Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 9439489" data-attributes="member: 2067">This is just why the DMG (and maybe the PHB) needs to discuss things like bottlenecking and collaboration in terms DMs (and players) can quickly grok and apply, not a reason to ban all open-ended game mechanics.If I'm worried about "cheesemonkey weaseling," I'm worried about a player behavior that's toxic to the group's dynamic, not about a game mechanic. The problem with paladins and rogues fighting each other was never really about paladins and rogues, after all. Kender players never needed the kender as an excuse. Etc.We're often missing good game mechanics to support this pillar of play. It's an area that desperately needs work in D&D. Taking out parts of the game that are like that isn't really a solution, though.That's not the reason command was written that way in 2014. I can confidently say that it was an intentional choice, not an accident.There's good things that come from that choice.There is a vast gulf between "I don't like this," and "this is poor game design." Don't mistake preference for quality.It also sounds like the reason you don't like this is because there's some tension between you and some players - some place where you're not agreeing on what you're sitting down at the table to do (you want a moment of a cool dungeon trap, they reject that - why?). That is a social contract problem, not a rules problem. It's still a problem D&D should be better about designing around, IMO, though it can't very well do that if it's focused on flattening the experience, either.Trojan horsing a martials vs. magicals argument into here is a meaningless distraction. It doesn't just move the goalposts, it imagines we're playing a whole different sport. Stay on target.If you have an issue with open-ended mechanics, you have an issue with both the 2014 command spell and, let's say, an open-ended "called shots" system for attacks that could disable monster parts if a player opted to target a specific bit. Because players could hypothetically steamroll you and exploit some mechanical loophole you weren't prepared for in both situations ("I cut off it's head!" could end a fight real quick).But, like, you're the DM, so what's forcing you to agree to the exploit? Or preventing you from having it work Only Once? Or limiting your ability to say Yes And or Yes But? Why AREN'T you comfortable doing a bit of house ruling for your preferred experience?Because I do think D&D could be a lot better about supporting those decisions, and designing things that reduce the insecurity of players and DMs. And wouldn't it be great if you COULD use all those creative illusions without fear and fragility preventing you? Because I've been at tables where it happens, and it is, IMXP, a LOT of fun.</blockquote>

Verification