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

[Guest 85555]

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.

You are moving them to a precise spot. That is total control. I never said it was the same as dominate.

 

[pemerton]

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."

<snip>

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.

And I do. It bears no connection to my own experience of RPGs nor to my observation of others.

For instance, making an attack in D&D involves picking up a d20. That is a decision that is outside the boundary of the decision made by the PC. Yet in my own experience it is no obstacle to RPing - indeed, the act of picking up the d20, rolling it and looking anxiously at the result in some way correlates to the imagined act of the PC being surrouned by orcs, lifting his/her swordarm and fighting for dear life.

Similarly, the decision that now is the time to use CaGI, because the stakes are high and your enemies are well-positioned for it correlates to the PCs observation that "They've fallen into my trap!" and that now is the time to exploit that, and to exert his/her will and turn the tide of the battle.

I'm happy to accept that there are players out there who don't get this sort of experience from the resource-management of encounter and daily powers. But I personally know players who do. And it doesn't dissociate them from their PCs. It is part of their "habitation" of them.

(A completely different mechanic where I don't accept Alexander's anaysis would be declarations of action in systems - like Burning Wheel, or some variants within Rolemaster - where actions are declared in ignorance of others' declaration before resolution then unfolds. Of course the PC is not writing down a secret action declaration. Of course the PC is not in a stop-motion, action-ecnomy world. But action declaration need not dissociate the player from the PC - it is a correlation to the fog of war, the need to make desperate decisions and take chances that may pay off, or may backfire if the enemy has more luck and/or skill than you.)

 

[pemerton]

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?

As you can see from the replies to your post, different 4e GMs have different views about how PC build resources relate to NPC build resources. I rarely use the first for the second, for the simple reason that the first are designed to create dramatic protagonists, whereas when I build NPCs I want to create dramatic antagonists that will support my players' protagonism rather than undercut it.

So generally if I want a monster to pull PCs in I will give it a chain or net or claws or disgusting tongue or something similarly dramatic and gonzo and highighting the PCs' ability to escape from near-certain death. I have used NPC duelists who are skilled at the sort of weapon play that CaGI can represent, but not that often - occupying that niche is predominantly the players' role (via their PCs).

 

[Neonchameleon]

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...

For anything other than mind control it lasts half a minute and very tightly constrains the choices to "Either attack the guy in very heavy armour or attack no one." It's the half minute long part (as opposed to a couple of seconds) that makes it utterly ridiculous. I'd buy it if it lasted one round (or preferably one attack) although I'd think it was clunky. But half a minute?

 

[Imaro]

For anything other than mind control it lasts half a minute and very tightly constrains the choices to "Either attack the guy in very heavy armour or attack no one." It's the half minute long part (as opposed to a couple of seconds) that makes it utterly ridiculous. I'd buy it if it lasted one round (or preferably one attack) although I'd think it was clunky. But half a minute?

Your first point is wrong... you can also attack others either through AoE spells or if you would suffer AoO while trying to reach the Knight. The effect also ends if anyone other than the knight attacks you. Second you seem to be moving goalsposts... we aren't talking about it being ridiculous... you claimed it was mind control, and it isn't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your first point is wrong... you can also attack others either through AoE spells or if you would suffer AoO while trying to reach the Knight. The effect also ends if anyone other than the knight attacks you. Second you seem to be moving goalsposts... we aren't talking about it being ridiculous... you claimed it was mind control, and it isn't.

If you genuinely think that having who you can attack dictated other than under very rare circumstances for a full half minute as an explicit compulsion is not mind control then we have seriously differing opinions. Further given the AoO condition, you can risk yourself in order to break the compulsion - something that makes perfect sense for magic.

If you don't see that as mind control our frames of reference are so far apart that no wonder we've been talking past each other.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, there aren't "things like come and get it". There is thing. Singular. Well, ok, there are three powers out of about 300 that actually qualify. How is that an "escalation"?

Note, AD&D didn't have things like diplomacy in it because AD&D didn't have a skill mechanic. That's not entirely fair.

 

[Guest 85555]

But, there aren't "things like come and get it". There is thing. Singular. Well, ok, there are three powers out of about 300 that actually qualify. How is that an "escalation"?

Because it is one of five 7th level encounter exploits in the PHb and therefore quite likely to come up if you have fighters in the group.

Note, AD&D didn't have things like diplomacy in it because AD&D didn't have a skill mechanic. That's not entirely fair.

Non-weapon profinciencies were introduced in 1E and pretty standard by 2E. They were basically skills. There was even an ettiquette NWP. It was quite expicitly framed as a knowledge skill in order to not have it interfere with role play the way that diplomacy later would. Even reaction adjustments were pretty muted things in earlier editions for that reason, so I do think there is a good argument for an escalation of this sort of thing.

 

[Hussar]

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.
/snip

And you don't see the inherent problem with this definition? Lots, and lots of RPG's are now no longer role playing games by this definition. Basically any RPG with meta game resources stops being an RPG.

Take 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars. Great game. Lots of fun. In the game, you, as the player, can declare that any scenario is won by your character, so long as you have the resources to spend. In doing so, you must define some essential element of your character that was previously undefined, through the use of a flashback, dictated by you, the player. That flashback then becomes an integral part of that character and the player is expected, from that point forward, to use that element, whatever that is, in presenting his or her character in the game.

In other words, your beginning character is largely undefined. The character gains definition through play. Note, you can also dictate the terms of a loss using a similar mechanic. And, again, that element becomes part of your character.

Or take FATE. Bennies and Fate Points are essentially meta-game resources. You or the DM can push anyone at any time. By this definition, we aren't really roleplaying at this point, despite the fact that these pushes are all about defining our character and playing our character role.

Or, to put it another way, this definition is one big ball of Badwrongfun, essentially excluding any game which JA wants to exclude (4e obviously) while still including his favourite games under his own definition.

I don't think JA is making an argument, he's framing a definition. Disassociation = "stepping beyond the boundaries of the character." I freely admit that you can define the word in other ways, because we're discussing what is, for us, technical jargon.

In that framing though, he's defining the arguments parameters. In order to go forward, anyone who wants to discuss this has to use his definitions, which by definition EXCLUDE any game he doesn't like, for no other reason than, he doesn't like them.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Then suggest an alternative. What mechanic can we use that will allow a non-magical method to influence the actions of another character with a reasonable (let's say 75%) chance of success?