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

[Guest 85555]

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.

But there are plenty of games that do, and I am sure smart companies will figure out how to fill that vacuum when 5E is released. It is just an issue of this not appealing the customer base.

 

[Nagol]

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

Narrative control outside of the actions of one's PC is often restricted in games. I believe narrative control over a character should only be exercised by the party assigned control.

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

Not my example initally and I won't say the power us unbridled. Merely that having a meta-ability to make a character take action of their own free will where that action contradicts character design, history, preferences, and owning player's desires creates friction.

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

It's not about me. I have personal experience with 2 of the 3 scenarios though. If you prefer, I won't reference it.

In which case,

Devoted husbands cheating with people picked up usually stop being considered devoted.

Attraction studies indicate sexual-preference can be so strong as to effectively eliminate non-conforming possibilities from competition.

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.

Well, no. That's the worst that can happen if you remain in narrative control. If the other player is allowed to assume narrative control over your decision-making, your PC wakes up in his arms in the morning and it was his choice.

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.

I want the DM to present the situations and adjudicate the environment's reactions to my character's choices. I don't want to be making decisions for other characters or the environment itself save for those choices my character makes. Many versions of D&D work really well for that.

 

[Guest 85555]

I want the DM to present the situations and adjudicate the environment's reactions to my character's choices. I don't want to be making decisions for other characters or the environment itself save for those choices my character makes. Many versions of D&D work really well for that.

Same here.

 

[Obryn]

Same here.

I'd like to reiterate my "cause fear" example, though. The subject of the spell is made afraid. That's what it does. But they have no control over how they react to it, since it's spelled out in the description. I don't see a feint or taunt as being different at all, unless you want to go down the hoary old "a wizard did it" path. You're still either rolling a defense (insight/sense motive), making a save, or having a defense attacked.

-O

 

[Sunseeker]

Narrative control outside of the actions of one's PC is often restricted in games. I believe narrative control over a character should only be exercised by the party assigned control.

Restricted, but not completely eliminated. What you believe in does not exist in D&D. So why you are arguing for something that isn't makes no sense to me.

Not my example initally and I won't say the power us unbridled. Merely that having a meta-ability to make a character take action of their own free will where that action contradicts character design, history, preferences, and owning player's desires creates friction.

So we should just never attempt to get players to do anything they don't want to? Again: BORING.

It's not about me. I have personal experience with 2 of the 3 scenarios though. If you prefer, I won't reference it.

In which case,

Devoted husbands cheating with people picked up usually stop being considered devoted.

So their bonus to fending off advances ends after their one-night-stand.

Attraction studies indicate sexual-preference can be so strong as to effectively eliminate non-conforming possibilities from competition.

Lets focus on some key words, first: Studies. Second: Can be. Third: Effectively.
These are all words that should make anyone reading them understand that these studies are non-conclusive.

Well, no. That's the worst that can happen if you remain in narrative control. If the other player is allowed to assume narrative control over your decision-making, your PC wakes up in his arms in the morning and it was his choice.

Of course, all this extrapolation and exaggeration gets away from the fact that none of this actually exists and narrative control is very restrained, even in 4e.

I want the DM to present the situations and adjudicate the environment's reactions to my character's choices. I don't want to be making decisions for other characters or the environment itself save for those choices my character makes. Many versions of D&D work really well for that.

The only way you can actually achieve this is if you never make decisions at all. Any decision you make in the game will likely force somebody to do something they'd rather not. I suppose they could pull the nuclear option and leave the table, but again, there is no decision in which this could not be a possible outcome. And you don't know that. How is it so different from having a power that takes control of a character, to making your own decision that is to extremely counter to another player's wants, that it forces them to do something they'd rather not do?

Every decision, any decision has effects on other players. If you choose to selfishly think that your decisions for yourself are limited only to you, you don't understand social interaction.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I'd like to reiterate my "cause fear" example, though. The subject of the spell is made afraid. That's what it does. But they have no control over how they react to it, since it's spelled out in the description. I don't see a feint or taunt as being different at all, unless you want to go down the hoary old "a wizard did it" path.

Actually, it is different. Fear is a condition that exists independently of the spell, but regardless of how one becomes afraid, the effects of fear are a result of the character losing control of his own actions (as opposed to the player losing control of the character). Running away when you're sufficiently afraid to have that condition isn't that different than lying motionless when you're unconscious; it's involuntary.

Which would go back my idea a few pages ago that a mechanic that deprives a character of free will should be explained by that character losing his free will (which can actually happen) rather than someone else taking it (which can't).

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

i think this skews things a bit and offers a description of playstyles based on your own personal preferences. The only one framed positively is the middle one. You want a narrative approach and that is fine, nothing wrong with a style where people coorporate to create a fiction. But not everyone likes that, and that doesn't mean the only two possibilities when they don't is a railroaded story by the gm or a domineering GM wh dictates what happens. This is a straw man description of more immersive approaches and of adventure paths. Personally I am not a big fam of adventure paths, but I dont think fans of them are on mindless railroads. By the same token, games where the GM is expected to run NPCs and th setting believably are about player freedom, not about the Gm dictating what happens at every turn. In those kinds of games, the players dont want narrative control of things outside their character. For example I dont want to be the one deciding what is in the dungeon, or how the evil villain reacts to my speech. The moment I make those decisions, i genuinely lose that sense of being there.

All that said, I think most gamers are really a mix of a bunch of different approaches and are okay with bits of various styles sprinkled in. I don't expect D&D to be 100% my style because it is appealing to a large community of gamers. I think the problem arises when it focuses on catering to one stylewhen they really focus the design on one approach. Last time it was maybe more suited to your games, but the result was a lot of us found it pretty darn hard to run games the way we prefer with 4E. But it could just as easily been too much in my camp or someone else's. D&D really needs to be a big tent in my opinion. It is all about volume and focus. If they had a few feats that did things like come and get it, people probably wouldn't have noticed. It wa that they seemed to be fighting our immersion at every step with many of the powers, with healing surges and with the the whole martial daily and encounter power thing. I think they could have taken the game as it was in 3E, flattened some of the numbers and balanced things out a bit more, plus throw in various options for different playstyles.

 

[Obryn]

Actually, it is different. Fear is a condition that exists independently of the spell, but regardless of how one becomes afraid, the effects of fear are a result of the character losing control of his own actions (as opposed to the player losing control of the character). Running away when you're sufficiently afraid to have that condition isn't that different than lying motionless when you're unconscious; it's involuntary.

I don't see a difference. If your character is afraid, why don't you get to decide how they handle it? I mean, my Fighter is brave, and there's no way he's running away even if he's scared. It's totally out of character.

-O

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

The only way you can actually achieve this is if you never make decisions at all. Any decision you make in the game will likely force somebody to do something they'd rather not. I suppose they could pull the nuclear option and leave the table, but again, there is no decision in which this could not be a possible outcome. And you don't know that. How is it so different from having a power that takes control of a character, to making your own decision that is to extremely counter to another player's wants, that it forces them to do something they'd rather not do?

Every decision, any decision has effects on other players. If you choose to selfishly think that your decisions for yourself are limited only to you, you don't understand social interaction.

No. I make decisions based upon my understanding of the situation and character nature. The environment, including other PCs, may or may not react to my choices. My choices may trigger other events, but I as a player am not controlling those events or choices external to my character. How other characters choose to react in under the control of other people.

 

[TwoSix]

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

I've never found it to be while role-playing. Different strokes and all.

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.

By creating, I was referring to their creation as an entity at the table, not their pre-statting. Prep work is also something else I dislike.