D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Nagol]

"I influenced the outcome" and "I partly controlled the outcome" strike me as synonymous in typical contexts.

To be frank, I find the notion that it is inherently unimmersive to play a PC who non-magically imposes his/her will on others strikes me as bizarre. For instance, when a police officer, bouncer or security guard looks at you and signals that something is not to be done, or a certain place not to be entered, s/he imposes his/her will on you. There would be nothing inherently un-immersive about building such a PC with a "none may pass" power.

Am I really the only poster on this forum who has experienced this phenomenon in real life?

Cops would love to have such a uniformly controlling ability. They don't have it.

What a cop has is a degree of societal respect backup up by the known consequences of not heeding his direction. In effect, police officers have a form of Intimidate -- "Do this or else" backed up by a large list of "or elses" they can call upon. It is up to the individual to determine how seriously to take the intimidation and to determine what behaviour to adopt in its presence. People ignore cops, do end runs around them, take swings at them, run from them, etc. All. The. Time. In other words, people continue to have agency.

A police officer cannot guarantee the reaction of anyone with whom they interact. That's why their trained to handle themselves for when it doesn't go the way they expect/prefer.

Authorial powers remove agency or rewrite the universe to create a justification for new behaviours that have no requirement to make previous actions or future actions by the character cosistent or plausible.

And we're not talking just CaGI. I have similar problems with the Warden -- what if I purposely put my character in a particular location for sound tactical/roleplaying reasons and the Warden ally shifts it away? Even if there are strong reasons to stand /here/ and not /there/?

 

[DEFCON 1]

People ignore cops, do end runs around them, take swings at them, run from them, etc. All. The. Time. In other words, people continue to have agency.

And in my mind... this agency is apparent in all the other rounds of combat where the PC didn't use Come And Get It. Within the fiction... who's to say that the Fighter hasn't been trying to get the monster to rush up and attack him, rather than do an end around to go after the squishies? It just so happens that this was the time that it actually worked.

Now yes... I know opponents say that they don't like the idea that the PC gets to choose when it doesn't work (i.e. when he actually uses the CaGI exploit)... but at some point we have to ask ourselves how exactly do we introduce this phenomena into the game?

There's no reason why this phenomena shouldn't occur-- we all know it can and does happen "in real life". People get confused and taunted or make snap (almost unconscious) decisions to choose one foe over another-- so how do we create a game mechanic for it? A mechanic that doesn't actually have to be used by those who don't like it? That's what I think is so cool about CaGI and other powers like it-- because they are discrete, independent rules that don't actually have to be used by those who don't like them (you just don't allow players to choose those powers) but ARE there for those who do. Both sides get what they want.

Why that was never good enough for some people though, I'll just never understand.

 

[D'karr]

And in my mind... this agency is apparent in all the other rounds of combat where the PC didn't use Come And Get It. Within the fiction... who's to say that the Fighter hasn't been trying to get the monster to rush up and attack him, rather than do an end around to go after the squishies? It just so happens that this was the time that it actually worked.

In addition to having it in the other rounds of combat if the initial attack fails the NPC/Monster doesn't move, and the remainder of the attack fails for that target.

 

[Nagol]

And in my mind... this agency is apparent in all the other rounds of combat where the PC didn't use Come And Get It. Within the fiction... who's to say that the Fighter hasn't been trying to get the monster to rush up and attack him, rather than do an end around to go after the squishies? It just so happens that this was the time that it actually worked.

Now yes... I know opponents say that they don't like the idea that the PC gets to choose when it doesn't work (i.e. when he actually uses the CaGI exploit)... but at some point we have to ask ourselves how exactly do we introduce this phenomena into the game?

There's no reason why this phenomena shouldn't occur-- we all know it can and does happen "in real life". People get confused and taunted or make snap (almost unconscious) decisions to choose one foe over another-- so how do we create a game mechanic for it? A mechanic that doesn't actually have to be used by those who don't like it? That's what I think is so cool about CaGI and other powers like it-- because they are discrete, independent rules that don't actually have to be used by those who don't like them (you just don't allow players to choose those powers) but ARE there for those who do. Both sides get what they want.

Why that was never good enough for some people though, I'll just never understand.

