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

[Sunseeker]

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?

What if he was going to decide it was "SUPER EFFECTIVE!!!" ??

 

[Guest 85555]

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?

But it works so much better for a lot of is if you let something like a taunt be handled by the Gm and players sense of how the pc or npc in question would respond. I would much rather have the Gm make a judgment on something this human and subjective than embed it in the system. GMs making judgments isnt a bad thing.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

The only GM I ever had a bad time with in 4e, was a GM who kept whining about how 3e did X or Y better every time the game ran into an issue. Issues that were primarily caused by his failure to accept the system as it was and play it, instead of constantly focuses on how X or Y didn't live up to his previous system.

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.

No, this discussion has been about a lot of things. Primarily why it's so horrid to some that mundane characters are able to do spectacular stuff. CAGI is an extension of that, indeed much of 4e was an attempt to show that there really isn't any reason that mundane characters can't do cool stuff except for preconceived notions about how certain classes should play.

What I'm curious about in 4e is really what you didn't like about it, because you and many others keep harping on ONE POWER. Which as I pointed out is like saying you don't like a specific number and then decrying all of mathematics. I mean really is the root of it just that you feel 4e took away your ability to RP in the way you wanted to?

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

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...)

1) We don't use a mat. Typically we use a whiteboard without a grid to lay down an approximation of the encounter so people have the same basic understanding. I don't pay complete attention to the exact position of other characters save my own and anyone I am concentrating on in particular.

2) We rarely have perfect coordination because of (1) and because we often have differing opinions on the optimal course of action and/or knowledge/abilities/drawbacks the others don't know about.

3) We do often have fog-of-war / line-of-sight constraints the few times we do put a map down. We eyeball ranges and area of effects prior to delivery then use precision to apply the effects afterwards. Friendly fire happens occasionally as does complete misses.

4) We strongly separate in-character knowedge from player-knowledge so even if I know PlayerX's PC can do a super niftly special move that synergies well... I won't ask him to until my character knows it too.

 

[Guest 85555]

What I'm curious about in 4e is really what you didn't like about it, because you and many others keep harping on ONE POWER. Which as I pointed out is like saying you don't like a specific number and then decrying all of mathematics. I mean really is the root of it just that you feel 4e took away your ability to RP in the way you wanted to?

I have given my reasons many times over many threads, and I have even provided them to you. Not only have they never satisfied your curiosity, they've been attacked as somehow not really being my reasons. At a certain point, there isn't a discussion any more. Come and get it is one feature of the game I dislike. Healing surges are another. The AEDU structure, just in terms of how it feels and operates, is another. The way they changed spellcasters, is another. The focus on the grid is another. So is how the DMG approaches adventure design. Skill Challenges also bother me. I strongly dislike martial daily and encounter powers. The list goes on and on. That they break my immersion is a big part of my dislike for the system, but not the only reason. To me the game feels very artificial and like the needs of the game take primacy over setting and RP. Just my opinion. I don't expect everyone to share it. But it isn't because I loved 3E ( I had serious problems with 3E toward the end). I am not listing these things to sound like a jerk or say 4E killed D&D, just to explain that down the line, every feature of the game doesn't work for me. And it gets very frustrating being told I am just thinking about it wrong or I don't understand the system. I have given 4E more of a chance than I have given any other RPG I didn't like (and I have experience with a broad range of RPGs).

 

[Ahnehnois]

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?

Well, there can be a mechanic for it (as there have been for Charisma-based skills), but hardcode it? Hardcoding free will is where the issue is.

If someone tries to seduce your character, they roll a seduction check, and the DM tells you that your character is now in a romantic relationship, wouldn't you as a player have a problem with that? If the someone rolls to force you to attack them (or not attack them, or make any other choice), how is it different?

Why is DM (or player) judgment something to be avoided?

 

[Guest 85555]

The only GM I ever had a bad time with in 4e, was a GM who kept whining about how 3e did X or Y better every time the game ran into an issue. Issues that were primarily caused by his failure to accept the system as it was and play it, instead of constantly focuses on how X or Y didn't live up to his previous system.

If he didn't like the system, and prefered 3E, it makes sense for him to run 3E instead. I think torturing everyone at the table by complaining isn't the way to go. But there is nothing wrong with not liking a particular edition. And I see no reason for a GM to just accept the system if he doesn't honestly like it. There are tons of games out there, no reason to play one you don't connect with.

 

[Obryn]

But it works so much better for a lot of is if you let something like a taunt be handled by the Gm and players sense of how the pc or npc in question would respond. I would much rather have the Gm make a judgment on something this human and subjective than embed it in the system. GMs making judgments isnt a bad thing.

I don't think the same logic works with feints, but it's pretty much the same thing. In both, you're being tricked into something you wouldn't normally do.

Taunts are great in-game, imo, and rules for them can be very helpful. Savage Worlds is a good example.

 

[Nagol]

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.

I can certainly build a character that doesn't use narrative power in the game. However, I can't avoid having it used on my character. If anyone says "Your PC does this because..." it better be backed up with some form of mind control.

"Your opponent falls to one knee and looks trivial to finish off. If he gets his breath back he'll be back to normal."
"Hmm, I better take the opportunity before he recovers"
"He was shamming and brings his weapon up as your get near. Take damage"

is different from

"You rush in to take advantage of the opponents obvious weakness. He hit you as you approach. Take damage."

Just as

"Hey you! You! Get the heck across that hall! Move! Move! Move" (you can take another move if you want)
"Thanks, but I need to be here right now. I'll catch up"

is different from

"Hey you! You! Get the heck across that hall! Move! Move! Move" (I move his PC to here)


The difference is in one I'm given the option to react as I wish the character to react. In the other the control of my character is wrested from me and the character does things out-of-character.

 

[Sunseeker]

I can certainly build a character that doesn't use narrative power in the game. However, I can't avoid having it used on my character. If anyone says "Your PC does this because..." it better be backed up with some form of mind control.

-----

The difference is in one I'm given the option to react as I wish the character to react. In the other the control of my character is wrested from me and the character does things out-of-character.

For the most part, powers that effect players from other players come with a "may", unless it's some sort of forced movement, ie: Bob's sonic blast knocks everyone(enemies and allies) back one square.
Powers from monsters that make players move are generally backed up by that type of mechanic: "the big dragon claw knocks you back", "The charm of the demon causes you to slowly start walking towards her. Move forward 1 square".

Because NPCs are not treated as full-blown characters, they don't get the same discretion.