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

[Hussar]

Whew, waded through that.

My beef with, "Let the DM do it" is that it, IMO, over-priveleges the DM at the table. The player comes up with what the player believes to be a reasonable taunt and no one at the table is being a jerk. We're talking about a reasonable table, everyone's on board.

The players are facing a group of kobolds with an intervening space between them. The player taunts the kobolds, in their own language so he knows they understand, with the expectation that the kobolds will come and get him. The DM, looking at the situation, realizes that this will give the players a very large tactical advantage and rules that no, the kobolds don't fall for the taunt.

So, the player is basically SOL. What he believes to be a good idea gets flushed down the toiled because the DM doesn't like it. And there is absolutely no recourse here because the DM is final arbiter.

Fair enough, situation plays out and the PC's are victorious after a hard fought battle.

Next session (or maybe the one after that), a similar situation arises. The PC's have cornered a group of bandits in a house or cave. Doesn't really matter. What are the odds that the player is going to try the same thing again? Why would he bother? He knows it's not going to work. He knows because it didn't work the last time. There's no reason why it would suddenly work this time, so, he doesn't bother.

And this is why we see players who never try anything other than what's on their character sheet. I've seen this DM, heck, to my shame, I've BEEN this DM, too many times. And players over the years have learned that if they try to do anything that's not expressly allowed by the rules, it will either automatically fail, or will garner such a slight advantage at such long odds that the cost/benefit analysis precludes the attempt.

This is why I believe coding this sort of thing into the mechanics makes for a much better game than leaving it up to the DM. DM's are very, very reluctant to allow stuff because they're (probably rightfully) worried about screwing with game balance.

Heck, think of it this way. In a 3e game, if your player said, "I'm going to hit the ogre, knocking him a bit off balance so Bob's thief can sneak up on him without provoking AOO's", would you allow that? Yet, this is a basic At-Will for a warlord (Wolf Pack Tactics). To me, it's not a question that one of the other players is forcing my character to move, it's that no DM will ever allow it in the first place.

 

[billd91]

Understood. There would (and there actually is in 4e - a Druid Power is quite similar) be good design space for ranged control for a Fighter/Defender to do something to spend a minor action to "mark" a ranged attacker with the effect line: If the target attacks anyone besides the Fighter until the end of his next turn, the Fighter charges the enemy as an Immediate Reaction.

However, what about this side of things. Certainly the ranged attacker considers themselves shrewd and pragmatic and canny and in a tactically optimal position to be at range. They wouldn't fall for such a goad or a ruse even if their failed Will save/defense says they would. That completely makes no sense and destroys his agency. However...wouldn't the Fighter then say the same thing about moving out of melee? Yeah, perhaps he's unnerved, but that is ridiculous that he would just run away like a coward and give up his optimal tactical advantage of melee control. Perhaps shaken (giving up combat advantage or a - 2 attacks or some such)...but run away...a brave warrior act like a coward and simultaneously give up his tactical advantage of melee control? Never. Not even if the mechanical resolution of a failed Will save/Will defense says he would. That completely makes no sense and destroys his agency.

For me, it's less a question of agency and more a question of idiom. I have no problem with forcing the crossbowman to take a poorly aimed snap shot in anger, even leaving cover (if he had any) to do it. What I have a problem with is eschewing his more natural form of attack in favor of something far more futile.

I don't have the same problem with blind panic because it's a fairly widely experienced phenomenon, even among battle tested soldiers. Why should any character be immune (barring specific immunities like the 3e and PF paladins)?

 

[Obryn]

I can absolutely see how if your concerns are primarily about the story, then this is going to work for you. This is why I have tried to be clear I don't question your experience of the mechanic, saying you should use it if you find it adds to the game. This is why things like diplomacy, bluff, come and get it, tend to be disruptive to play for me. Do I want my character to act like a real person? Sure, but within the scope of my immersive experience (which in its own way usually leads to realistic portrayals of character).

Yep. And no worries there, but I'm going to probe a bit if you don't mind.

I think mechanics like this work best when there's a tension between what the fictional character would do, and what you as a third party would like your character to do. Like my Cause Fear example, earlier - your character is going to run, no matter what you want.

I think it's most interesting when the game's mechanics work to align these goals - like Compels in FATE. But D&D (even 4e) is more traditional in this sort of thing, and sometimes gets heavy-handed when a gentler touch is called for... To an extent. Like I said above, I don't think I need that much agency for my NPCs, and if a power is only weird in the 0.1% of the time it's used against PCs, I'm good with that.

So I guess I am asking - what about when your goals are incompatible with Gutboy Barrelhouse's?

-O

 

[Hussar]

For me, it's less a question of agency and more a question of idiom. I have no problem with forcing the crossbowman to take a poorly aimed snap shot in anger, even leaving cover (if he had any) to do it. What I have a problem with is eschewing his more natural form of attack in favor of something far more futile.

I don't have the same problem with blind panic because it's a fairly widely experienced phenomenon, even among battle tested soldiers. Why should any character be immune (barring specific immunities like the 3e and PF paladins)?

But, let's not get too far out of context here.

For that crossbowman eschewing his more natural attack form, he has to be, at most 15 feet, 5 steps, away from the fighter. I mean, 15 feet away isn't exactly an optimal distance from some sword wielding maniac if I've got a crossbow. He takes three steps and he can stab me. Context is very important.

In that situation, realizing that your crossbow bolt is going to be very ineffective and likely leave you completely open to the guy with the sword isn't that far out of the realm of possibility. Reversing the crossbow and trying to butt stroke the guy with the sword might not actually be a bad tactic.

