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

[Ahnehnois]

An additional complexity here is the move from "the DM's story" - which is the phrase you used that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] and I picked up on - to "cooperative improvisational storytelling". If the GM is allowed to suspend the action resolution mechanics to narrate something that suits the story, do the players enjoy the same privilege? One feature of what one might genuinely call "story games" is that they do allocate this power among the participants, rather than confine it just to one participant. Conversely, a game like Call of Cthulhu in which one participant enjoys a type of narrative power that others lack (eg the GM can set the terms of the sanity that PCs suffer, and hence exercise a high degree of control over what the PCs do - there is only limited player agency in CoC) is in my view properly characterised not as cooperative storytelling, but rather as an RPG with a high degree of GM force.

In D&D, no, I don't think the players are ever going to enjoy the same privilege, simply because D&D posits the role of an omnipotent DM. It can still be considered cooperative, because the players generally have a high degree of control over their own characters, but more importantly because they are there and can influence the DM. The term cooperative does not necessarily imply that all parties are equally involved.

And indeed, there are certainly other ways of dividing power. I do think that one DM is the best approach in general, while shared narrative control is an interesting but smaller niche, because the responsibility associated with that power is not something that most rpg participants want to or can handle well, and because dividing the power to make decisions inherently leads to more debate and more competing influences that make those decisions take longer.

 

[billd91]

So you allow 3e diplomacy to work on PC's?

That follows from absolutely nothing I've said. I suggest you re-read.

 

[billd91]

I'm with Neonchameleon here. Whether or not one approves of karmic resolution for CaGI - and pesonally I do, and at my table we use the pre-errata version - it has nothing to do with "dissociation".

And I never said the fix had anything to do with dissociation. So I'm not entirely sure why that statement keeps coming up in this part of the side discussion.

As for whether the players would like it - of course there are interesting sensitivities there! But I'm sure the players generally wouldn't like it if you did your quickie-estimate resolution in lieu of mechanical resolution against them either, even if the numbers stacked up in much the same way as they do when you narrate rather than resolve PC victory against NPCs. But CaGI typically isn't used against PCs. And at least to me, there's no parity between player agency - which is exercised primarily via the PC in an advocacy role - and GM force, which is exercised primarily via framing and adjudication, not via adopting the advocacy role in respect of any particular NPC. (In fact, it is fairly common for advice for new GMs to advise against confusing the GM's role in respect of NPCs with the players' relationships with their PCs.)

There's certainly a reason I wouldn't narrate the defeat of the PCs if the numbers are badly against them. They tend to have ways of pulling weird events out of the aether that I can't anticipate. Plus, they are the protagonists, after all. The NPCs and their reactions (and their egos) are under my control, so I have no problem with them dropping in droves. They have no individual dignity.

But I also run games in which other humans/demi-humans are frequent antagonists. If they're running into opposition fighters, it makes sense that some would be using powers like Come and Get It. If the PCs can do it as part of their fighting repertoire, why shouldn't NPC fighters with similar styles? Is that discouraged in 4e for some reason? Why?

 

[Hussar]

That follows from absolutely nothing I've said. I suggest you re-read.

You stated that no version of DnD made mechanical distinctions between PCs and NPCs wrt resolution mechanics. That is not true. DnD has always distinguished between the two in some form.

Funny how Pemerton saw my point immedietly. If I was so off base how come he got it?

 

[Hussar]

And I never said the fix had anything to do with dissociation. So I'm not entirely sure why that statement keeps coming up in this part of the side discussion.



There's certainly a reason I wouldn't narrate the defeat of the PCs if the numbers are badly against them. They tend to have ways of pulling weird events out of the aether that I can't anticipate. Plus, they are the protagonists, after all. Trhe NPCs and their reactions (and their egos) are under my control, so I have no problem with them dropping in droves. They have no individual dignity.

But I also run games in which other humans/demi-humans are frequent antagonists. If they're running into opposition fighters, it makes sense that some would be using powers like Come and Get It. If the PCs can do it as part of their fighting repertoire, why shouldn't NPC fighters with similar styles? Is that discouraged in 4e for some reason? Why?

Your presumption here is that players will always object to this. IME that is not true. Why would a player for whom CaGI is not problematic have a problem if it is used by an NPC? Is a slide 2 really that objectionable?

But I'm curious why you have no problems with diplomacy never working on pc's. after all, doesn't that mean that the PC's are no longer just another person in the world?

 

[billd91]

You stated that no version of DnD made mechanical distinctions between PCs and NPCs wrt resolution mechanics. That is not true. DnD has always distinguished between the two in some form.

Funny how Pemerton saw my point immedietly. If I was so off base how come he got it?

You're really twisting what I'm saying. There is a long-term general structure in place - characters, whether PC or NPC, do damage because they hit a target AC. They dominate or charm because they overcome a defense, whether that's a save or static defense is immaterial to this discussion. There are relatively few cases of things automatically affecting the target without some ameliorating factor that needs to be overcome. How is that not true?

And Pemerton "got" it because he followed your tangent, not because it's really germane to my statement at all.

 

[Hussar]

The reason I brought up diplomacy and morale is that every version of DnD has handled this issue pretty much the same. Certain effect and mechanics don't apply to PCs.

Wouldn't that be the pretty simple solution here?

 

[Hussar]

You're really twisting what I'm saying. There is a long-term general structure in place - characters, whether PC or NPC, do damage because they hit a target AC. They dominate or charm because they overcome a defense, whether that's a save or static defense is immaterial to this discussion. There are relatively few cases of things automatically affecting the target without some ameliorating factor that needs to be overcome. How is that not true?

And Pemerton "got" it because he followed your tangent, not because it's really germane to my statement at all.

Maybe I'm missing the point but you do realize that you have to hit for CaGI to work right? At least in post errata. Bit evem pre-errata, is a shift 2 really that big of a deal?

 

[Guest 85555]

The reason I brought up diplomacy and morale is that every version of DnD has handled this issue pretty much the same. Certain effect and mechanics don't apply to PCs.

Wouldn't that be the pretty simple solution here?

that doesn't mean those instances are identical. I see it as a bit of an escalation. AD&D had morale and reaction adjustment, 3E added in stuff like diplomacy, intimidate and bluff while 4E threw in things like come and get it. For me, when I got to 3E diplomacy and bluff felt like they took things too far.

 

[Guest 85555]

Maybe I'm missing the point but you do realize that you have to hit for CaGI to work right? At least in post errata. Bit evem pre-errata, is a shift 2 really that big of a deal?

To some it is. I do find it disruptive myself. I don't expect others to share my thoughts (just like I get that some people love the diplomacy skill). But I don't understand why people are so insistent that it shouldn't be a problem for us.