Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6068570" data-attributes="member: 7635">14 pages ago, when I saw the OP on this thread, I KNEW it was going to end up a CAGI fight with 4e players going gaga over the idea they they get to control the monsters too while non-4e players would end up arguing how its illogical, non-immersible, and unfair. I had hoped I would be wrong. Nope! If its good for the goose, its good for the gander. You wouldn't do this for magic, would you (PCs are immune to charm spells, or vorpral weapons, or petrification spells, but NPCs/Monsters are fair game)?Personally, I never force a PC to make certain decisions or think a certain way without magical control. I ask the same respect from my players. Even skill checks or morale only change their mindset, it never dictates their actions. However, in a game where CAGI must exist, I'd have to enforce intimidate checks and bluff checks on PCs too (Sorry Bob, you believe her).That still doesn't take into account things like monster intelligence (a mind flayer and an ogre are equally susceptible), combat style (my archer-ranger charges forward and PUNCHES the guy?!), or discipline (a band of orcs and the King's Guard both are willing to break formation to charge the lone fighter, which is a really good way to break up the dwarven phalanx in the 2nd example I'd wager). CAGI is bad game design and I hope never to see anything resembling it in Next. A CAGI fighter maneuver is a surefire deal breaker for me. And with that, I'm done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6068570, member: 7635"] 14 pages ago, when I saw the OP on this thread, I KNEW it was going to end up a CAGI fight with 4e players going gaga over the idea they they get to control the monsters too while non-4e players would end up arguing how its illogical, non-immersible, and unfair. I had hoped I would be wrong. Nope! If its good for the goose, its good for the gander. You wouldn't do this for magic, would you (PCs are immune to charm spells, or vorpral weapons, or petrification spells, but NPCs/Monsters are fair game)? Personally, I never force a PC to make certain decisions or think a certain way without magical control. I ask the same respect from my players. Even skill checks or morale only change their mindset, it never dictates their actions. However, in a game where CAGI must exist, I'd have to enforce intimidate checks and bluff checks on PCs too (Sorry Bob, you believe her). That still doesn't take into account things like monster intelligence (a mind flayer and an ogre are equally susceptible), combat style (my archer-ranger charges forward and PUNCHES the guy?!), or discipline (a band of orcs and the King's Guard both are willing to break formation to charge the lone fighter, which is a really good way to break up the dwarven phalanx in the 2nd example I'd wager). CAGI is bad game design and I hope never to see anything resembling it in Next. A CAGI fighter maneuver is a surefire deal breaker for me. And with that, I'm done. [/QUOTE]

Verification