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

[TwoSix]

Well, it is tiring. Because DMing is tiring.

It shouldn't be. Being creative is inspiring, lawyering rules is enervating.

I find it hard to see how creating monsters and staging battles is more a part of DMing that making judgment calls.

Because it's more fun, so it should be a bigger part.

I guess I don't the the rules as being about making things easier.

I'm shocked we have a difference of opinion.

Extrapolating. I was trying to ascertain whether affecting different behavior in different contexts would create an issue where CaGI did not. For you, it apparently didn't.

I'm sure there are some situations that would cause me problems, depending on the scope of the game. I'd be more willing to accept broad powers in Nobilis than in 4e, certainly.

 

[Sunseeker]

We don't. This is a classic example of need vs. want. You don't need rules to rp. The entire ruleset is optional (which is why most people change and ignore it so much).

Well I've had this discussion with you so I know your answer.

But my point is that it's a logical fallacy. If the counter to any argument is just "have the DM do it", why are they playing, and by extension complaining about a system that doesn't operate on their "have the DM do it" preferences?

I don't like playing "mother may I", which is something I enjoy about 4e. My players don't have to ask me anything beyond "does it hit", if it hits, their stuff happens, the end. My players are in charge of their actions, and I like that.

 

[Nagol]

"The beatuy and charm of the handsome swashbuckler was so overwhelming, you didn't even realize you were talking until you'd already had several drinks together and he was inviting you up to his private room."
--what happened here?
--The game mechanics made you do something against your will: get friendly with the swashbuckler.
--The game mechanics left you room for a choice: go with him or not?

Choice is good. That's what I want in a game system: choice and effect. It's what is surrendered when others get narrative-control outside of their own PCs.

No, you didn't make the first move, the seducer in question worked their charms on you. Maybe they batted an eyelash, flashed a sexy leg or exposed a tanned, muscular chest and shot you a glinting smile from their stubble bordered mouth.

They enticed you to make a move towards them, maybe your first intention wasn't to jump their bones, but once you started talking(and drinking) well...

A chase paladin(male or female) might receive a bonus to ignoring the enticing looks. Saying something in the event is likely to have your DM consider such favorably.

What event? The single round of power-use?

Devoted husband and father? Alone? At the bar? Late at night? Me thinks trouble with the miss'!

Who set those parameters? And as a devoted husband, you would be incorrect. That's the beauty of free will: temptation != action.

Different sexual orientation doesn't belie attraction or come-on attempts. It just makes them easier to rebuke.

It doesn't belie attempts, but I can state from experience it pretty much destroys attraction. Without the attraction, its hard to justify situation going anywhere the player doesn't want to go.

 

[Nagol]

Dominate person?

Is perfectly fine since it is an in-game artifact with in-game effects that specifically override personality and player choice.

*edit*

Dominate Person doesn't usurp narrative control from the player of the character affected. The controller doesn't get to tell you about decisions you've made; they make decisions for you because you are in thrall.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't doubt it's a problem for you. Never have.

But I have a problem with all of the people (not you in particular) who think that these things shouldn't happen simply because they're only used to playing another way.

There's nothing wrong with cinematic, narrative games. I'm sorry you don't like those kinds of games. And I'm sorry that you had to be exposed to it because you bought a new edition of a game you liked.

I have nothing against these games. Nor do I mind being exposed to them. but I think part of the reason for 4E's low popularity is over half the player base isn't looking for that in D&D. To me it is a bit like going to see Super Ninja Vs. Robots 4 and instead of super ninjas fighting robots, getting an period-drama about silk merchants looking for love as the fall of Constantinople approaches. Nothing wrong with the latter at all. I just wasn't expecting D&D to go narrative or so gamey with 4E. D&D is a broad game, with a big audience. Not everyone who plays D&D is into narrative games. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people rejected the new direction.

 

[TwoSix]

I just wasn't expecting D&D to go narrative or so gamey with 4E. D&D is a broad game, with a big audience. Not everyone who plays D&D is into narrative games. So it really shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people rejected the new direction.

It's not a surprise. It's just depressing. 4e isn't perfect, but now we'll never get a broadly supported game that continues to explore that design space. We've already had 30 odd years of trad games.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But my point is that it's a logical fallacy. If the counter to any argument is just "have the DM do it"

It's not the counter to any argument however, merely some arguments. In this case, we're talking about any action that a character takes of his or her own free will being determined by the real person (player or DM) who is responsible for the character.

The issue is that the default is "just have the DM do it" and if you're using a rule, there should be a reason for using it. To my mind, there are two reasons to do that: gamism (creating a tactical dynamic that doesn't exist in the world) and simulationism (helping the DM figure out how the rules of the world should work). And we're talking about rules that I don't think serve either of those purposes.

 

[Nagol]

It's not a surprise. It's just depressing. 4e isn't perfect, but now we'll never get a broadly supported game that continues to explore that design space. We've already had 30 odd years of trad games.

I think you will; it may not be called D&D. There are a bunch of games that design space to a greater and lesser degree. The FATE engine is getting a fair bit of support and branches.

 

[Sunseeker]

Choice is good. That's what I want in a game system: choice and effect. It's what is surrendered when others get narrative-control outside of their own PCs

Narrative control is never limited to a single PC, and any game in which it is strikes as awfully dull.

What event? The single round of power-use?

This hypothetical use of the "You sleep with me" power that totally dominates a character and controls them forever.

Who set those parameters? And as a devoted husband, you would be incorrect. That's the beauty of free will: temptation != action.

I made them up. I also didn't realize this was about YOU.

It doesn't belie attempts, but I can state from experience it pretty much destroys attraction. Without the attraction, its hard to justify situation going anywhere the player doesn't want to go.

So what's the worst that can happen, you sat down, talked to the charming fellow and oh look he wants to sleep with you but oop, you're a dude, end of interest.

Here's what this really boils down to:

If you want the DM to tell you a story, have them read you a book.

If you want to play in a cooperative experience wherein you and several others go on a grand adventure of your own making, play D&D.

If you want the DM to determine what happens at every turn or after every battle, D&D is probably a bad choice.

 

[Ahnehnois]

It shouldn't be. Being creative is inspiring, lawyering rules is enervating.

Being creative is extremely tiring; ask anyone who does it for a living. Perhaps in more ways than other activities.

Because it's more fun, so it should be a bigger part.

You think creating creatures and encounters is more fun than making snap judgments at the table? To each his own I guess, but I have a hard time with that one.