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

[SableWyvern]

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?

I don't recall the context, so I'm just making a wild guess here, but I suspect it may relate to the advice to just start with the immediate area the PCs will be engaging with, and build out from there as required.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Then you are inherently asking for rules that are either contradictory or incomplete.

Consistent, Comprehensive, Concrete: Pick two. Want rules that are consistent and comprehensive? You're going to have to rely on abstraction because otherwise you'll miss way, way too many edge cases. Want rules that are comprehensive and concrete? They're going to run into problems where the concrete rules tell you to do something dumb, aka, inconsistency (and that's assuming they're actually designed well.) Want rules that are consistent and concrete? You'll be specifically and explicitly choosing to throw the game-runners (DM, GM, ST, whatever) to the wolves whenever they want to do anything outside of those limited rules.

Abstraction is not the enemy. It is an incredibly useful and powerful tool. Like any powerful tool, it must be used with finesse. Unlike the other two concessions--inconsistency and fragmentation--it is not only possible but eminently practical for the at-the-table DM to make an abstraction more contextually concrete based on the situation at hand. That doesn't require amateur game design; it just requires practical human reasoning and sensitivity, something any person can develop simply by interacting with others.

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.

My assertion is that you have over-emphasized the problems of 1 (which are eminently resolvable without having to constantly act as an armchair game designer) while downplaying or even denying several of the clear and quite obvious problems with 4.

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.

But what does "the DM will now make crap up" actually mean?

Does it mean "the DM will completely and wholly reinvent what tasks are, what they mean, how they work, etc., etc., every single time such a task comes up?" Does it mean that the DM is now beholden to every precedent and proposal they've ever made in the past, without any record thereof other than player and DM memory, something quite common at most tables?

Or does it mean that the DM is expected to use the tools and concepts presented to them creatively?

Because the former--either capricious (or even malicious) altering of the world beneath the player's feet, or the accidental doing of such because no human can be expected to keep that much in their head forever with only intermittent reminder--is quite clearly something I think even you would clearly oppose. But the latter is something everyone, even I, would support.

You can't pretend the two are the same thing though. They aren't. You can have the latter without the former--and the judicious use of abstraction is one of the most essential tools for making that happen.

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.

And jettisons a vast, vast realm of really excellent game design because you're unwilling to consider the possibility that abstraction is a useful tool, not a burden to be expunged at the earliest possible opportunity.

 

[Minigiant]

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?

D&D is too diverse for people to simply play without a strong framing of the setting and its logic. People are entering D&D from different backgrounds, gaming origins, experiences, occupations, fandoms, generations ethnicities etc

It's It's easy to sit down and play a Star Trek game when everybody is a Star Trek fan. But if you're going to play a general fantasy sci fi game and you have Star Trek fans, Star Wars fans, and Mass Effect fans, You will have to make a strong frame of reference for the various aspects of the game. Does it have "magic laser sword people"? Does it regular bullets or laser bullets? How strong and widespread is mind control?

You have a game that's diverse as D&D is today compared to how it was before you will either must make session 0 have an important framing conversation or you forced to rule to do so.

 

[Oofta]

Honestly...no?

My rogue knows that he has a pot of honey and that bears like honey. My cleric knows that he has a spell called command that can make people that understand it do one verb that he wants. Both the rogue throwing the honey at the owl bear and the cleric casting Command at someone is the character acting in character based on information that character knows.

I honestly can't see any difference. Now metagaming based on stuff my character wouldn't know IC? That's something else.

Then we have a different perspective on the purpose of the rules of the game and a fundamental difference on interpretation of the spell as clarified by their examples.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yup, there are a whole slew of ways that a DM could handle this, just like there are a bunch of ways different DMs can handle NPCs getting hit with creative command spells. Not really seeing a difference here. In both cases the DM needs to make a call.

Agreed, some of the options are less on the nose than others though, leaving things more to chance.
I generally tend not to use one method only, and rather assess each situation differently. I appreciate that I have an entire toolbox to select from as it keeps the game mechanics fresh and it works for our table.

