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

[Obryn]

I wouldn't even be bringing this up if it weren't such a deep and obvious divide between which side makes judgements about what is or should be "allowed," and which side just pushes for its preference to be represented and supported. Just my personal experience with this forum, perhaps, or perhaps not representative, but clearly not an outlying extreme POV.

Yep, it's absolutely a my experience, too, around these parts.

-O

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh, my bad, manbearcat, this is a caricature of an argument. Not productive or accurate at all for the conversation being had by most in this thread. As always, play what you like

The entire argument about Come And Get It is about how fighters can have abilities the speaker doesn't like. It's not saying anything profound about 4e that there is a single heroic tier power that people dislike. But mysteriously it's the one that wastes an awful lot of people' time. And when it is pointed out that it is an optional ability that people only take if they want to for some reason this gets ignored.

As always play what you like is the perfect tagline for why I have yet to see one single good argument why 4e should not include even the pre-errata version of Come And Get It. It is literally a pure argument that people should not be allowed to play what they like.

If you don't like Come And Get It as a power no one is forcing you to take it even if you play a fighter.

Which is to say exactly the same thing [MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION] has just said and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] has just agreed with. Every argument ever raised against Come And Get It is an argument that no player anywhere should get an ability that some people like and want. It is a strictly optional ability that you don't have if you don't take. But according to one side this should not be allowed.

 

[Guest 85555]

Actually, you have said this. Many times. In this thread.

if I did then I was expressing my view well. I think people who are into narrative mechanics form a significant group, but I do think they are a smaller block than traditional gamers (just my opinion based on what I see). Wotc would be foolish to ignore them though. At the same time, its delicate because what storygamers and what traditional gamers want in a system are often in tension. For example, if you want scene framing mehanics in the game that is fine, i dont hold your preference aginst you, but it is the opposite of what I am looking for.

....s are also true. If Next comes with baked-in process sim mechanics, I may not ever even try it. I'll still read it, though I sure as heck won't buy it.

sure. I agreed with this. But certainly this exposes where there is a problem in satisfying both audiences (dpening on how rigidly you are defining simulation mechanics here).

Yes, and I've said this all along. I was plugging for a 2e-style basic game with everything marked as 'optional' or 'tournament', etc, last year at this time, but I was more often than not met with angry posts from decidedly unreasonable folks who didn't even want to accept anything 4e-styled in the core books at all - optional or not.

if its optional, i wont mind. But I do want to play the next version of D&D completely 4E free. Should people be jerks about it? No. But there is no scarcity f that sort of behavior on either side.

 

[Hussar]

It is a demonstration of new design paradigm and as such, if you don't like the effect on the game you view the rest of the game suspiciously. Particularly when you find other isolated examples spread through the rules. This means the developers feel this type of design is fair game and a player can and should expect it to pop up in further cases: monster powers, adventures, etc.

Now it does seem the designer have backed away from that design with the clarification/rule adjustment in the Rule Compedium, but by that time I had dumped my books and am unlikely to develop a renewed interest in the game.

What "other isolated examples"? There is exactly ONE power in the whole PHB 1 that fits your criteria of taking away control of your PC and giving it to another player. And that is fixed by adding one word (willing) to the description, the way it is for every other similar power.

I mean, sheesh, how far out of context do you have to drag the game to make a criticism?

They didn't back away from the design. The design was never there in the first place. I imagine that the rules clarification was added later because there was a vocal segment who appeared incapable of figuring it out for themselves.

 

[Hussar]

Did you miss the post a few pages back where I was informed that most D&D games are "basically the same" according to "industry insiders"? And that reading these boards would lead one to vastly overestimate the differences between games?

That's a bit unfair.

What was said was that the majority of D&D campaigns share a very large number of similarities. And, honestly, that's pretty easy to prove. The enduring popularity of modules shows that. If everyone's campaigns were radically different, the modules, and Pathfinder Adventure Paths, wouldn't be as popular as they are.

 

[Guest 85555]

What "other isolated examples"? There is exactly ONE power in the whole PHB 1 that fits your criteria of taking away control of your PC and giving it to another player. And that is fixed by adding one word (willing) to the description, the way it is for every other similar power.

I mean, sheesh, how far out of context do you have to drag the game to make a criticism?

They didn't back away from the design. The design was never there in the first place. I imagine that the rules clarification was added later because there was a vocal segment who appeared incapable of figuring it out for themselves.

i think he just means other mehnics he finds immersion breaking, not necessarily ones that let you control other pcs. For me, 4e just has a lot of points in it that lose me.

At a certain point people simply disagree.

