I both see and run it, it is; but only for one round and only that the target (on a failed save) has to do what it's been told to do.

If I can't damage someone with a combat spell why am I casting it?

The command spell is not limited to combat.

 

[KYRON45]

See, but, that's just not true. As evidenced in this thread. The interpretation of "directly harmful" leads to a disagreement. Neither side is being antagonistic or unreasonable. It's simply two interpretations of a vague wording where either interpretation is quite valid.

Painting this as a "problem player" or "problem DM" issue overlooks the fact that these problems come up even when everyone at the table is perfectly resonable, and, because there are so many spells with vague wordings, this issue comes up all the time.

It's only vaguely worded if you want it to be. Anyone can argue that anything is vague so long as what they are arguing might work out in their favor. There is an entire profession dedicated to this. This is why almost every RPG has an arbiter.

 

[KYRON45]

Ok, and now those DMs have been DMing for a while (up to a decade if they started in 5e) and can teach others. Or is that not veteran enough for you? How much experience does a DM need to meet your criteria as an experienced DM?

I've been DMing for years and while I'm slightly better at herding the cats that are my players...I wouldn't say I'm any good as a DM. IF everyone comes back for game #2.....you're doing just fine.

 

[KYRON45]

I’m reading a thread where several people including myself have said that spell descriptions are not going to turn bad players into good players, and that many of the problems being described have to do with lack of communication around what the group wants out of their game, I.E. a session zero.

How you’ve turned that into “there’s no bad players. Only creative ones” is beyond me.

I don't know much.....but i do know that there are bad players. It is the job of the DM to bend them to their will.

 

[Belen]

Strongly disagree.

The shift from 2e to 3e ended many of these pointless arguments.

No. It was far, far worse, especially once 3.5 and the rise of tactical, grid-based combat.

The amount of time players and DMs spent arguing over the tiny bits of movement, effects, etc was enormous. Combat would take hours!

Rules lawyers were rampant. This continued with Pathfinder and 4e.

It was no where near that bad in 2e or 5e. In a game where rules are king, the players will argue, interpret, and bog down play using rules to “get” the DM.