 

[Oofta]

I would also like to point out that the thread title is actually perfect for me. This is how the discussion has gone from my point of view:

OP: I don't like how the new Command spell removes the ambiguity, open nature of the Command Spell.
Me: I actually really like that. I find that the open nature of the Command spell and other similarly written spells, cause all sorts of friction at my table.
Others: Oh, you just have bad players. No good player would ever argue with the DM's ruling.
OP: Here are a bunch of examples of creative Commands that are no longer allowed.
Me: Good. Most of those are abusing the rules and I wouldn't allow most of them.
Others: You are a terrible DM for not allowing player creativity.
Me: So, unless I 100% agree with every single use of "Creative Command", I'm a bad DM. But, anyone arguing with my rulings is a bad player... Ummm... Doesn't this make the OP a bad player for arguing with the DM's ruling?
OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.

It's a total no-win situation for me. And that's called compromise?

This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.

Me: I like the new version because I've seen it abused.
Others: No, they were just being creative!
Me: My simplest example is having a DMs telling my PC commanded to "jump" then telling me it really meant jump off the ship into the ocean.
Others: They were just bad DMs.
Me: But people are giving examples of pretty much the same thing.
Others: That's different.
Me: ...

 

[Hussar]

@Oofta, I mean, yeah. There's just no space for a conversation. Any criticism is immediately chalked up to "bad actors". It's apparently impossible for the mechanics to be bad, no matter how many examples you give and how clearly you can demonstrate that tighter mechanics lead to less friction at the table.

Is it really that controversial to say that tighter mechanics lead to less misunderstandings? It seems a pretty easy thing to demonstrate. No one has any arguments at the table about a Fly spell, for example, despite Fly being an incredibly versatile and useful spell. It grants you X flying speed for Y time. It doesn't tell you anything about how you fly - you just do. I can't think of any arguments I've ever had at the table about a Fly spell.

And, really, probably most spells in 5e fall into the same category as fly. It's only a fairly small number (50 was the random number thrown out and that's probably about close. ) out of a very large number of spells in the game. One of the best things in 5e was stripping down the spell lists in the game - although that's been creeping back up over time. Personally, I'd be happier with about 6 spells per spell level per class. But, I know that's only my personal preference and others would hate that.

But, the problem is, these 50 (or whatever the actual number is) exist. And that means I have to treat EVERY SINGLE instance as a problem. I have to police the players constantly to make sure that they are interpreting the spells correctly and that I am interpreting them correctly as well. I almost never get to play, so, I have pretty much zero idea what most spells do. Why would I? I never use them. I have to rely on the players knowing what their spells do and having spells that build in the idea of "ask your DM to do funky things with this spell" is a responsibility I have zero interest in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then you are inherently asking for rules that are either contradictory or incomplete.

Consistent, Comprehensive, Concrete: Pick two. Want rules that are consistent and comprehensive? You're going to have to rely on abstraction because otherwise you'll miss way, way too many edge cases. Want rules that are comprehensive and concrete? They're going to run into problems where the concrete rules tell you to do something dumb, aka, inconsistency (and that's assuming they're actually designed well.) Want rules that are consistent and concrete? You'll be specifically and explicitly choosing to throw the game-runners (DM, GM, ST, whatever) to the wolves whenever they want to do anything outside of those limited rules.

Abstraction is not the enemy. It is an incredibly useful and powerful tool. Like any powerful tool, it must be used with finesse. Unlike the other two concessions--inconsistency and fragmentation--it is not only possible but eminently practical for the at-the-table DM to make an abstraction more contextually concrete based on the situation at hand. That doesn't require amateur game design; it just requires practical human reasoning and sensitivity, something any person can develop simply by interacting with others.


My assertion is that you have over-emphasized the problems of 1 (which are eminently resolvable without having to constantly act as an armchair game designer) while downplaying or even denying several of the clear and quite obvious problems with 4.


But what does "the DM will now make crap up" actually mean?

Does it mean "the DM will completely and wholly reinvent what tasks are, what they mean, how they work, etc., etc., every single time such a task comes up?" Does it mean that the DM is now beholden to every precedent and proposal they've ever made in the past, without any record thereof other than player and DM memory, something quite common at most tables?

Or does it mean that the DM is expected to use the tools and concepts presented to them creatively?

