I would also like to point out that the thread title is actually perfect for me. This is how the discussion has gone from my point of view:
OP: I don't like how the new Command spell removes the ambiguity, open nature of the Command Spell.
Me: I actually really like that. I find that the open nature of the Command spell and other similarly written spells, cause all sorts of friction at my table.
Others: Oh, you just have bad players. No good player would ever argue with the DM's ruling.
OP: Here are a bunch of examples of creative Commands that are no longer allowed.
Me: Good. Most of those are abusing the rules and I wouldn't allow most of them.
Others: You are a terrible DM for not allowing player creativity.
Me: So, unless I 100% agree with every single use of "Creative Command", I'm a bad DM. But, anyone arguing with my rulings is a bad player... Ummm... Doesn't this make the OP a bad player for arguing with the DM's ruling?
OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.
It's a total no-win situation for me. And that's called compromise?
This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.
I don't think anyone has said you have to use our preferred version of command. I certainly have no problem with you saying you prefer a more restricted version, and playing with a more restricted version with people who are good with that. All I've been doing is saying I agree with the OP, and defending my right to a non-RAW preference.
But, look at what you've said in the quote above -- yet again, you've indicated that the way I'd prefer to run my games isn't simply my preference -- it's actually "abusing the rules". Do you not see how someone might dispute that?
I've got no problem with you wanting a restrictive version, but if that's what you want, you make that clear in discussion with your players and then you play. It's really that simple. However, whenever anyone gives an example of how they would implement the rule differently in order to promote more creative uses, you respond by telling them only jerks would do that, that their method of doing things is an abuse, and then for some reason you provide us examples of tortured ways in which you would rule at the table if someone tried that, including telling players that "salute won't work, because salute is not a verb," even though salute absolutely is a verb. Then, when that was pointed out, you doubled down and said salute still won't work, because the concept of the modern salute didn't enter Western society until the 16th Century, and went on to say that it therefore should not be allowed as an anachromism. That is absolutely a petty way to go about things, given that anachronism has always been a part of D&D, and is no less so today than it ever was; that many, many people do believe in a "Roman salute" (I only found out it probably didn't actually exist because of this thread), and that there is absolutely no reason something similar to a salute could not exist in a fantasy world at any point.
Like, really, that's how you would respond? You wouldn't instead say, "Hey, I don't enjoy having to adjudicate the edge cases that come up when using a broad interpretation of Command, so when I'm DMing, it's limited to the specific list of options given in the description"?
For the record, I have no interest in convincing you that my way is the best of or that you should adopt my views. I just can't help but respond when I see you repeatedly claiming that my way is for jerks and uncreative cheesemonkeys and is abusive.
I will agree that I have suggested you have (or had) a dysfunctional group, but that's only because
you are the one telling us that you've had to deal with lots of disputes and arguments that grind the game to a halt -- and that, to me, makes the group dysfunctional.
I would like to highlight these two lines:
OP: Nope, you're a bad DM that I'd never want to play under because you hate player creativity.
I don't think you hate player creativity, but I am pretty sure I wouldn't want to play with you as DM. That doesn't make you a bad person, that just means it's pretty clear we have very different playstyles and I don't have anything to gain by being a player in your game.
If we were friends outside gaming, the situation would potentially be different, and I'd be willing to compromise a fair bit if you really, really wanted to run a 5e game using your particular preferences, and our group as a whole was up for it.
This thread 100% encapsulates EXACTLY what happens at my game table over and over and over again because of these poorly written spells and effects. Players either deliberately or mistakenly "misunderstanding" the mechanics in order to grab as many advantages as they can.
But you're not arguing with me because the spell is poorly written -- you're arguing with me because we have different preferences. That's not the fault of the rules. As I just mentioned above, the simple solution is to not play with people that have such mismatched expectations -- in the real world, you wouldn't have to deal with me arguing with you at the table, because I wouldn't want to play at your table in the first place and, if I was in your position, with your preferences, I count that as a win because would not want me there in the first place.
However, as I also mentioned, if I
did end up at your table, it would in a situation where I was willing to accede to your preferences as DM -- as long as you're clear about them. Again, "I prefer the stricter interpretation of Command by RAW, rather than a more open-ended one," would be perfectly fine, and I'd accept that for what it is, saving any questions/concerns about style for reasoned discussions between sessions, not during them. On the other hand, if your method of making your style clear ended up involving petty quibbling about verbs not being verbs, "gotcha" comments involving obscure anachronisms, or calling me an abusive jerk, then the result would be me walking away.
And, to finish off, I will say it again, because I want this to be clear: I have
zero problem with you wanting a strict, limited version of Command at tables where you play or DM.