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

[Lanefan]

The spells fails because the target would hardly ever know what that word means.

If the DM doesn't know what the word means, that's an auto-fail.

And what kind of “historically” are we talking about? A history that includes magic and dragons?

Only if the dragons don't know how to salute.

 

[Daztur]

I don't think the specific effects of going aggro are subject to a lot of interpretation at all (AW p 193):

When you go aggro on someone, roll+hard. On a 10+, they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want. On a 7–9, they can instead choose 1:​

• get the hell out of your way​

• barricade themselves securely in​

• give you something they think you want​

• back off calmly, hands where you can see​

• tell you what you want to know (or what you want to hear)​

​

Going aggro means using violence or the threat of violence to control somebody else’s behavior, without (or before) fighting. If the character has the drop on her enemy, or if the enemy won’t fight back, or if the character is making a show of force but isn’t disposed to really fight, it’s going aggro.​

​

On a 7–9, the victim can still choose to cave or to force the character’s hand and suck it up.​

​

If the target forces the character’s hand and sucks it up, that means that the character inflicts harm upon the target as normal, determined by her weapon and her subject’s armor. At this point, the player can’t decide not to inflict harm, it’s gone too far for that.​

The controller of the character who is affected - which will be the GM, if that character is a NPC - has to decide what the character does, within the parameters set out in the rules. This has been a part of RPG rules for a long time: for instance, the 1977 edition of Traveller says, in its morale rules (Book 1 p 33), that "a party of adventurers (player or non-player) which sustains casualties in an encounter will ultimately break or rout if it does not achieve victory. . . . Average morale throw is 7+ to stand, or not break." When morale is lost, the controller of the character who has failed the throw has to decide what happens - do they run, or surrender, or fall to the ground weeping? - but the rules themselves are clear.

I don't think that these sorts of rules - in AW or in Traveller - are particularly abstract, either. Details in the fiction don't cease to matter. In Traveller, for instance, the person who controls a character will normally have regard to the fiction in deciding what that character does if their morale is lost. The examples of going aggro in the AW rulebook make the details of the fiction highly relevant:

Marie walks up behind Joe’s Girl and pokes her in the ribs with her scalpel. “Come with me,” she says. She misses the roll, though, so I get to make as hard a move as I like in response. I choose to inflict harm and (bonus) put her in a spot. “Damn, Joe’s Girl is fast,” I say. “She slams you in the face with her elbow — take 1-harm — knocks you down, kicks your scalpel away, and by the time you realize what’s happened she’s kneeling over you with her pistol up under your jaw. What do you do?”​

​

Keeler’s hidden in a little nest outside Dremmer’s compound, she’s been watching the compound courtyard through the scope of her rifle. When I say that this guy Balls sits down in there with his lunch, “there he is,” her player says. They have history. “I blow his brains out.” She hits the roll with a 9, so I get to choose. I choose to have him barricade himself securely in: “no brains, but he leaves his lunch and scrambles into the compound, squeaking. He won’t be coming out again any time soon.” I make a note to myself, on my front sheet for Dremmer’s gang, that Balls is taking himself off active duty. I think that we might never see him again.​

​

Bran yells at Fleece, calls her . . . stupid . . . and threatens to push her off the roof. He hits the roll with a 12. “She falls to her knees, she’s crying,” I say. “She’ll do whatever you want. Jesus Bran, you’re a piece of work.”​

I don't see what fiction is being elided in these examples.

Well, at least in the versions of D&D that I play, there is a rule for trying to distract an owlbear with honey so as to escape it. From Moldvay Basic p B24:

If characters wish to evade and are slower than the monsters, the DM must decide what the monsters will do. Use the Monster Reactions table to find the actions of the monsters. A low score means that the monsters will pursue, and a high score means that the monsters will let the party escape. . . .​

​

PURSUIT: . . . Monsters will chase evading characters only as long as the characters are in sight. Evading characters may be able to slow this pursuit by dropping things. Unintelligent monsters will stop to eat food 1/2 the time (a result of 1-3 on 1d6).​

The "creative" uses of Command are not the same. The rule in 5e is simply that "the DM determines how the target behaves". Presumably - given that if the save is failed, the victim "must . . . follow the command on its next turn", the GM's decision as to how the target behaves is supposed to correlate, in some fashion, to the word that the caster has uttered; but there is no reference to player (or character) intent - which is a contrast with Go Aggro on a 10+, or getting lucky when distracting a pursuing monster with food in Moldvay Basic; and there is no reference to a general sort of behaviour which is (broadly) consistent with the caster having succeeded in their action - which is a contrast with Go Aggro on a 7-9, or with a failed morale throw in Traveller.

