D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[EzekielRaiden]

Got a source for that? Any edition of D&D works better as a team based game.

How players work togather varies.

It's not a source thing. It's...it's just the meaning of what a "team based game" is.

If it's team based, you need teamwork to succeed. Otherwise, your success is blind luck.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not a source thing. It's...it's just the meaning of what a "team based game" is.

If it's team based, you need teamwork to succeed. Otherwise, your success is blind luck.

Depends. I've commented on what my groups do enough.

 

[CreamCloud0]

My apologies, I didn't mean it in a bad way.

no worries, there was no offence taken, though i am a bit surprised that Command is not on the Wizard list, feels like something they'd have, to me at least.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm deadly serious here. I find this utterly baffling and not one example folks have given has changed that. It just all sounds like you pre-emptively decided "Anyone ever telling me what to do, for any reason, even if it's nothing more than offering me a benefit, HAS STOLEN MY CHARACTER!"

tangentially, this kind of possessiveness of character autonomy is also partly why i think it's so hard to suggest a proper social mechanics system, because Oh no my character might be persuaded to do something i don't explicitly condone them wanting to do!

 

[Remathilis]

tangentially, this kind of possessiveness of character autonomy is also partly why i think it's so hard to suggest a proper social mechanics system, because Oh no my character might be persuaded to do something i don't explicitly condone them wanting to do!

But it does beg the question that if a characters thoughts and actions are both controlled by mechanics, what is the point of "roleplay"? For example, if the DM says "you believe the merchant is honest" because they rolled high on their deception, that still doesn't mean I will buy the colored water he is pawning as potions of healing. And if you tell me I have no reason to believe the huckster is anything but honest, you basically have taken away the ability to play the character in a way I see fit.

I have a very finite limit on what I deem acceptable when it comes to influencing my character. You can give me as many carrots or use as many sticks as you want, but my declared action (or my characters beliefs) are decided by me alone unless overt magical powers overrides that. You don't get to tell me that my character feels afraid or gullible or compelled to run up to a armed warrior black ninja style. You can give me super disadvantage and force me to take psychic damage if I resist, but I want the option to resist. Otherwise why am I playing a character rather than a pawn in a board game?*


* I remember once playing the Game of Life with some kids in the day care I worked at. At one point I was deeply in debt and drew the card that said I bought a helicopter. My brain initially resisted the notion saying that there is no way I would buy an expensive item like that while in debt, but I realized it's not supposed to represent a rational person acting, it's a random chance mechanic disguised as a real world action. So unless D&D is supposed to exist on the same level of logic, I refuse to buy a helicopter regardless of how well you roll on persuasion when I'm already deep in debt.

 

[Gimby]

Given the nasty side-effects of Haste (in the version I'm used to, anyway) it very much could be seen as CvC at times.

Also, and this is from a how-does-this-make-sense-in -the-fiction perspective, why would martial control abilities only apply to enemies rather than to whoever the controller wants them to? In other words, what's the difference between an ally and an enemy that makes one vulnerable but the other not?

For 4e Warlord abilities at least, the difference is physical. The warlord can push/pull/slide allies because they are doing something context dependant to make it easier for their allies to move. And if the ally doesn't want to move, they don't, because the technical definition of an ally means you are a willing target of a power.

If they want to use forced movement on an enemy, they need to be doing something that forces them to do that (the vast bulk of these abilities involve hitting the intended with something dangerous) and if you want to use one of these on a member of your party or a friendly/neutral NPC, you just designate them as an enemy first. But you'll still have to hit them to get them to move.

In general 4e, martials tend not to get Creature targeting effects - things that take effect regardless of willingness - they tend to use the Ally/Enemy split to make it clear that, in general (before someone brings up Come and Get It) it's physical force that's causing movement.

 

[CreamCloud0]

But it does beg the question that if a characters thoughts and actions are both controlled by mechanics, what is the point of "roleplay"? For example, if the DM says "you believe the merchant is honest" because they rolled high on their deception, that still doesn't mean I will buy the colored water he is pawning as potions of healing. And if you tell me I have no reason to believe the huckster is anything but honest, you basically have taken away the ability to play the character in a way I see fit.

