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

[Obryn]

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.

But you're not your character. Just like with Cause Fear, you don't have the same emotions, involvement, or immediacy that's implied in the fiction. You're basically implying that characters are robots - doing what you, from an outside perspective, think is appropriate, with ample time to plan and a cool detachment.

With taunts, fear mechanics, charms, tricks, and illusions, the fictional character might have different drives than you, the player. D&D has always had some stuff like this - illusions work even if you, the player, don't think so. Likewise feints in 3e. So this detachment isn't new...

-O

 

[TwoSix]

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).

I think that's a difference in viewpoint. "Free will" really isn't, which is why I have no problem with something happen that influences the narrative.

And again, in a narrative game, the NPCs don't have to be simulated as having free will. It's perfectly OK to use them as scenery, or props on which to make your character cooler. Just like the thousands of orcs in the LOTR movies.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

There is a point for every person where fear overrides their conscious decision-making processes. If the fighter is brave, that should be represented by him having a bonus to resist fear (PF does do this a little at least, but 3e screws nonmagic characters on saves). But once you've failed the save, I think it's fair to say that you're past that point.

 

[Obryn]

There is a point for every person where fear overrides their conscious decision-making processes. If the fighter is brave, that should be represented by him having a bonus to resist fear (PF does do this a little at least, but 3e screws nonmagic characters on saves). But once you've failed the save, I think it's fair to say that you're past that point.

This is the same logic which makes taunts work, fwiw.

-O

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I would LOVE a FATE game with the tactical crunchiness of 4e. Importing Aspects and tying them to action points is something I'm toying with for my next 4e game, actually.

 

[Imaro]

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

In the case of Cause Fear... doesn't the affected player or NPC/monster still decide the particular route and means he takes if he has to flee?

Does the affected creature of CaGi get to do this? Or does the person who enacted CaGi decide exactly where and what course each of the affected creatures chose to move?

Finally, do you see a difference in the above two effects?

 

[Imaro]

And again, in a narrative game, the NPCs don't have to be simulated as having free will. It's perfectly OK to use them as scenery, or props on which to make your character cooler. Just like the thousands of orcs in the LOTR movies.

You do recognize this is a playstyle preference... right? Some people find that type of "cool" where they are basically chewing through paper tigers unsatisfying and not particularly "cool". I'm just saying different strokes and all. I might be mistaken but you seem to be trying to talk about the subjective in your last couple of posts in objective terms.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that's a difference in viewpoint. "Free will" really isn't

Well, uh, that one's debatable. Hard to go deep into that one under ENW's politics/religion rule.

And again, in a narrative game, the NPCs don't have to be simulated as having free will. It's perfectly OK to use them as scenery, or props on which to make your character cooler.

I'd argue that it's okay for a DM to use NPCs however he wants (including in these ways). However, IMO the only justifiable reason to use rules for NPCs at all is to create an equivalency with PCs. If you don't need to do that, you can ad hoc it. So the rules themselves have to support a fully developed character, even if you won't use every NPC in that way.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

Personally, I end up drained and with a plitting headache after almost every session I run. Which is great. I find it satisfying much in the way that delayed-onset muscle soreness after an athletic event or the nauseating feeling I get after public speaking are. People who pursue art, music, or drama for a living often become tremendously drained by those activities.

If you can DM a session without expending much energy, that is a surprise to me. Certainly not the norm I would think ("DM burnout").

By creating, I was referring to their creation as an entity at the table, not their pre-statting.

Even then, I guess I don't really see it. I don't much care about that aspect of gaming myself.

 

[TwoSix]

In the case of Cause Fear... doesn't the affected player or NPC/monster still decide the particular route and means he takes if he has to flee?

Mostly. If he has a spell that he can use to escape, and no other means to escape, he must use the spell. If the creature becomes panicked, they must escape via a random route, which would imply no choice on their part.

Does the affected creature of CaGi get to do this? Or does the person who enacted CaGi decide exactly where and what course each of the affected creatures chose to move?

Within the limitations of the power, yes, the enactor of CaGI decides. The target can only move 2 squares, they couldn't be more than 3 away at the start, they must end adjacent to the character (or it doesn't work), and every square they move must move them closer to the character.

Finally, do you see a difference in the above two effects?

Sure, is one is process-driven, and the other is effect-driven.