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

[Imaro]

No, IMO, you're correct. YMMV, but I believe the second option(CaGI) makes for a more fun playstyle.

Then I have no argument to present. I'm not going to debate what you find more fun because, it's what you like. Obryn on the other hand claimed there was no difference in the mechanics and that is what I was replying to.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think your opinion of NPCs as either PC equivalent or ad-hoc might not be shared with the majority of gamers.

This boils down to the basic question of what the rules are. Are the rules of the game the rules of the world? If they are, than NPCs and PCs have to use the same rules (if any). 3e basically answers that question yes; 4e is a pretty emphatic no. Given the diversity of the community, it's hard to say that anything is a definitive majority opinion, but I think game rules = world rules is a pretty mainstream point of view.

 

[TwoSix]

But most people are not determinists though. In fact a lot of people passionately believe in free will, and even if they are open to debate about it, certainly don't want to be told by a game mechanic (or its designer) that they are wrong. I had four years of this debate in college, and I think its interesting. I get the determinist point of view (you can probably tell I don't share it) but I think it is a tough sell as a basis for a game system that appeals to such a wide variety of peple. Most believe they have some degree of free will, and telling folks they are just effects in a deterministic universe, when they say they don't like come and and get it, is probably not going to win over any skeptics.

If I was attempting to "win people over", I certainly wouldn't argue with them about it. Studies have shown that debating opinions merely calcifies viewpoints, rather than moderating them.

The fact that there's a camp that agrees with my viewpoints and a camp that agrees with yours only makes it more likely for us to stick with the viewpoint of our camp.

Also, I strenuously doubt that the 4e designers wrote Come and Get It to prove or disprove free will. CaGI is just a rallying flag for the debates between camps of people who like 4e's approach and those who don't.

 

[Obryn]

But most people are not determinists though. In fact a lot of people passionately believe in free will, and even if they are open to debate about it, certainly don't want to be told by a game mechanic (or its designer) that they are wrong. I had four years of this debate in college, and I think its interesting. I get the determinist point of view (you can probably tell I don't share it) but I think it is a tough sell as a basis for a game system that appeals to such a wide variety of peple. Most believe they have some degree of free will, and telling folks they are just effects in a deterministic universe, when they say they don't like come and and get it, is probably not going to win over any skeptics.

I don't think we need to even get into arguments of free will.

We just need to accept that your (fictional) character has a different view of reality, isn't a perfect decision-maker, and is sometimes subject to emotions, beliefs, and information which may conflict with yours or be outright false. So even if you're stoic, fear-proof, impossible to trick, and never angry, your character might be any of these and react appropriately.

We've separated character and player knowledge for decades now, so I don't see the stretch.

-O

 

[TwoSix]

This boils down to the basic question of what the rules are. Are the rules of the game the rules of the world? If they are, than NPCs and PCs have to use the same rules (if any). 3e basically answers that question yes; 4e is a pretty emphatic no. Given the diversity of the community, it's hard to say that anything is a definitive majority opinion, but I think game rules = world rules is a pretty mainstream point of view.

I think it's A mainstream point of view. But I don't think majority, or even a plurality.

 

[Obryn]

Then I have no argument to present. I'm not going to debate what you find more fun because, it's what you like. Obryn on the other hand claimed there was no difference in the mechanics and that is what I was replying to.

No, I just noted that "You don't get to choose your path" is a much different argument from, "X would never fall for it."

I am a lot more interested in rebutting the latter argument than the former.

For the former, the big difference is in advantage. If we accept the confines of the power - every step must be closer, and end adjacent - it's really about advantageous positioning. You will put your wizard in the best situation, whereas I would put him in the worst. I like the results of player-directed pulls, but I don't have anything against a houserule to do it the other way if that's the only objection.

-O

 

[Imaro]

No, I just noted that "You don't get to choose your path" is a much different argument from, "X would never fall for it."

I am a lot more interested in rebutting the latter argument than the former.

For the former, the big difference is in advantage. If we accept the confines of the power - every step must be closer, and end adjacent - it's really about advantageous positioning. You will put your wizard in the best situation, whereas I would put him in the worst. I like the results of player-directed pulls, but I don't have anything against a houserule to do it the other way if that's the only objection.

-O

Yes but it also touches on the difference between the causal power argument, and the actor to author/director stance argument... which is something certain posters conflated earlier in the thread even though they are not the same thing. If you want to stay as close to actor stance as possible a power like CaGi forces you to step out of it and into director/author stance because you are now controlling the actions that the affected PC/NPC/monsters are taking.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't think we need to even get into arguments of free will.

We just need to accept that your (fictional) character has a different view of reality, isn't a perfect decision-maker, and is sometimes subject to emotions, beliefs, and information which may conflict with yours or be outright false. So even if you're stoic, fear-proof, impossible to trick, and never angry, your character might be any of these and react appropriately.

We've separated character and player knowledge for decades now, so I don't see the stretch.

-O

but this is largley about the goal of playing in the first place. If your goal is to simulate a character, that makes sense. If your goal is to feel like you are a charcater, mechanics that seperate your experience from the character's like this can actually be jarring. There is always going to be a degree of seperation (no one is advocating inducing delusions) but i find the more mechanics there are between my experience and the character's, the less immersed I tend to feel. I am not totally against such things. For example, there are moments where mechanics causing you to be paralyzed with fear actually helps replicate the experience of being paralyzed by fear.

 

[TwoSix]

That is a perfectly fine preference. The problem is this is a point of contention at a lot of tables and between gamers. In my group, I never even really like diplomacy, bluff, and intimidate for example because I was more accustomed to playing those out in real time and going by what the PCs and NPCs were doing (rather than die rolls). I can live with this stuff in the game, because it is possible to work around, and really diplomacy is a modified version of reaction rolls (which are a bit "soft" in changing actual npc behavior because they are more about shifting attitudes). However, the further the game goes in that direction, the harder it is for me to play the way I like.

And the further it goes in the other direction, the bigger of a problem I have. I don't see this point of contention as being resolved.

Not that I think it's not worth talking about. I was converted from being on the fence about 4e to a big supporter because of threads just like these, and introduced to the whole concept of story games to boot.

 

[Nagol]

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

and in asituation where the character is under your control, that's how it would play out.

This circumstance has an external force in the game world exerting an influence. You are not running away because the character made the decision to retreat. You are running away because of an external compulsion that was too strong to resist.

The difference comes in how the player can resolve the actions of the character with the expected behaviours from personality and character design. The character didn't run because he's cowardly or rationally weighed the risk/reward ratio to be poor. He ran because he was compelled to run by an external agency.

When another player exerts narrative control, the controlling player doesn't get that luxury. He has to explain in his fiction what happened that he made the decision he did. Why did he approach the spider? How does that play off his complete revulsion to them?