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

[Daztur]

Like 3e?

And 2e?

And 5e?

3e? Yes exactly. All of weird-ass Rolemaster-inspired stuff that was imported into 3.*e (freaking skill points and all the rest of the rules bloat) and dropped by later editions should've never been added. I still shudder at the thought of 3.5e grapple and climbing rules. 3e strayed too far from its 2e roots and in doing so borked the math scaling in some really fundamental ways that WotC and Paizo never figured out how to fix.

2e? That wasn't much of a departure from 1e rules-wise, certainly not in core. As a kid I was playing with a 2e PHB, a 1e DMG, and a Rules Cyclopedia (before I got my hands on enough monster books). naughty word worked fine.

5e? Yeah that was the game rebuilt from the ground-up, but I'll give WotC a pass on that one since after rebuilding the game from the ground up twice and then having a huge backlash against 4e they didn't really have a choice but to make a bit of a weird Chimera edition as a compromise between the warring TSR-D&D, 3e, and 4e camps. I'm actually amazed that 5e was as good of a compromise as it's turned out to be, despite all of its flaws. But if 3e and 4e had been evolutionary instead of revolutionary and built on the good bits of 2e instead of dumping them, then it wouldn't have been necessary for 5e to rebuild the game from the ground up.

According to Merriam-Webster, "suicide" can be used as a verb: Definition of SUICIDE

Huh. Did not know that. Good to know.

RPGs, like some wargames, permit the fiction to matter to resolution. They also generally involve asymmetrical participant roles, in that one participant manages the scenes and how these unfold from the backstory, while another participant (or multiple participants) manage particular protagonists within the fiction.

It's the combination of fiction-sensitive wargaming with the "first person"/"avatar" player perspective that I think is the core of most RPGing.

Yup, but I think it's the fiction-sensitive bit that mattes the most. The first person perspective exists in a massive pile of games, but the fiction-sensitive stuff doesn't exist in much besides RPGs (as those kind of fiction-sensitive wargames are pretty much dead these days AFAIK).

A game having the features I've just described doesn't really depend on the GM making rulings. A game can have those features - ie the unique things that RPGs bring to the table - and also have clear rules about who gets to say what when about what is happening in the shared fiction.

RPGs can have rules about who gets to make rulings when, but I don't really see how they can have what makes RPGs special without having those rulings. Without those rulings RPGs lose the fiction sensitivity that make them special.

While I agree entirely with @Daztur that GMs making rulings is one of the cornerstones of what makes TTRPGs worthwhile to me, I also have to acknowledge that clearly that's not essential to an RPG, given that GMless games exist.

GMless games are more "everyone is GM" rather than "nobody is GM." That might sound like hair-splitting but I don't think multiple people being able to put on the GM hat means that the important things that GMs do have been eliminated.

Some would point to solo-roleplaying as another example, although at that point I feel strongly that we're really talking about a closely related activity, and not the same thing.

I wouldn't count those as RPGs.

The thing is, this little back and forth with @SableWyvern encapsulates everything I don't like about open ended design. Because with open ended design, it means I have to police EVERY SINGLE THING the players do. I have to check and double check every spell, every ability, every single thing on every single character sheet. Because the players will "creatively interpret" mechanics to their own advantage. Maybe not every time. Maybe it's only once in a while. But, because it does happen, it means that I have to check and double check every single thing.

Let's take a step back and take a look at a scenario with no magic, imagine the following:

The PCs have left a dungeon with barely any resources and are limping back to town. On the way home suddenly an owlbear jumps out at them and attacks! RAWR! The players panic, they're in no shape for another fight, but then one player looks over their character sheet carefully and see that they have a jar of honey that they'd looted from a giant bee hive earlier. The player throws the jar of honey at the ground in front of the owlbear and hopes that owlbears like honey. Then the whole party flees in terror and hopes that the owl bear likes honey.

Now does that owlbear like honey? Will it stop to eat the honey on the ground or will it ignore the honey in favor of chasing after the fleeing PCs. It's all up to the DM, there no rules to decide the effects of honey on owlbears. The DM has to make a decision one way or another. What will the DM decide?

D&D is chock full of those kind of DM calls. My players are constantly doing things like that in order to either avoid fights entirely or tilt fights in their advantage. Tactics that there are just no hard and fast rules for. Over and over and over and over. Some more abstract Indie games DO have hard and fast rules for this kind of situation, but D&D never has. Every campaign of D&D I've ever played has had a looooooooooooong list of this kind of situation.