I have a very finite limit on what I deem acceptable when it comes to influencing my character. You can give me as many carrots or use as many sticks as you want, but my declared action (or my characters beliefs) are decided by me alone unless overt magical powers overrides that. You don't get to tell me that my character feels afraid or gullible or compelled to run up to a armed warrior black ninja style. You can give me super disadvantage and force me to take psychic damage if I resist, but I want the option to resist. Otherwise why am I playing a character rather than a pawn in a board game?*


* I remember once playing the Game of Life with some kids in the day care I worked at. At one point I was deeply in debt and drew the card that said I bought a helicopter. My brain initially resisted the notion saying that there is no way I would buy an expensive item like that while in debt, but I realized it's not supposed to represent a rational person acting, it's a random chance mechanic disguised as a real world action. So unless D&D is supposed to exist on the same level of logic, I refuse to buy a helicopter regardless of how well you roll on persuasion when I'm already deep in debt.

no, but see, there's that emotional possessiveness i was just talking about, you'd like to believe your character was more sensible than that, that they'd see through the ruse, that they wouldn't buy the coloured water, but part of roleplaying is accepting the scenario you are presented with, you failed the insight check, so your character thinks those bottles are full of potion, you don't get to think better than your character because you don't like the scenario.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes...

And what I'm saying is, when the text does that, it is not that you are suddenly furnished with infinite possibilities.

First, often when it does not, it's also vague and incomplete in what it covers. Second, often when it does not it's so arcane that it defies understanding. Third, often when it does not it's fairly open ended. Fourth, I didn't say infinite. I said it forced possibility. If infinite is your criterion, B/X fails as well.

It is that you are now in a hole you have to dig yourself out of, because not only have the rules not helped you in any way, they've actually held you back. You have to first extricate yourself from them, and then invent something from whole cloth to replace it.

That's not sudden freedom. That's being dropped on a desert island with palm trees, and told to figure out your own way. You're going to have to figure out how to construct a boat without tools before you can even attempt to go anywhere else.

Yes, it forces possibility, which is what I said. You HAVE to come up with something. Forced possibility.

And you yourself are also trying to control what "leader" means.

You are inserting your own control. So was Lanefan. You aren't somehow correcting for that.

The narrative is control over the other PC. Yes I can defy that control, but to do so is to cause disruption to the game and the player of the leader.

And I'm sorry, if you think someone else getting a feature that helps you do something is, in any way, them taking your character away from you, then yes, I 110% believe you are antagonistic to the very concept of teamwork. Never ever even having the tiniest bit of "someone else was involved in doing it" is frankly so silly, I would have thought it a caricature if you had not just done that yourself. You are, quite literally, saying that if anyone EVER helps you achieve things, they're taking your character away from you. Do you not see how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

This is a Strawman of what I said. I'm not talking about just helping.

 

[Maxperson]

And do you not see how this is precisely what causes 5e (and 3e, and really most versions of D&D) to be actually not designed as teamwork games?

If it is often easier--better, more effective, less hassle, etc.--to "do your own thing", then it isn't a team game.

It's just a game where four to six individual adventurers happen to adventure in the same place at the same time. Which is a crying shame, when the game itself repeatedly tells us how much it's about teamwork.

No. What he described is not what makes 5e or 3e not designed as teamwork games, because you can't design a game that controls how players feel. What he described were player feelings. One felt bad about being included, and the other felt bad about being excluded. Those are 100% player issues and the game's design had nothing to do with it.

What makes 5e and 3e both designed as team games is that................................................the group is playing a TEAM that goes out and does stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

And I completely disagree with that notion.

Even if it is somehow automatically a thing, why does that then mean your character is subordinate to this other character?

Who claimed that it did? I've been saying that what it means is 1) that you have to capitulate to the narrative of the warlord leader, or 2) that you defy the warlord leader, invalidating his abilities which can ruin his experience, or 3) that the DM has to rewrite the narrative of most to all of the warlord's abilities so that they aren't about a leader ordering his teammates around.

Seriously. Why do you suddenly feel like you are being controlled? Wouldn't Controller mean that, rather than Leader? Why does "Leader" mean you've been mind-controlled and had your character taken away from you?

Why don't you ask the enemy if they think the controller feels like they are being controlled by him? I doubt a dominated enemy feels like he's in control of his own actions.