What bits of the fiction - the caster's desires, the target's desires, the gods' desires, possible semantic and/or pragmatic uncertainties, maybe something else - are supposed to matter to the GM's decision about what the target does? The rule doesn't say. Is the GM supposed to have regard to the spell being 1st level, and make a decision commensurate with that power level/resource cost? The rule doesn't say anything about that either.

I think the contrast with other rules that allow influencing or controlling behaviour outside of a participant's "normal" zone of character control, like Go Aggro or morale in Classic Traveller or evasion by dropping food in classic D&D - is pretty clear. Those rules are clear in explaining not only who gets to make what decision, but also what the parameters for that are. Whereas the Command rule just tells the GM to make a decision, without stating parameters, thus encouraging any discussion among participants concerning the resolution of the spell to focus on rules elements (what exactly can a 1st level spell do? what counts as following a one-word command?) rather than on the fiction. Gygax was clearly conscious of this problem way back in 1978, at least to some extent, which is why his version of the spell description excluded "suicide" as a permissible command, by saying that the target will always construe it as a noun, and gave a non-literal interpretation to the command to "die" (I mean, taken literally, this should fizzle as dying is not normally a behaviour that someone engages in).

This is why, in this thread, I have been pretty sympathetic to @Hussar's posts.

Thanks for the refresher, I haven't played AW in a while and most of my experience with an AW-style game has been The Warren, which is an absolutely incredible game based on Watership Down that uses a stripped down version of AW-world rules exceptionally well. It's also the best horror RPG I've ever played.

OK, enough rambling about rabbits, lets get back to Command. I had a lot of fun playing AW and I can totally see why someone would prefer it to D&D, but for me it just scratches a different itch than D&D and gets into the You Can Have Any Color You Want As Long As It's Black issue I raised waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in my OP.
-Punch someone in the face: Going Aggro.
-Stab them with a rapier using finesse and daring wit: Going Aggro.
-Hack them apart with an axe while raging: Going Aggro.
-Cast a damaging spell at them: Going Aggro.

So a lot of the differences that matter in D&D get abstracted away in AW. That's good game design and it works for AW but it's not what I want for D&D. My very favorite part of D&D is to use Player (not PC) wits to figure out a creative solution to a problem and then try to get into some Cunning Plans/Harebrained Shenanigans to make that creative solution work while things descend into chaos.

That's just not the emphasis of AW so it scratches a very different itch from D&D for me.

All for all of the "rules don't say" bits you have a choice between either:
1. Abstracting away the differences between the different words so it's more one size fits all (the AW solution).
2. Only allowing a few words (the 5.5 solution). This works well for a more tactical focus.
3. Writing up voluminous rules for how to parse every possible verb (I don't think anyone wants this solution).
4. Have the DM make a bunch of naughty word up within certain parameters.

Some people on this thread have gone over the downsides of #4 in extreme detail. Those downsides exist but I just think that for a game that scratches the itch that I want D&D to scratch for me the downsides of #1-3 (especially 3) outweigh the downsides of #4. Many people on this thread have agreed with me, many have disagreed with me. That's fine. I'd like D&D to be enough of a compromise that there's enough of #4 to make me happy but not so much that other people are overwhelmed.

Now everything obviously shouldn't be "the DM will now make naughty word up," personally I find the amount of a burden illusions place on the DM to be a bit much and I'd like their scope to be narrowed.

But "the DM will now make naughty word up" has always been an important part of RPGs and always will. There are always different things that the DM will make up and that's what makes RPGs special, you have a human brain making decisions for what happens, not just a set of rules. Now how much scope the DM has to make naughty word up (rightly) varies from game to game, but every game will have it, often in different areas and expressed in different ways.

I know my preferences aren't going to be everyone's preferences. But my preferences are my preferences and they make me happy. I freaking love it when a player breaks out a bizarre use of Command that totally turns a scene on its head that I never thought of. There is literally nothing in D&D that I like better than that kind of creativity. For other people it's a hassle, for me it's the main reason I play D&D a lot and not just Indie games all the time (which I also love, just for different reasons).

People who don't see eye to eye with me on that have a lot of run playing RPGs, just in a very different way than I do. But I'm not going to give them money to make D&D rules for me, since those rules won't appeal to me. That's why I'm using Command as a pretty simple and easy litmus test for D&D-ish rules that appeal to me.

Let's check Pathfinder 2e: Command - Spells - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database Nope, fails the litmus test. There I just saved myself a whole bunch of time reading review of PF 2e.

Let's check out Shadowdark: "You issue a verbal command to one creature in range who can understand you. The command must be one word, such as "kneel." The target obeys the command for as long as you focus." Hey, this one might be worth checking out.