There are game mechanics for it in earlier editions; Bluff leaps to mind for example.

"I have my character fall to one knee and look exhausted and easy pickings to lure them in range."

"Roll your Bluff"

"19"

"OK, the closest three rush forward."

In addition to that, the abilities when presented in authroial stance have the flaw that hidden information and/or previous actions do not and cannot interfere with the fiction being presented by the player. As a player I don't want that power though I'm happy for my players to have it as a GM.


"I move Mark here"
"Hey man, I'm terrified of spiders. There is NO way I walking up to one 10' tall."


"I fall to one knee and look like easy pickings to draw the archer to melee range."
"He shoots you in the neck from his tree fort."


"The wizard wants to rush over and collect the pendant of power from ny body. I'll take him down as he does."
"You mean the pendant that he stole from you 4 rounds ago? I don't think so."


"The bad guy moves to the edge of the firepit."
"Actually, he'll die if he leaves his ritual diagram. He doesn't move."

As a player, I prefer to control my character's actions and attempt to have the environment and characters respond to my actions and reactions.

And I do understand why others want more authorial control even if you don't understand why some people want less.

 

[Guest 85555]

And in my mind... this agency is apparent in all the other rounds of combat where the PC didn't use Come And Get It. Within the fiction... who's to say that the Fighter hasn't been trying to get the monster to rush up and attack him, rather than do an end around to go after the squishies? It just so happens that this was the time that it actually worked.

Now yes... I know opponents say that they don't like the idea that the PC gets to choose when it doesn't work (i.e. when he actually uses the CaGI exploit)... but at some point we have to ask ourselves how exactly do we introduce this phenomena into the game?

There's no reason why this phenomena shouldn't occur-- we all know it can and does happen "in real life". People get confused and taunted or make snap (almost unconscious) decisions to choose one foe over another-- so how do we create a game mechanic for it? A mechanic that doesn't actually have to be used by those who don't like it? That's what I think is so cool about CaGI and other powers like it-- because they are discrete, independent rules that don't actually have to be used by those who don't like them (you just don't allow players to choose those powers) but ARE there for those who do. Both sides get what they want.

Why that was never good enough for some people though, I'll just never understand.

Why must there be a mechanic for a mundane taunt? To me this goes under RP in most circumstances. Player character taunts opponent and GM decides how the opponent responds to the taunt. This works the other way too. NPC taunts the player character, the player then decides how his charact responds to the taunt. Unless the fighter using come and get it has an especially viscious insult that can only be used at certain times and has the power to make someone move from point A to point B, it doesnt really make a lot of sense to be on a number of different levels.

 

[Sunseeker]

Why must there be a mechanic for a mundane taunt? To me this goes under RP in most circumstances. Player character taunts opponent and GM decides how the opponent responds to the taunt. This works the other way too. NPC taunts the player character, the player then decides how his charact responds to the taunt. Unless the fighter using come and get it has an especially viscious insult that can only be used at certain times and has the power to make someone move from point A to point B, it doesnt really make a lot of sense to be on a number of different levels.

Probably because players used that tactic and DMs ignored them, or DMs made that a use of their minor or move action, thus limiting the things a player can do in a turn beyond hitting the target. Maybe because nothing in the rules outlined that players could do that, or even how they should go about it. Is "I taunt him", which is the combat extension of "I roll knowledge arcana, what do I know?" the same as "Hey you green-skinned butt-face! Yeah that's right I'm talking about your mom!" mechanically equal? Again back to the player/PC dichotomy, do smart and clever players get rewarded more than smart of clever PCs whose players just can't seem to find the words?


I will at this point, reiterate my sentiments from a previous thread: this focus on a singular power out of the 9356(I just used the compendium to count) as some sort of fatal flaw that destroys your ability to enjoy 4e is rather absurd. It's like saying you don't like the number pi, therefore you cannot enjoy math.

 

[Mallus]

Why that was never good enough for some people though, I'll just never understand.

Me neither... then again, I'll doubt I'll ever understand why some people don't like sushi, especially eel nigiri .

(and if someone were to offer up a critical theory as to why eel nigiri wasn't good, I'd give them a funny look!)