 

[Hussar]

i think he just means other mehnics he finds immersion breaking, not necessarily ones that let you control other pcs. For me, 4e just has a lot of points in it that lose me.

At a certain point people simply disagree.

Oh, hey, I have no major beef with something like, say, HP and healing surges being a major sticking point. I might disagree with the reasoning, but, at least this is something that's actually going to come up in the game. You can't really play 4e without healing surges. ((I'm sure someone out there is going to tell me I'm wrong, but, by and large, healing surges are certainly an assumed part of the game)).

Or, if AEDU structures break your immersion, I can at least see the argument. Again, it's going to come up every single session and if it bothers you, it's REALLY going to bother you. Again, fair enough.

But, the whole powers thing boils down to THREE POWERS. That's it. Out of the hundreds of powers in the books, three are problematic. It would be no different from me constantly complaining about 3e and how 3e is a bad game and poorly designed, because I cherry picked three feats out of the PHB that are bad. Or three specific spells. And then harp about it every single thread for FOUR YEARS.

Do you not see how this might get a bit frustrating after a while?

Look, criticise 4e for stuff that actually matters. But, since 4e has been released, critics have been pulling single threads way out of context and using them for banners to bash everyone over the head as to why 4e is bad. It's no different than all the crap about "skip the gate guards" which ignored the several PAGES of great DMing advice and laser beam focused on one sentence tacked on at the end.

It's just so frustrating to have to keep screwing around with this minutia and ignoring any of the things that might actually be real issues with the system.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What was said was that the majority of D&D campaigns share a very large number of similarities. And, honestly, that's pretty easy to prove. The enduring popularity of modules shows that. If everyone's campaigns were radically different, the modules, and Pathfinder Adventure Paths, wouldn't be as popular as they are.

That doesn't follow at all. What percentage of D&D games are run using published adventures? How would we really know?

Maybe, maybe you could make those generalizations about a subset of the population that plays published adventures or organized games. However, I'd argue that the "average" D&D player never goes to conventions or even a gaming store and runs a game at home with friends that is mostly homebrewed. Given the state of the hobby and the plenthora of non-supported systems, the average gamer probably doesn't buy products regularly. Since such a group is essentially "off the grid", how would we ever know what percentage of people that is, let alone what the properties of their games are?

The only thing I know for sure is that when I go online and read about D&D, I read about people who run games that are completely different from each other (and from mine). So I'm very skeptical of this claim.

Moreover, I sincerely hope that most D&D campaigns do not share that many similarities.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

if I did then I was expressing my view well. I think people who are into narrative mechanics form a significant group, but I do think they are a smaller block than traditional gamers (just my opinion based on what I see). Wotc would be foolish to ignore them though. At the same time, its delicate because what storygamers and what traditional gamers want in a system are often in tension. For example, if you want scene framing mehanics in the game that is fine, i dont hold your preference aginst you, but it is the opposite of what I am looking for.

I think, as someone upthread pointed out, that you overestimate the size of your tribe. How many will buy 5e regardless of what is in it, simply because it is a new edition? How many have not continued to buy D&D because of your own "customer loyalty" reasons? Not everyone who plays 3.x/PF or retroclones necessarily agrees with you and your reasoning, and I think it is a mistake to assume that the game preferences of either segment are as monolithic as our attitudes.

sure. I agreed with this. But certainly this exposes where there is a problem in satisfying both audiences (dpening on how rigidly you are defining simulation mechanics here).

It certainly does expose a gulf - and one that may not be bridge-able. Clearly, the assumption, expectation, and evidence given in the playtest thus far indicates which way WotC is leaning. Fine, more power to them. I honestly don't care, since I still have a game I like, and even if they yank the online tools, there are ways to circumvent that.

if its optional, i wont mind. But I do want to play the next version of D&D completely 4E free. Should people be jerks about it? No. But there is no scarcity f that sort of behavior on either side.

Likewise, I don't mind optional anything, but I don't want to be reminded of all the things I hated about 3.x around every corner either. Probably not going to work out well for me, judging by what I see so far. Too bad for WotC, but yay for me; I get to keep more of my money.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've seen, and experienced this as well, on many threads, on this very forum. One of the key reasons I've been largely inactive for the better part of 2012. I just couldn't handle the shrieking and harping about "allowing" the designers to put any "4e ideas" in "MY D&D" - all paraphrased and fully caricatured arguments. Except, oh wait, they're not. Those things have been said, both to me and others, on these very forums. No, I'm not going to go back the better part of a year and dig them up, you'll just have to take me at my word.