Because the former--either capricious (or even malicious) altering of the world beneath the player's feet, or the accidental doing of such because no human can be expected to keep that much in their head forever with only intermittent reminder--is quite clearly something I think even you would clearly oppose. But the latter is something everyone, even I, would support.

You can't pretend the two are the same thing though. They aren't. You can have the latter without the former--and the judicious use of abstraction is one of the most essential tools for making that happen.


And jettisons a vast, vast realm of really excellent game design because you're unwilling to consider the possibility that abstraction is a useful tool, not a burden to be expunged at the earliest possible opportunity.

Or possibly, games like PF2e don't meet their preferences? I only had to play it once and flip through the corebook to know it wasn't for me.

 

[Oofta]

@Oofta, I mean, yeah. There's just no space for a conversation. Any criticism is immediately chalked up to "bad actors". It's apparently impossible for the mechanics to be bad, no matter how many examples you give and how clearly you can demonstrate that tighter mechanics lead to less friction at the table.

Is it really that controversial to say that tighter mechanics lead to less misunderstandings? It seems a pretty easy thing to demonstrate. No one has any arguments at the table about a Fly spell, for example, despite Fly being an incredibly versatile and useful spell. It grants you X flying speed for Y time. It doesn't tell you anything about how you fly - you just do. I can't think of any arguments I've ever had at the table about a Fly spell.

And, really, probably most spells in 5e fall into the same category as fly. It's only a fairly small number (50 was the random number thrown out and that's probably about close. ) out of a very large number of spells in the game. One of the best things in 5e was stripping down the spell lists in the game - although that's been creeping back up over time. Personally, I'd be happier with about 6 spells per spell level per class. But, I know that's only my personal preference and others would hate that.

But, the problem is, these 50 (or whatever the actual number is) exist. And that means I have to treat EVERY SINGLE instance as a problem. I have to police the players constantly to make sure that they are interpreting the spells correctly and that I am interpreting them correctly as well. I almost never get to play, so, I have pretty much zero idea what most spells do. Why would I? I never use them. I have to rely on the players knowing what their spells do and having spells that build in the idea of "ask your DM to do funky things with this spell" is a responsibility I have zero interest in.

The other thing that bothers me is this idea that if you can't use any word you want, there is no creative use for the spell.

Meanwhile if the DM has an NPC cast command and forces the player to follow the DM's intent instead of the player creatively interpreting the word, it's bad DMing. On the flip side if a player casts command and the DM has the NPC do something other than what the player intended, it's also bad DMing.

If you command someone to flee and they can safely leave through a window, then just use the word flee. Want to embarrass a king? Have them grovel in front of someone of significantly lower rank. Instead of "salute" have the target grovel in front of the enemy. Want to simply make someone look foolish? Command them to drop when they're performing an official act holding the McGuffin of Authority.

Side rant: I can't find any official online dictionary that has the word "autodefenestrate", you have to go to wikipedia, urban dictionary or similar. Because defenestrate (another word I wouldn't know if not for this thread) means to throw a person or object out a window. So command "defenestrate" and they attempt to throw the PC fighter adjacent to them or a few coppers out the window applies, jumping out the window does not.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Sorry don’t want to interfere with the current debate…just wanted to offer an alternative.

With regard to “salute” would the person hearing this salute open hand facing out like the British or flat like an American salute? (No, I don’t know the technical terms).

Yes, I know this is D&D but my point is: if you said “salute” to a GI, which salute would he choose?

My point is that before we get too carried away with word origin isn’t there some assumed cultural interpretation here? Would an orc do an elven salute or a dwarven one? Or…

Would the target of command do their interpretation of the word? Was there no such thing as a salute in Roman legions?

All of this to say we should use common sense and there is always some interpretation here…

And with the older versions of the spell the same applies. Play with people you like and trust if you can.

I don’t think the rules will allow for this to be an rpg while also stopping people from being asshats if they are so I inclined.

When I was in grade school I was playing D&D and we chased a goblin away. My fellow 6th grader insisted he picked up anything the goblin dropped…as he was always trying to take more than his fair share: but the goblin first said it before he did it and crapped himself on the run.

Moral of the story: common sense and friendship are required to play this game. I was the fellow party member and laughed in my friends face because 6th grade boy.