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

[SableWyvern]

I let my players decide.
But remind them it goes both ways.

They stopped using Command.

That technique is an excellent GM tool in the right circumstances.

 

[Remathilis]

I let my players decide.
But remind them it goes both ways.

A few "creative" used later and they stopped using Command.

But then you get accused of being a bad DM because you're abusing the rules* to punish your players.

Player: I cast Command and tell the target to jump out a window.
DM: the spell doesn't work that way.
Player: why are you such a bad DM?
--or--
DM: ok, he jumps. The next round the NPC cleric casts Command tells you to jump out the same window.
Player: why are you such a bad DM?


* Nevermind they started it.

 

[Daztur]

But then you get accused of being a bad DM because you're abusing the rules* to punish your players.

Player: I cast Command and tell the target to jump out a window.
DM: the spell doesn't work that way.
Player: why are you such a bad DM?
--or--
DM: ok, he jumps. The next round the NPC cleric casts Command tells you to jump out the same window.
Player: why are you such a bad DM?


* Nevermind they started it.

I've been playing D&D since 1990. Never had this naughty word happen. I make my DMing decisions based on what's actually happened at my table, not these kind of hypotheticals.

 

[Oofta]

I've been playing D&D since 1990. Never had this naughty word happen. I make my DMing decisions based on what's actually happened at my table, not these kind of hypotheticals.

Have you played with a wide variety of players and DMs at cons or AL games? Or has it been primarily home groups?

 

[Daztur]

It's probably not D&D-adjacent enough for you, but I strongly recommend Torchbearer 2e.

I've been meaning to take a look at that one, I have a lot of love for Burning Wheel's ideas (had a character who was a lot of fun with the skill of "Cousin-wise" as he had a massive extended family so I kept on rolling to know things about all of the random branches of his family, I think in retrospect that should've been a Circle more than a skill but I had a lot of fun with it) but it can end up being a bit cumbersome in actual play but I'm interested in seeing how those ideas have developed as those ideas have had more time to cook.

 

[Daztur]

Have you played with a wide variety of players and DMs at cons or AL games? Or has it been primarily home groups?

The vast majority has been home groups for either my friends or my son's friends. The D&D community where I live (South Korea) is too small to have large cons and AL games sound dreadful from what I've heard of them. I have however gone to and hosted a slew of small mini-conventions (of 20ish people give or take) but those are all pretty tight-knit and chill people, I also usually take the opportunity to play Indie games at those as I find they're more fun for one-shots than D&D, but have played and run D&D at those several times with no issues. If people are playing all the time with a bunch of whiny entitled randos who are constantly giving the DM headaches over stupid naughty word then, well, no D&D is better than bad D&D.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I struggle to see why this is hard to understand. To help illustrate my thoughts, I will state a few things about the game in general, and than give a few examples of why a bad faith actor, especially in the DM chair, causes the system to stop functioning.

In short, the DM's power, as illustrated in the DMG, is limitless. This, effectively, means any rules based attempt to limit that power is going to fail. Because the DM has the job of interpreting their own limits. With this in mind we can probe bad and good faith within the descretion used with the 2014 command spell.

DM malice in this case would be a ruling, made purposefully, that effectively nueters the player's spell to the point of ineffectiveness. Good faith here, would be a ruling that gives the player a reasonable effect that comes somewhere close to the command word. The DM acts as a filter to prevent the "1st level dominate" theory so many argue. And if the DM wishes to use the spell in that way, there is also no way to stop them as they are the arbiter of the rules.

We can see this in other contexts as well. The use of the "haunted one" background, for example. The feature provided is titled "Heart of Darkness." Link below if you wish to read it. We can, again, probe the differences between bad and good faith in the actions of a DM.

It is simple for a DM to act in good faith and have commoners give special treatment to the PC with this feature. This feature works fine if good faith is presumed. However, one could argue that because of there being no mechanical benefit, that the feature does nothing because it could be "trampled over" by the DM. In essence, the DM could ignore it purposefully to avoid giving a benefit. One could, falsely, frame this as an innate multi-target friends spell. But both are red herrings. The DM could also ignore the mechanical benefit, and could easily stop the overly generous friends application. The DM could also enforce either in spite of any change.

We can see this across the system. When I say the system doesn't function under bad faith, this is why. Any saving throw is pointless if the DM is acting in bad faith. Any skill check is subject to that DM's ill-conceived desires. Every rule filters through the DM's intentions. The entire house of cards comes crumbling down as soon as you presume such intent.

So any time someone proposes "reigning in" DMs or that DM malice causes an issue, or hypothetically could, they are fighting a battle that can't be won. The game requires good faith to function, in this respect.

Maybe the rule needs cleaning up for confusion reasons. Maybe it need changing for some other reason. But changing it to prevent "malice" is a doomed attempt at changing human behavior and has no hope of success. The DM's power is, in fact, only limited by their players willingness to tolerate it.

I hope that makes my argument more clear, and why good faith is required. I don't really want to keep rehashing it.

EDIT: Forgot my citation: https://www.dndbeyond.com/backgrounds/34-haunted-one

While I agree that the players and DM should presume good faith, and I further agree that the rules should be written in a way that presumes good faith (since the alternative leads to repetitive and dull prose), I disagree with your conclusions.

I think there are a number of (mostly) spells, (but potentially class features as well) that if interpreted in good faith by both sides, will lead to certain classes to be more powerful than others. I do not think this is a fun outcome for the group.

I had one campaign at the end of which the bard player came up to me and said that while he really enjoyed his character, he felt he had to auto-nerf his character not to overshadow the other players, and he found this exhausting and that it detracted from his enjoyment of the game.

I have not personally had the issue with Command, but it seems that other posters have. So, even without any reference to bad faith, I find it hard to argue against greater clarification of the spell, even if it reduces its utility. After all, even with reduced utility, it is still a pretty useful and versatile spell at a cheap cost.

It seems that the posters who don’t want it changed are arguing that it should remain more useful, more powerful and more versatile, independent of the power level of the spell compared to other spells or classes.

 

[Oofta]

The vast majority has been home groups for either my friends or my son's friends. The D&D community where I live (South Korea) is too small to have large cons and AL games sound dreadful from what I've heard of them. I have however gone to and hosted a slew of small mini-conventions (of 20ish people give or take) but those are all pretty tight-knit and chill people, I also usually take the opportunity to play Indie games at those as I find they're more fun for one-shots than D&D, but have played and run D&D at those several times with no issues. If people are playing all the time with a bunch of whiny entitled randos who are constantly giving the DM headaches over stupid naughty word then, well, no D&D is better than bad D&D.

It's not constant and I find public play rewarding the vast majority of the time. But that's why you get pushback on "these things never happen" because they absolutely do, just not in your insular community of fellow gamers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

God doesn't take free will away in the old testament.

That's againt devils and possession.

Exorcism could certainly be a spell.


Show me a priest that tells people to "Jump" off a boat?

You're welcome to disagree with their 50-year old reasoning. My understanding is that that was the thought process.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I will assume neither of you play in a public space such as Adventures League, conventions, public play in stores or school groups, or pick up games online. I too have a stable private group, but I played those types of public games in the past and not every group gets to know each other's limits.

The game should not, IMO, be defined or even influenced by AL or similar public settings.