Saves me a whole lot of time.

 

[pemerton]

it seems to me that many of the people who want the tighter language genuinely don't believe it's actually possible for groups to exist where there is a strong sense of trust and mutual respect, where players aren't expecting the GM to be screwing them over and ruining their fun, and where GMs don't feel players are willing to do anything it takes, in game or out, to gain an advantage at the expense of the fun.

In my view the things you say here are a red herring.

I mean, I could criticise the use of a very tight action economy in D&D on exactly the same basis - ie that those who insist on a tight action economy in combat, who object to fighters of less than 5th level being allowed to perform multiple attacks each round, etc, are just non-believers in the possibility of groups existing where there is a strong sense of trust and mutual respect. I mean, Prince Valiant is one of my favourite RPGs and it doesn't have an action economy of the D&D variety. Nor does Apocalypse World.

But D&D does have an action economy, and much of the game is built around it. The pedantic distinctions drawn between categories of action declaration (movement, action, bonus action, reaction, a thing you can do that is part of another action and is not its own distinct action, etc) infuse the games rules for character features, including spells, and for combat (and some other action) resolution.

And as @Hussar has pointed out, the Command spell fits into that action economy framework, as well as the broader mechanical framework for character abilities. It is a first level spell. All the examples given involve the spell caster controlling the victim's movement (whether that be to close, to withdraw, or to be still) and/or denying actions for a turn. They don't compel the taking of an action - there is no attack or hurl or shoot or grapple command, no summon/conjure/cast command, nor a take or steal command, in the examples given. And that does seem deliberate. (A possible exception: does the reference under flee to "fastest available means" mean the victim's best movement rate or most rapid mode of conveyance or does it mean including taking the Dash action? I don't think it's clear.)

I think it would be helpful for the spell to be more express about what its parameters are, spelled out by reference to the game's rules. Eg does the spell permit jump or leap as a command, compelling the victim to leap across a gap that is no wider, in feet, than the victim's STR score? The answer should probably be "yes" - and it would be helpful, I think, for the spell to say as much rather than put the burden of interpretation and balancing back onto the GM.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, there's a significant element of irony here. @SableWyvern, when bringing up the "Salute" example, wasn't in the role of DM, but, in the role of the player. I was giving my interpretation, as the DM of why I would disallow this use of Command, something I've repeatedly been told I absolutely should do as DM and that any reasonable player would accept that and would never, ever question or even so much as quibble such an act as the DM.

And it goes a step further, @SableWyvern, in the role of player, when told that his understanding of the word "salute" is mistaken and that in my game world, people wouldn't know what the character meant, insists that I, the DM MUST change my game world so that the Command works. Let's just repeat that shall we? Instead of saying, "Oh, that's an interesting piece of military history that I didn't know. I guess that example wasn't as great as I thought it was", @SableWyvern is insisting that I'm being totally unreasonable for not changing my game world to take his mistake into account.

And people wonder why I talk about these sorts of open ended, loosey goosey worded effects causing friction at the table. Really? When the player is demanding that I change my game world because the player made a mistake? I'm being totally unreasonable here?

Wouldn't the reasonable response here be, "Oh, well, I wasn't aware of that. Well, there's other things I could say."?

 

[Hussar]

A possible exception: does the reference under flee to "fastest available means" mean the victim's best movement rate or most rapid mode of conveyance or does it mean including taking the Dash action? I don't think it's clear.

We have always interpreted that as taking the dash action if able to. Additionally, the same with Approach. To be fair, that's just our table interpretation, although I would argue that it's in keeping with the intent of the spell. OTOH, I wouldn't challenge a DM who ruled that it's movement only and not the Dash action. Which is fair. After all, does that mean that Command is more effective on Rogues than on other targets since Rogues can Dash twice on their turn?

And, fair enough, it gets a bit wonky with certain other rules, like, say, a Tabaxi's speed boost. But, that's so corner case that I'm not sure I'm all that worried about it.

 

[pemerton]

I had a lot of fun playing AW and I can totally see why someone would prefer it to D&D, but for me it just scratches a different itch than D&D and gets into the You Can Have Any Color You Want As Long As It's Black issue I raised waaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in my OP.
-Punch someone in the face: Going Aggro.
-Stab them with a rapier using finesse and daring wit: Going Aggro.
-Hack them apart with an axe while raging: Going Aggro.
-Cast a damaging spell at them: Going Aggro.

So a lot of the differences that matter in D&D get abstracted away in AW.