 

[TwoSix]

...and trying to butt stroke the guy with the sword might not actually be a bad tactic.

Is this a legitimate use of the Come and Get It seduction power?

 

[Guest 85555]

Yep. And no worries there, but I'm going to probe a bit if you don't mind.

I think mechanics like this work best when there's a tension between what the fictional character would do, and what you as a third party would like your character to do. Like my Cause Fear example, earlier - your character is going to run, no matter what you want.

I think it's most interesting when the game's mechanics work to align these goals - like Compels in FATE. But D&D (even 4e) is more traditional in this sort of thing, and sometimes gets heavy-handed when a gentler touch is called for... To an extent. Like I said above, I don't think I need that much agency for my NPCs, and if a power is only weird in the 0.1% of the time it's used against PCs, I'm good with that.

So I guess I am asking - what about when your goals are incompatible with Gutboy Barrelhouse's?

-O

For me what matters is that I feel like Gutboy Barrelhouse, not that I sim him perfectly.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My beef with, "Let the DM do it" is that it, IMO, over-priveleges the DM at the table. The player comes up with what the player believes to be a reasonable taunt and no one at the table is being a jerk. We're talking about a reasonable table, everyone's on board.

The players are facing a group of kobolds with an intervening space between them. The player taunts the kobolds, in their own language so he knows they understand, with the expectation that the kobolds will come and get him. The DM, looking at the situation, realizes that this will give the players a very large tactical advantage and rules that no, the kobolds don't fall for the taunt.

So, the player is basically SOL. What he believes to be a good idea gets flushed down the toiled because the DM doesn't like it. And there is absolutely no recourse here because the DM is final arbiter.

Fair enough, situation plays out and the PC's are victorious after a hard fought battle.

Next session (or maybe the one after that), a similar situation arises. The PC's have cornered a group of bandits in a house or cave. Doesn't really matter. What are the odds that the player is going to try the same thing again? Why would he bother? He knows it's not going to work. He knows because it didn't work the last time. There's no reason why it would suddenly work this time, so, he doesn't bother.

And this is why we see players who never try anything other than what's on their character sheet. I've seen this DM, heck, to my shame, I've BEEN this DM, too many times. And players over the years have learned that if they try to do anything that's not expressly allowed by the rules, it will either automatically fail, or will garner such a slight advantage at such long odds that the cost/benefit analysis precludes the attempt.

I can see all of that. Here's the problem though.

If you establish a culture where the players won't do anything off book because they aren't confident it will work, the same players will logically expect that anything on their character sheet will work. And that over-privileges them. It encourages and incentivizes the players to make sure that everything they could want to do, they have an ability for (min/maxing) and to fight tooth and nail any time a DM makes a ruling (rules lawyering). It also disincentivizes them from being creative or trying anything that they don't have a rule saying they can do.

So we have it established that when a DM says no to a player's proposed action and that was the "wrong" decision, it spooks the players. That's true. But what happens when a DM says "yes" to something and shouldn't? That's when games become broken. So I get to a different conclusion than this:

This is why I believe coding this sort of thing into the mechanics makes for a much better game than leaving it up to the DM. DM's are very, very reluctant to allow stuff because they're (probably rightfully) worried about screwing with game balance.

To me, what you've done is make the case instead for "say yes" DMing/. Because it's true that frequent DM decisions against the players can discourage them.

I've been that DM too. In fact, I've been both DMs, the one who shuts the players down by saying no, and the one who lets them abuse the game. Frankly, I don't think any rules can meaningfully accelerate the learning curve on these types of things.

 

[n00bdragon]

Which is exactly why the rules shouldn't have to. Rules can't teach you how to be a good DM or a good player. They can only give you tools to work with. Perhaps a beginner violinist can't get the full use out of a Stradivarius but that doesn't mean that a Stradivarius has no use or that we should just all make do with crappy violins because it's best suited for the lowest common denominator.

Good rules empower players to take all sorts of actions without being pidgeon-holed or rendered useless just because they have a bad DM, or maybe even just an okay DM who lacks experience. Good rules also empower a DM to make judgement calls easily and good rules help justify to a DM why characters should be able to attempt a large number of actions. The very best rules protect newbies, encourage average players, and impose little burden on experts.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Which is exactly why the rules shouldn't have to. Rules can't teach you how to be a good DM or a good player. They can only give you tools to work with. Perhaps a beginner violinist can't get the full use out of a Stradivarius but that doesn't mean that a Stradivarius has no use or that we should just all make do with crappy violins because it's best suited for the lowest common denominator.

Good rules empower players to take all sorts of actions without being pidgeon-holed or rendered useless just because they have a bad DM, or maybe even just an okay DM who lacks experience. Good rules also empower a DM to make judgement calls easily and good rules help justify to a DM why characters should be able to attempt a large number of actions. The very best rules protect newbies, encourage average players, and impose little burden on experts.

I think the best example of that I've ever seen in any D&D context is the 3e skill system. Objective and clear, yet open-ended. Simple, but deep. Intuitive, yet optimizable. When I first read it, I thought "that was what I wanted D&D to be".

That's why I suggested (probably ten pages ago) that magic should work that way as well.

 

[n00bdragon]

The 3e skill system so far as the "roll 1d20 and add modifiers to achieve one of the things listed on this table" is indeed rather elegant. The 3e skill system in it's implementation is one of the great failures of the system. Which one were you referring to?