I just don't don't see the division between the PCs using the jar of honey creatively and PCs using command creatively. In both cases the PCs are using a tool at their disposal to do something that logically makes sense in the fiction as something that's at least POSSIBLE (do owlbears even like honey? I have no idea, but it's possible...) and then the DM has to decide if it works or not.

Do you have a problem with how the players acted in the honey scenario? How would you rule that one? I don't know, but I'd like to hear your reasoning.

People play D&D for a wide variety of reasons. Some of those reasons will clash with your's. What are you gonna do about it?

May I suggest removing those people from the D&D space?? Then they won't stand in your way as you make D&D rulings based??

I suggest having an edition that is flexible enough to cater to different styles of play. 5e was a messy compromise and could've been better (why the naughty word is there STILL no official warlord 5e class after all this time?) but it worked well enough. I don't want to stomp on the faces of people who want to play D&D in a different way from me, but I will complain if the devs take a compromise edition of the game and then remove a bunch of the things in D&D that I like the most.

I just asked my son what he likes the most about D&D:
"You can do anything, right? Like in normal computer games there are limits on what you can do, right? And like, um, let me think, you can say anything to NPCs you want and in computer games you can't do that and in computer games you can only say what was written. In computer games you can just hit, but in D&D you can explain anything. The most fun thing I ever had happen in D&D was when a PC cast sleep on flying kobolds and killed them all by falling."

Me: that doesn't work anymore in 5.5e.

Junior: that's stupid.

The kids are alright.

 

[pemerton]

While I agree entirely with @Daztur that GMs making rulings is one of the cornerstones of what makes TTRPGs worthwhile to me, I also have to acknowledge that clearly that's not essential to an RPG, given that GMless games exist.

Some would point to solo-roleplaying as another example, although at that point I feel strongly that we're really talking about a closely related activity, and not the same thing.

I only play RPGs with conventional allocations of GM and player roles: 4e D&D; occasionally AD&D; Classic Traveller; Prince Valiant; MHRP (and variants); Burning Wheel; Torchbearer 2e; occasionally In A Wicked Age; etc.

Most of these don't require "rulings" from the GM, because their rules clearly establish parameters for who gets to say what when. Occasionally they do. The more that the rules set out to "model" the fiction, and hence have to be mapped to the fiction in a systematic fashion, the more often this comes up.

In my most recent Torchbearer session, I had to make a couple of rulings: which skill permits determining, by inspection from the docks, whether the rowers in a river galley are free or enslaved? (My answer: Sailor.) Which skill permits identifying the use for a strange tool in the same vessel's galley (= kitchen)? (My answer: Cook.) But allowing the tool, once identified, to provide +1D to a Cook test was not a ruling. That's just applying the general rule for the use of gear in a skill test.

I think there is a particular reason why traditional D&D spells require so many rulings: it's because they typically do not factor into any general resolution process (traditional D&D not having any general resolution process for non-combat actions), and so end up being adjudicated by way of a combination of direct adjudication of the fiction and purely mechanical specifications of their effects. And there is generally no consequence for casting an unsuccessful spell, nor any sense of difficulty or risk in magic use, so the GM's rulings carry a lot of weight in determining the ebb and flow of success and failure.

Implementing a Command or Compel-type spell in Torchbearer, say, would be pretty straightforward, because it would allow a difficulty to be set (say, base Ob equal to the target's Will or Nature, with additional factors applying if the command would be (i) embarrassing, (ii) dangerous or (iii) deadly to perform, and/or (iv) contrary to the target's Instinct and/or Belief). And the higher the obstacle, the greater the likelihood of failure and hence the greater the risk involved in trying wacky commands against powerful targets. The system also has a clear action economy outside of as well as within combat (ie the Grind), which can be used to determine the effect of commands (eg a command that lasts for 1 turn is different from the Wormtongue spell that has a permanent effect).

But D&D doesn't have any of this: no simple way of modulating difficulty based on desired consequence; and no system for failure (eg your attempt to magically compel the victim to drown themself angers the spirit of these waters, who now manifests to challenge you!).

In D&D, if the target makes their saving throw the only setback to the player is a "wasted" action. So the player is incentivised to try and find cunning commands that can have higher impact for the same risk; and the GM is incentivised to rely on their adjudication of the fiction, and/or their "rulings", to push back. I share @Hussar's dislike for this sort of dynamic.

 

[Daztur]

I only play RPGs with conventional allocations of GM and player roles: 4e D&D; occasionally AD&D; Classic Traveller; Prince Valiant; MHRP (and variants); Burning Wheel; Torchbearer 2e; occasionally In A Wicked Age; etc.

Most of these don't require "rulings" from the GM, because their rules clearly establish parameters for who gets to say what when. Occasionally they do. The more that the rules set out to "model" the fiction, and hence have to be mapped to the fiction in a systematic fashion, the more often this comes up.

