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

[Guest 85555]

All tabletop RPG rules are, of necessity, a simplification. If you take away my ability to strongly influence an opponent, you take away my ability to play effective chess. I accept the idea that I (or you - I don't care) should have to roll for CAGI - but unless you want to zoom in to a level of detail where I roll at least every second I do not accept the idea that I can not strongly guide your actions. This objection comes under the heading of "Combat rounds are every six seconds. Do you only make one sword stroke in that time or are we abstracting to get to the outcome?" If we're in stop-motion, only acting once every six seconds, I find the whole thing ridiculous. If I'm not allowed to try to bring you where I want as part of a block of time then you've effectively nullified my ability to influence the world around me. If you want to go into enough detail, we're going to, as I say, need rolls every second.

Well, we have already had this debate and people simply disagree on whether CAGI reflects guiding someone's actions in combat well without causing a break in immersion. Again, if you have no trouble with, that is fine, but certainly do, and i find arguments about chess, combat rounds, etc are not doing much to alleviate the issue for me.

 

[Bluenose]

But you are not actually contolling your opponent. He or she is still making decisions. All you are doing is shaping the environment in which those decisions are made.

Yes. And if that manipulation leads to someone doing exactly what you want, then it's frankly easiest to represent by allowing you to have temporary control of their actions. There's a reason

is a meme. There's a reason "All warfare is based on deception" is still valuable advice. There's a reason professionals wrote fighting manuals that emphasise disguising what you're trying to do. It's very realistic.

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes. And if that manipulation leads to someone doing exactly what you want, then it's frankly easiest to represent by allowing you to have temporary control of their actions. There's a reason

is a meme. There's a reason "All warfare is based on deception" is still valuable advice. There's a reason professionals wrote fighting manuals that emphasise disguising what you're trying to do. It's very realistic.

Except they might do something slightly different from what you expect. The issue is the total control for some of us breaks that divide between our character and another. Again, if it doesnt bother you that is totally fine, but it does bother me. I am not denying the value of deception in combat, I am just saying taking control of another piece on the board doesnt get that for me.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ah ah ah hah! Okay, now it's starting make sense why we're talking around each other here. One of the key premises of Alexander's entire argument is that the act of "dissociation"--players making decisions outside the boundaries of those the character can make within the milieu--is inevitably and irrevocably "leaving the PC's perspective." It's a direct 1-to-1 correlation; you make a "dissociated" decision, you are necessarily not roleplaying at that exact moment. As soon as the player "re-enters" their "PC Habitation" space, he or she is then "roleplaying" again.

In the Alexandrian's theory, the act of "roleplaying" (at least as it ties to mechanical resolution, and not merely "freeform storytelling") is inextricably tied to the association / dissociation binary. When working within an RPG's mechanical resolution structures, "roleplaying" is made possible through decision-making association.

Now, you can argue with this premise, certainly. But if you accept the baseline premise, then the act of "dissociation" is necessarily a form of removing the player from their "PC Habitation." And if you accept the premise, the question becomes, does/do the player(s) care when this happens, and how often, and how long does it last, and is their play agenda predicated on maintaining that "PC Habitation" at all? If you DO care that it happens, and you want it to happen as little as possible, and when it DOES happen it lasts as short a time as possible, then your affinity for a given mechanic or set of mechanics will vary wildly. (And likewise for the opposite. If the player doesn't care, doesn't have a preference for maintaining "PC Habitation", then things that cause "breaks" in that habitation don't bother him or her. I think most of us prefer a middle ground, where we sacrifice some "PC Habitation" time for other interesting results, to speed up play, or to make things "thematically appropriate." I personally just don't like sacrificing very much of it.)

For example, pemerton, you've widely cited the example of your player saying that the Raven Queen actually "caused" a saving throw success, citing that it was a "thematically appropriate" to the fiction, and caused the player to be more immersed, because that's what should happen when you're a paladin of the Raven Queen. An interesting conversation to me would be to compare my approach to that player's approach, and see where the similarities, and differences lie in how we view our "PC Habitation" space, and how a rules system aids or detracts from it. It would be fun to hear his perspective, to gain some understanding.

What bothers me about Alexander's argument is the method of argument actually. It is effectively an excluded middle type of argument. In ACTUAL RPGs the players do all sorts of things to interact with the rules, which are meta-game constructs and thus clearly 'out of character'. You can verify this by imagining play at the table. You roll dice, you ask the DM questions, you listen to descriptions, you reference the rules and/or your character sheet, etc. This stuff happens CONSTANTLY. Even if you manage to speak in character and act out your part as a player mostly in character the fact is that being in character is only one aspect of play. Even for the player who's agenda is immersive RP the actual game in all cases is a mix, so what is the point in railing against the fact that games can take advantage of that part of the game and make it do cool stuff. Not only that, but I find the notion that a game would be better if it consists of only the player's favorite activity. Some players love to fiddle with character building, but the game would not be best as nothing but a character building exercise. Allowing for meta-game aspects of play and for instance having plot coupons, etc can SET UP BETTER RP, which you may well enjoy in-character, but it still needs that setup and support to be maximally enjoyable.