Huh? Most of the things that you describe here are Seize By Force, not Go Aggro. In D&D they are attack rolls, with weapon-dependent damage. In AW, the Harm dealt by way of Seize By Force (or if a victim of Going Aggro "sucks it up") also varies with weapon. The use of finesse and wit with a rapier would be carrying forward +1 from Read a Sitch (the Battlebabe has a playbook move - perfect instincts - that permits them to take +2 forward instead).

I think you are seriously mis-describing the role of the fiction in AW. (I can't comment on The Warren, which I've neither played nor read.)

 

[SableWyvern]

Y'know, there's a significant element of irony here. @SableWyvern, when bringing up the "Salute" example, wasn't in the role of DM, but, in the role of the player. I was giving my interpretation, as the DM of why I would disallow this use of Command, something I've repeatedly been told I absolutely should do as DM and that any reasonable player would accept that and would never, ever question or even so much as quibble such an act as the DM.

And it goes a step further, @SableWyvern, in the role of player, when told that his understanding of the word "salute" is mistaken and that in my game world, people wouldn't know what the character meant, insists that I, the DM MUST change my game world so that the Command works. Let's just repeat that shall we? Instead of saying, "Oh, that's an interesting piece of military history that I didn't know. I guess that example wasn't as great as I thought it was", @SableWyvern is insisting that I'm being totally unreasonable for not changing my game world to take his mistake into account.

And people wonder why I talk about these sorts of open ended, loosey goosey worded effects causing friction at the table. Really? When the player is demanding that I change my game world because the player made a mistake? I'm being totally unreasonable here?

Wouldn't the reasonable response here be, "Oh, well, I wasn't aware of that. Well, there's other things I could say."?

I was talking about things that I would allow if the players did them. Every comment I've made in this thread has been made from the perspective of a GM, except where I specifically said I could not see myself as a player at your table but, if I did somehow end up as a player at your table, I would accept that you run your game your way. So, the complete opposite of what you're accusing me of.

As to the saluting thing itself, the issue was never "Saluting doesn't work in this world," it was the factually incorrect attempt at a "Salute isn't a verb" gotcha, which you followed up with something along the lines of "Anachronism has no place in D&D and I got you on a reasonably obscure technicality, so I win", and when people questioned whether it was reasonable to allow saluting you then chose to follow up by doubling (tripling?) down and acting as if you are the Grand High Arbiter of What Things Are Allowed in D&D and telling us all that saluting has no place in any D&D world ever and then later quadrupled down by suggesting that the reason saluting needs to be kept out of D&D is because if you allow saluting into a D&D world you're tacitly also allowing email and emojis. What's going on here? Did you suffer some traumatic saluting incident that has caused a pathological inability to allow anyone to ever use or enjoy a salute?

I don't wonder why you want tighter, more restrictive language. You've made it clear you like it because it makes it easier for you to DM. I have repeatedly acknowledged that you should run your games the way you want. What I do wonder is why you seem so upset that not everyone feels the same way as you about everything, and why you hate saluting so much.

 

[Hussar]

Everything I've said in this thread has been from a GM's perspective. If I mention players, I'm thinking about players at my table.

I have said very little about whether or not salute works in your game world, although I note (again) that you took it upon yourself to tell us how must work in every single D&D world.

Nope. I told you how it worked in my world. You're the one insisting that I must change my game world to suit the fact that you didn't know something that I happened to know.

And how were all those examples of creative uses of Command coming from the DM? You mean you, the DM, use that list of creative uses of Command on your players? You use Salute on your players and expect them to betray something? How does that work?

 

[SableWyvern]

Nope. I told you how it worked in my world. You're the one insisting that I must change my game world to suit the fact that you didn't know something that I happened to know.

And how were all those examples of creative uses of Command coming from the DM? You mean you, the DM, use that list of creative uses of Command on your players? You use Salute on your players and expect them to betray something? How does that work?

I said I allow a wider range of commands. You stated that even if the wording was less restrictive, it wouldn't be possible to come up with creative uses that aren't already allowed. I came up with a list of possible uses that a player might use if the wording was less restrictive. These were things that, as a DM, I would allow, and like to see. For some reason, instead of saying, "OK, yes, I can see how, if you allow a wider range of commands, you can use a wider range of commands" you felt it necessary to try and prove that every creative use was not really creative at all, but was actually abusive and should be disallowed anyway.

If you thought I was providing a list of creative uses of command that should be allowed into your game even though you don't allow them, and if you further decided that I would insist on using them if I was in your game, even though you made it clear that you were playing with the RAW 2024 rules, and you still think all this even though I have said I would respect your decision to run your game differently than me, then that's on you.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Something I question the whole "don't create a world" advice.

currently backlogging before i enter the convo and not trying to dig up finished quarrels, but can someone elaborate on what this peice of advice is meant to be referring to?