Those posts are made. But, from my observation, they're usually not by posters who post a lot in the same thread. These really long discussions are almost universally had by much more respectful people.

No, what MY problem is, is folk trying to tell me, or WotC, what they can and can't, should or shouldn't, support or put in 'Next' and a lot of it really does boil down to Muggles Can't Have Nice Things, in some folks' eyes. You know what? Fine. To those gamers, I say, "play what you like" - but don't try to dictate what others are allowed to like, and in this context, advocate for - at least as a core OPTION. I don't think that's asking much.

I replied to this because you said, and I quote, "As soon as we start talking about the "believability" of martial abilities and what that should be "allowed" to represent, it becomes a "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things" argument. There's really no way around it." Now that's an extreme position. People can't talk about what they find believable when it comes to martial abilities or they want fighters to suck. No, man, not buying it. I get that some people want that, but I just can't agree with your statement here.

I wouldn't even be bringing this up if it weren't such a deep and obvious divide between which side makes judgements about what is or should be "allowed," and which side just pushes for its preference to be represented and supported. Just my personal experience with this forum, perhaps, or perhaps not representative, but clearly not an outlying extreme POV.

People are advocating for what they want. There's a lot of stuff I don't like, and say "I don't want to see that." I'm okay with it being optional (in a truly opt-in sense). But, yes, while a lot of people say "the game shouldn't allow this," I see many who say "it should have it." And that goes for all sorts of things, from "process-sim" to "narrative control", and on and on. We have "Fighters should have the ability to spend resources to control the world and make the player's wants happen" and we have "Fighters shouldn't get any ability that can't be explained from their own perspective or from their own mundane capability." People are just stating what they want, and both sometimes phrase it as what the game "should" have in it. I don't think it's nearly so one-sided as you might see it. But, that's from where I'm sitting, and I could be wrong. As always, play what you like

The entire argument about Come And Get It is about how fighters can have abilities the speaker doesn't like.

Right.

It's not saying anything profound about 4e that there is a single heroic tier power that people dislike. But mysteriously it's the one that wastes an awful lot of people' time. And when it is pointed out that it is an optional ability that people only take if they want to for some reason this gets ignored.

I actually addressed this within the last couple days (probably this thread? I'm not 100%).

As always play what you like is the perfect tagline for why I have yet to see one single good argument why 4e should not include even the pre-errata version of Come And Get It. It is literally a pure argument that people should not be allowed to play what they like.

If you don't like Come And Get It as a power no one is forcing you to take it even if you play a fighter.

Which is to say exactly the same thing @Nemesis Destiny has just said and @Obryn has just agreed with. Every argument ever raised against Come And Get It is an argument that no player anywhere should get an ability that some people like and want. It is a strictly optional ability that you don't have if you don't take. But according to one side this should not be allowed.

Kind of. When I talked about why people might still object, I mentioned it being in the core books means that, from my experience, it'll always be a more "accepted" power/ability than anything ever found in a splat book. There's no disclaimer (like, say, the Time Travel power in Mutants and Masterminds). And, it's a good mechanical power for Defenders, which Fighters are in 4e. And just because I may not want it, it doesn't mean someone else won't grab it (I don't have veto power on their character creation options unless I'm DMing). And, in most online builds I see of Fighters, they have Come And Get It. It's not like it's not widespread.

The thing I mentioned is that while yes, you can avoid it, it being in the core PHB/MM/DMG has some things that'll rub people the wrong way. Now, there's a lot of mechanics like that (and I mentioned that in my post, too), but some seem more grating than others (Come And Get It gets a lot more flak than the 3e Knight's taunt, for example -which, for the record, I also disliked). Obviously there's varying degrees of "believability" when designing these powers, and aiming for a middle ground isn't bad, in my mind (the Will save errata was a great step).

But, while people don't like it and voice it, there's reasons beyond "I don't like it, and therefore nobody else should use it either." As I've said, that's a few posters, but not the majority. Mostly, I think it's more of a "I don't like it and would prefer to not deal with it, and it seems pervasive." Fighters are a common and well-loved class in D&D, and, as I said, most builds I've seen have used it. If you have a problem with the power (which it seems like a lot of people do), and you've got a Fighter in the group (which I think a lot of people do), and that player takes Come And Get It (which I think probably happens, if they hit 7th level [I think]), then I see why this objection comes up.

But, again, most posters in this thread right now are saying "I don't like it" or "I don't want it or powers/abilities like it assumed" or the like. But, I think most posters who engage in these long debates are reasonable enough that they'd be okay with it being an option. And that' pretty much not at all what I'm getting from your post, here. As always, play what you like