Truthfully this is how I feel about a lot of parts of the game, they are there not because they are the most enjoyable parts, but because they allow and create the conditions for the primary agenda to be pursued, whatever that may be for a given player. Resource tracking is not in-and-of-itself that exciting, nobody is thrilled by addition and subtraction or marking checkboxes on their sheet. Yet many players find it a vital part of play that is needed to set up the fun. Likewise you might not particularly be thrilled by plot coupons and such, but if they help set up an interesting character and situation then they're good things, as are AEDU powers, etc.

 

[Imaro]

But you are not actually contolling your opponent. He or she is still making decisions. All you are doing is shaping the environment in which those decisions are made. Just like if you taunt me, then i get mad and type a profanity in big screaming letters. You didnt control my behavior, i did. I chose not just to type big screaming letters but also to let your post provoke my anger. You are still very much inhabiting yourself and not experiencing the world from my point of view (you might try to guess what I am thinking or how I will react, but it is just an estimation). There is a huge difference between having chess rules that liiterally allow you to move my pieces versus the current rules where you can try to create conditions where i will move some place you anticipate.

This... it's why an inexperienced chess player can still surprise a good or even great chess player, since manipulating them is based upon what you believe they will do when a certain situation is created... of course an inexperienced or unskilled player may do something totally alien to what someone who understands and plays chess at a higher level of proficiency would choose to do.

Except they might do something slightly different from what you expect. The issue is the total control for some of us breaks that divide between our character and another. Again, if it doesnt bother you that is totally fine, but it does bother me. I am not denying the value of deception in combat, I am just saying taking control of another piece on the board doesnt get that for me.

Yeah I tried to make this point way back in this thread, but some people decided to tell me what my point was and what I was trying to prove (even after being corrected) instead of actually taking me at my word and reading what I was actually posting.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except they might do something slightly different from what you expect. The issue is the total control for some of us breaks that divide between our character and another. Again, if it doesnt bother you that is totally fine, but it does bother me. I am not denying the value of deception in combat, I am just saying taking control of another piece on the board doesnt get that for me.

But a two square pull isn't total control. Total control would involve taking the opponent's entire turn a la dominate. Rather than just pulling them into the wrong postition. Alternatively it would take 3.5 Knight style mind control that lasts for half a minute rather than merely getting them a bit out of position. You're only assuming total control when you play the other person's go for them. That doesn't happen with CAGI.

 

[Imaro]

But a two square pull isn't total control. Total control would involve taking the opponent's entire turn a la dominate. Rather than just pulling them into the wrong postition. Alternatively it would take 3.5 Knight style mind control that lasts for half a minute rather than merely getting them a bit out of position. You're only assuming total control when you play the other person's go for them. That doesn't happen with CAGI.

Exactly which Knight ability are you speaking to as "mind control that lasts for half a minute?"

 

[Balesir]

If you're not "telling a story" what are you doing when you're playing D&D? AFAIK D&D is a form of cooperative improvisational storytelling (among other things).

As has already been said, I'm playing a game, and maybe living the life of a character.

I can and frequently do make a story* of my own life, but that doesn't make my life "a form of cooperative improvisational storytelling". Will a roleplaying session generate stories? Sure - at least we hope so, since stuff happening that's worth retelling is part of the point! But our aim and focus in play is not to "generate a story" - experience tells me that that is a pretty poor way to get a story (or, maybe, a pretty good way to get a poor story!)

In short, a story, like life, is what happens while you're busy doing other things...

*: Actually, strictly, stories - the mechanisms of how and why are well described in a fine little book called, simply, "Why?" by Charles Tilly.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Exactly which Knight ability are you speaking to as "mind control that lasts for half a minute?"

Test of Mettle. It lasts for half a minute ("The effect of a test of mettle lasts for a number of rounds equal to 5 + your Charisma bonus (if any)." and it compels the target's actions "Creatures that fail this save are forced to attack you with their ranged or melee attacks in preference over other available targets. If a foe attacks by casting a spell or using a supernatural ability, he must target you with the attack or include you in the effect's area.")

 

[Imaro]

Test of Mettle. It lasts for half a minute ("The effect of a test of mettle lasts for a number of rounds equal to 5 + your Charisma bonus (if any)." and it compels the target's actions "Creatures that fail this save are forced to attack you with their ranged or melee attacks in preference over other available targets. If a foe attacks by casting a spell or using a supernatural ability, he must target you with the attack or include you in the effect's area.")

Uhm... ok, so it dictates your (possible) target but not how you attack... ranged (avoiding the "stupid Archer/Weak Melee problem of CaGi), spell (avoiding the "stupid Spellcaster problem of CaGi), or melee. It also doesn't control where or how you move. And if you have an area attack, as long as you also target the knight, you can target others as well.

On top of all that it also states that if an enemy can take an AoO in getting to the Knight... an enemy can choose to use a ranged attack and/or doesn't have to attack him at all, (avoiding another aspect of the "stupid Archer/Spellcaster/Weak Melee problem of CaGi...)

For mind control it sure leaves alot of choices up to the DM playing those creatures. Just Sayin...