Really depends on what you mean by "rulings." Blades in the Dark doesn't require the GM to make many rulings since the rules clearly establish parameters for who gets to say what when. However a lot of that is "the GM makes up some naughty word now that seems cool to them, basically anything they want within these broad parameters." I don't see how that is any less of a "ruling" then "the GM has to make up some naughty word about what happens if the NPC gets hit by a 'defenestrate' command."

 

[pemerton]

I do agree that the 1e version of sleep isn't the ideal one -- the B/X version with no saving throw is my preferred iteration.

Moldvay p B17:

This spell will put creatures to sleep for 4d4 turns. The caster can only affect creatures with 4+1 hit dice or less. Only 1 creature with 4+1 hit dice will be affected; otherwise, the spell affects 2-16 (2d8) hit dice of creatures. The undead cannot be put to sleep. . . . Any sleeping creature may be awakened by force (such as a slap). A sleeping creature may be killed (regardless of its hit points) with a single blow with any edged weapon.​

AD&D PHB p 68:

Saving Throw: None . . .

When a magic-user casts a sleep spell, he or she will usually cause a comatose slumber to come upon one or more creatures [other than undead and certain other creatures specifically
excluded (see ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS, MONSTER MANUAL) from the spell's effects]. . . . The number of creatures which can be affected is a function of their life energy levels, expressed as hit dice and hit points:

Creatures Hit Dice Number Affected By Sleep Spell
up to 1 4-16 (4d4)
1+1 to 2 2-8 (2d4)
2+1 to 3 1-4 (1d4)
3+1 to 4 1-2 (1/2d4, round off)
4+1 to 4+4 0-1 (d4,3 or4)

. . .

Slapping or wounding will awaken affected creatures, but noise will not do so. Awakening requires 1 complete melee round. Note that sleeping creatures con be slain automatically at a rote of
1 per slayer per melee round.​

The AD&D version also has slightly more fiddly targetting/AoE rules. But otherwise these are basically the same spell, except that the AD&D version has a bit more of a "sliding scale" on the number affected.

 

[SableWyvern]

I only play RPGs with conventional allocations of GM and player roles: 4e D&D; occasionally AD&D; Classic Traveller; Prince Valiant; MHRP (and variants); Burning Wheel; Torchbearer 2e; occasionally In A Wicked Age; etc.

Most of these don't require "rulings" from the GM, because their rules clearly establish parameters for who gets to say what when. Occasionally they do. The more that the rules set out to "model" the fiction, and hence have to be mapped to the fiction in a systematic fashion, the more often this comes up.

In my most recent Torchbearer session, I had to make a couple of rulings: which skill permits determining, by inspection from the docks, whether the rowers in a river galley are free or enslaved? (My answer: Sailor.) Which skill permits identifying the use for a strange tool in the same vessel's galley (= kitchen)? (My answer: Cook.) But allowing the tool, once identified, to provide +1D to a Cook test was not a ruling. That's just applying the general rule for the use of gear in a skill test.

I think there is a particular reason why traditional D&D spells require so many rulings: it's because they typically do not factor into any general resolution process (traditional D&D not having any general resolution process for non-combat actions), and so end up being adjudicated by way of a combination of direct adjudication of the fiction and purely mechanical specifications of their effects. And there is generally no consequence for casting an unsuccessful spell, nor any sense of difficulty or risk in magic use, so the GM's rulings carry a lot of weight in determining the ebb and flow of success and failure.

Implementing a Command or Compel-type spell in Torchbearer, say, would be pretty straightforward, because it would allow a difficulty to be set (say, base Ob equal to the target's Will or Nature, with additional factors applying if the command would be (i) embarrassing, (ii) dangerous or (iii) deadly to perform, and/or (iv) contrary to the target's Instinct and/or Belief). And the higher the obstacle, the greater the likelihood of failure and hence the greater the risk involved in trying wacky commands against powerful targets. The system also has a clear action economy outside of as well as within combat (ie the Grind), which can be used to determine the effect of commands (eg a command that lasts for 1 turn is different from the Wormtongue spell that has a permanent effect).

But D&D doesn't have any of this: no simple way of modulating difficulty based on desired consequence; and no system for failure (eg your attempt to magically compel the victim to drown themself angers the spirit of these waters, who now manifests to challenge you!).

In D&D, if the target makes their saving throw the only setback to the player is a "wasted" action. So the player is incentivised to try and find cunning commands that can have higher impact for the same risk; and the GM is incentivised to rely on their adjudication of the fiction, and/or their "rulings", to push back. I share @Hussar's dislike for this sort of dynamic.

