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

[Guest 85555]

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.

.

Again, this is just how I feel about it. If it emulates a feint for you, then that is totally cool. For me feint rules can work but I do think they are tricky. Again, something that actually lets me control an NPC, would work against my preference. I much prefer something that maybe gives you a bonus (or gives someone a penalty). But then, feinting is something I really feel you ought to be able to do whenever you want if it is a combat option. A feint is basically about getting someone to lower their defenses. I feint like I am going to punch you in the head, and when you raise your guard, I go in for a take down or sweep. I suppose it could affect movement, if I feint like I am going to run past you to the right, and then go left. But that is a lot more subtle kind of movement than the precision you get with come and get it. When someone uses come and get it, I literally have trouble not picturing them picking the guy up and dropping them down in a new square on the grid.

Generally I am not a big fan of taunt mechanics, even in a game like Savage Worlds.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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!)

Well, virtually all tastes are acquired, and I am essentially a lifelong vegetarian and am unable to see any appeal in animal flesh. So I have a critical dislike of sushi (most of it anyway; I'm aware there are occasionally vegetables).

[Awaits funny look]. No offense intended to anyone who has a different perspective.

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.

Actually, it's six of one, 1d12 of the other. Big difference.

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?

Probably because many D&D players identify strongly with their characters and don't like it when their characters do things they feel are out of the player's control.

I mean there's a spectrum here. Many players are offended or turned off when a DM uses enchantment spells on them and tells them what their characters are doing. It's not like that's kosher all the time. A lot of people disliked "Diplomancy"; when Cha-based skills were used to even vaguely dictate a character's behavior. I recall this as being one of the major objections to 3e from the old school crowd. A whole lot of people disliked the Goad feat and other related late-3.5 abilities. Having the same ability be available to fighters and not allow a save is simply another step in that direction, and a step too far for one more group of players. And is still a non-issue to another group, yes.

 

[Mallus]

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.

Okay -- but still, you're playing the game from a very different perspective that your character's (an inherently meta one). This is a fact the defines RPG play. Contrast your whiteboard depiction of combat with a 1st-person perspective computer game like Skyrim (it's one of the rare cases where a video game can be more immersive than PnP gaming).

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.

That's fair. But I wonder how common a sentiment that is among the people who have a strong dislike of "directorial" powers like CaGI. I've played (and run) my share of pre-4e combats, and my experience is players rarely limit themselves to strict actor stance, especially if they have a chance to go all 'combined-arms' on opponents, or if (imaginary) death is on the line.

 

[technoextreme]

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.

Because if you've ever had it pulled on you its not all that mundane. It requires a bit of finesse and a bit of right timing to actually pull it off in a narrative context. The problem with your argument and how I've had CAGI used on me flawlessly is that sometimes people don't think. Sometimes they do something irrational and quite frankly slightly stupid.

 

[Bluenose]

"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.

"Move! Move!"

"Thanks, but I'm fine where I am."

*Get run down by a charging Dire Board"

"Still fine, are you?"

One thing that you might want to consider is that carefully considering what you want to do at any particular moment gets you killed in combat. The whole idea that your character will only do what the player wants is about as antithetical to realism, immersion and role-playing as you can get. The implication that you're so special that you can't be manipulated into doing something against you r best interests... I don't know how anyone takes that seriously.

 

[Guest 85555]

"Move! Move!"

"Thanks, but I'm fine where I am."

*Get run down by a charging Dire Board"

"Still fine, are you?"

One thing that you might want to consider is that carefully considering what you want to do at any particular moment gets you killed in combat. The whole idea that your character will only do what the player wants is about as antithetical to realism, immersion and role-playing as you can get. The implication that you're so special that you can't be manipulated into doing something against you r best interests... I don't know how anyone takes that seriously.

But this is still a matter of choice. I choose to remain where I am or I suffer the consequences of being struck by a dire boar. My moving is a product of me not wanting to get run over by a boar, not the power of your words to compel me to move.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Indeed. And very little affects PCs the way you object to short of outright mind control magic unless people are stepping vastly outside the planned uses of the game. Any powers that affect allies assume that both sides are happy with this. And I can't think of an NPC equivalent to CAGI. In FATE you're offered a compel - you don't have to accept. So what is being argued against here is almost irrelevant.

 

[Guest 85555]

Because if you've ever had it pulled on you its not all that mundane. It requires a bit of finesse and a bit of right timing to actually pull it off in a narrative context. The problem with your argument and how I've had CAGI used on me flawlessly is that sometimes people don't think. Sometimes they do something irrational and quite frankly slightly stupid.

I am not arguing that all choices are rational. Just that they are choices.

 

[Imaro]

"Move! Move!"

"Thanks, but I'm fine where I am."

*Get run down by a charging Dire Board"

"Still fine, are you?"

One thing that you might want to consider is that carefully considering what you want to do at any particular moment gets you killed in combat. The whole idea that your character will only do what the player wants is about as antithetical to realism, immersion and role-playing as you can get. The implication that you're so special that you can't be manipulated into doing something against you r best interests... I don't know how anyone takes that seriously.

We did we start equating realism with immersion and/or roleplaying (if this was true no book or movie that featured a special protagonist and wasn't realistic could ever be immersive, and I don't think that's the case)??? These are 3 different things, and this is just as bad as conflating the causal power and author/director stance issues.

 

[Nagol]

Okay -- but still, you're playing the game from a very different perspective that your character's (an inherently meta one). This is a fact the defines RPG play. Contrast your whiteboard depiction of combat with a 1st-person perspective computer game like Skyrim (it's one of the rare cases where a video game can be more immersive than PnP gaming).


That's fair. But I wonder how common a sentiment that is among the people who have a strong dislike of "directorial" powers like CaGI. I've played (and run) my share of pre-4e combats, and my experience is players rarely limit themselves to strict actor stance, especially if they have a chance to go all 'combined-arms' on opponents.

I only claim to speak for me and so far as I know, I'm unique!

I usually GM. In fact, I almost always GM.

As a GM I have no issue with players getting narrative-control abilities and in fact have introduced some like Whimsy Cards into more procedural games like D&D and run games like Strands of Fate (a FATE spinoff) where the players can make direct contribution to the game-world on the spur of the moment. I co-ran a successul multi-year campaign with a second DM where the rule was "You can take anything pre-established and expand on it -- so long as there are no contradictions". In many ways shared narrative control is a good thing for me as a DM. It keeps me on my toes.

The only major drawback the way 4e implemented it is it does not take into account capmpaign/character secrets well. I'd adjust it by having the player activate the power and the victim narrate the reasons and actions from its use.


As a player, the only thing I want to control is my character. I want to see the effects the PC can accomplish by pulling the levers inside the game world. I want to be in complete control of the character (barring extra mechanics in the game world that can affect control in explicit ways).

I do not want to play Strands of Fate and didn't enjoy the campaign I joined using the system -- because I was forced to continually review the situations from my character's perspective and from a player perspective.