The way I see martial powers in 4e, including everyone's favorite, CaGI, it's a different implementation of a critical hits system, where instead of a small chance each round of achieving an exceptional result, the PC is assured of an exceptional result a fixed number of times per encounter and day. Six of one, half a dozen of another.

If you can except a person killing a dragon or a dinosaur with a sword blow --without inquiring overly much as to how that happened, exactly-- why is something like CaGI so problematic?

And as for pulling players out of the actors stance, all I can say is, "How's that gods-eye view of combat over the battle mat, with near-perfect coordination with your teammates and a marked absence of things like the fog-of-war/occluded vision, etc. working out for you?"

(yes, I know the answer to this is: I just don't like sushi...)

 

[TwoSix]

Why must there be a mechanic for a mundane taunt?

Why can't there be a mechanic for a mundane taunt? Why not hardcode it so the DM doesn't have to make a judgment as to whether it's effective?

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are game mechanics for it in earlier editions; Bluff leaps to mind for example.

"I have my character fall to one knee and look exhausted and easy pickings to lure them in range."

"Roll your Bluff"

"19"

"OK, the closest three rush forward."

In addition to that, the abilities when presented in authroial stance have the flaw that hidden information and/or previous actions do not and cannot interfere with the fiction being presented by the player. As a player I don't want that power though I'm happy for my players to have it as a GM.


"I move Mark here"
"Hey man, I'm terrified of spiders. There is NO way I walking up to one 10' tall."


"I fall to one knee and look like easy pickings to draw the archer to melee range."
"He shoots you in the neck from his tree fort."


"The wizard wants to rush over and collect the pendant of power from ny body. I'll take him down as he does."
"You mean the pendant that he stole from you 4 rounds ago? I don't think so."


"The bad guy moves to the edge of the firepit."
"Actually, he'll die if he leaves his ritual diagram. He doesn't move."

As a player, I prefer to control my character's actions and attempt to have the environment and characters respond to my actions and reactions.

And I do understand why others want more authorial control even if you don't understand why some people want less.

As both player and DM I prefer the DM to act as a strong editor rather than full control. If the players get some narrative control it leads to a pretty monumental "Oh Crap!" moment when you overrule what was happening - whereas if the players had to ask for permission rather than suffer a veto for anything it would be a lot closer to SOP.

As a player, when playing Thok the Fighter I don't either want or particularly use narrative power. Thok Smash! Thok's narrative power make wall more smashable! And no game I know prevents me playing Thok. He still works if his narrative power is used for smashing. On the other hand if I want to play Nate "Hannibal" Söze, expert at keeping a dozen balls in the air at the same time, either I'm going to need a ridiculous amount of time spent with the DM, or I'm going to need a lot of narrative control.

 

[Guest 85555]

Probably because players used that tactic and DMs ignored them, or DMs made that a use of their minor or move action, thus limiting the things a player can do in a turn beyond hitting the target. Maybe because nothing in the rules outlined that players could do that, or even how they should go about it. Is "I taunt him", which is the combat extension of "I roll knowledge arcana, what do I know?" the same as "Hey you green-skinned butt-face! Yeah that's right I'm talking about your mom!" mechanically equal? Again back to the player/PC dichotomy, do smart and clever players get rewarded more than smart of clever PCs whose players just can't seem to find the words?

sure, but understand it then hamstrings all the people who dont have this problem. This is something that in most games isn't an issue in my experience because it is relatively easy to resolve through rp. I do get that some people prefer this sort of stuff. But one of the reasons I just couldn't get into 4E was worked so hard to prevent bad GMing. For me this stuff just wasnt an issue

I will at this point, reiterate my sentiments from a previous thread: this focus on a singular power out of the 9356(I just used the compendium to count) as some sort of fatal flaw that destroys your ability to enjoy 4e is rather absurd. It's like saying you don't like the number pi, therefore you cannot enjoy math.

This discussion is about come and get it, but we've had countless discussions about other 4E mechanics. If it were just one ability it wouldn't be an issue for me. But come and get it reflects problems I find elsewhere in the game. Again, if if you like 4E I am not saying you are wrong. I just dont get why people are so resistant to the idea that some of us didn't think it was good and why they have to endlessly probe the reasons we feel we didn't like it.