This lengthy response mostly tells me that I mangled the point I was trying to make.

To rephrase what I was trying to say (hopefully) more simply:

I GM in a "GM Rulings" style, and will do so in just about any system, but I understand that there are other, equally valid approaches, even in those same systems.

 

[pemerton]

Really depends on what you mean by "rulings." Blades in the Dark doesn't require the GM to make many rulings since the rules clearly establish parameters for who gets to say what when. However a lot of that is "the GM makes up some naughty word now that seems cool to them, basically anything they want within these broad parameters." I don't see how that is any less of a "ruling" then "the GM has to make up some naughty word about what happens if the NPC gets hit by a 'defenestrate' command."

Making up fiction is playing the game. It's like deciding what a NPC says, or which PC a creature attacks. It's not a ruling about the consequence or impact of some rules element.

Compare the Command spell to the Apocalypse World Brainer's "direct-brain whisper projection". The latter requires the Gm to make decisions about how a NPC responds, but not to make any ruling about whether or how the effect works.

 

[SableWyvern]

Saving Throw: None . . .

Huh ... I could have sworn otherwise. No idea how I came to that conclusion.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
View attachment 377439

But here's the problem. The idea of saluting doesn't exist until about the 16th century. Tell an Ogre to salute and he'd have no idea what it means. In fact, outside of knights, no one would understand what that means. Again, that's not being creative, it's being anachronistic.

And, again, it's outside the intent of the spell. The spell's intent is that you use CLEAR verbs. That you keep using the spell wrong is not my fault. Nor should WotC be beholden to your wrong interpretations.

 

[pemerton]

The PCs have left a dungeon with barely any resources and are limping back to town. On the way home suddenly an owlbear jumps out at them and attacks! RAWR! The players panic, they're in no shape for another fight, but then one player looks over their character sheet carefully and see that they have a jar of honey that they'd looted from a giant bee hive earlier. The player throws the jar of honey at the ground in front of the owlbear and hopes that owlbears like honey. Then the whole party flees in terror and hopes that the owl bear likes honey.

Now does that owlbear like honey? Will it stop to eat the honey on the ground or will it ignore the honey in favor of chasing after the fleeing PCs. It's all up to the DM, there no rules to decide the effects of honey on owlbears. The DM has to make a decision one way or another. What will the DM decide?

D&D is chock full of those kind of DM calls.

In 4e D&D, that's a move in a skill challenge.

In B/X D&D that would either be a +1 on a reaction check (if there's no fight yet) or else would be a move in evasion resolution, where there is a % chance that the creature stops to eat the food - I can't recall what that % chance is in B/X, but in Gygax's DMG it works like this:

Food, including rations and/or wine, will be from 10% to 100% likely to distract pursuers of low intelligence or below, providing the food/wine is what they find palatable. Roll a d10 to find the probability, unless you have a note as to how hungry or food-oriented the creatures are. Add 10% to the result for every point of intelligence below 5, and give a 100% probability for non-intelligent creatures pursuing. If probability is under 100%, roll the d10 a second time, and if the result is equal to or less than the probability determined, then the pursuers break off pursuit for 1 round while the food/wine is consumed.​

RPGs can have rules about who gets to make rulings when, but I don't really see how they can have what makes RPGs special without having those rulings. Without those rulings RPGs lose the fiction sensitivity that make them special.

I don't see that making decisions about the fiction is "rulings". That's just playing the game.

When as a Traveller GM I had to decide how much chance there was of finding a broker at a starport, and what bonus Admin skill gave to that - that was a ruling. (And like the rulebook tells me to, I made a note of it for future reference.)

But when as a Traveller GM I had to work with the players to determine how long it took for of a triple-beam laser to blast through ice, that wasn't a ruling. That was just adjudicating the fiction. (We Googled a scientific paper about using lasers to cut through ice, and extrapolated.)

The analogy I use is this: no one doubts that, in classic D&D, a player can have their PC bang on a door and thereby make a noise. That's not a "ruling". It's just working with the fiction.

 

[Hussar]

I have no dog in this fight but Drink, Salute, and Spit are all obviously verbs, and would've been completely in line with how the 2014 version of the spell was intended to be used.

You can't argue that the spell only works with words that are exclusively used as verbs and impossible to use as a noun, because 3 of the 5 official commands can be both a verb and a noun (approach, drop, and halt).

But, I'm not the one insisting on expanding the meaning beyond those words. The expanded words are clearly meant to be verbs. That was the initial intent of the spell and that has always been the intent of the spell. It's not my fault people can't follow that.