D&D General If you had to choose between quality of story or combat

[bsss]

If the rules of the game can tell the person responsible for a character what their character thinks, feels or decides, how is that not controlling their mind?

As above, I think "controlling their mind" needs to be split apart into "compelling a response" (bad) and "prompting more tension in the scene" (good).

 

[AlViking]

I can't speak for anyone else, but you know I've said a number of times that it's fine that D&D is the way it is, in that I don't mind it --- it's the authors' decision what it should be and the users' decision to play it. But this all started because I am in the camp that believes that the idea of the pillars all being equally supported by the game --- or the pillars themselves, really --- is a bunch of hooey. D&D the game is a robust combat engine with some perfunctory non-combat rules and a big "you'll figure out what you like" twigs for the other "pillars".

I don't need to change your or anyone else's mind, or definitely not the game itself, but when talking about "what if these pillars actually meant something?", there's a lot of room for something more, even from D&D. I guess I think that's better, but it's kind of beside the point. The point is that from a mechanical or book guidance standooint, the pillars are hooey. There's one really big post holding the whole game up, and tables have to construct the rest themselves. Good or bad, that's how I see it.

I think we might disagree on what this argument is about, or the scope of it. Folks including you seem to think (rightly, IMO) that the problem is the rules telling the character what they do about [ANYTHING]. I think the game world/DM compelling action from a PC is going too far, but that's not even what I am advocating for, it's not even the topic in my opinion. I think putting a bit of fiction into the PC's head, within the "no compelling" constraint, is not violate. Stating, say, this NPC is making a convincing argument --- "Now what do you do?" is more interesting roleplaying than the player going "no they're not!". The PC hitting their breaking point and ignoring the NPC but at a cost of giving in to their carousing vice --- say they tell the king to screw off and tell the rest of the party they'll be at the bar --- is still complete player responsibility, but it's been coaxed out by the system. That's the space I want to explore, not mind control, not compelling action, but hey --- what if the game gave you some framework on how to roleplay non-combat conflict?

In older versions of the game, and depending on the DM, alignment could be strictly enforced. If you were lawful good and the DM decided you were not living up to their standard of LG, they would tell you that your alignment had changed. If you were playing a paladin which required the LG alignment you were no longer a paladin. I didn't care for it then, I wouldn't care for it now. Even when 5e tried to have hard-coded fiction established by the player with BITDs, we quickly abandoned them for multiple reasons. For one, they were regularly so vague as to be meaningless - what does "I will become the greatest thief that ever lived." really mean and what impact does it have on play? Others were quite specific but it's a team game so either "Something important was taken from me, and I aim to steal it back." means your character may want to go in a completely different direction than the rest of the group or once the "something" is recovered it has no meaning.

It's not that we can't have characters with goals and strong convictions, it's that I don't need or want them to me hard coded. Especially in a long term campaign my character may change over time and most of the time when I first come up with a character concept there's a lot of room for that personality to emerge. Since I often play a character for years, I don't want to be stuck with something that only made sense when my character was still just a concept. We can still have plenty of compelling situations arise, but it will be based on the organic growth of the character and campaign.

As above, I think "controlling their mind" needs to be split apart into "compelling a response" (bad) and "prompting more tension in the scene" (good).

That feels an awful lot like an agreement to have certain buttons that can be pushed to get a specific type of response. Those buttons only work if those buttons have been defined in a way that the player can't decide when a specific button is pushed. If the player can decide if pushing the button has any effect (or if there are other unstated buttons) then they aren't required.

Replace "button" with "defined responses of what the character thinks or feels" and it's mind control - maybe not to the extreme that the god my character worships could pop in and tell them to murder someone - but at that point we're still just negotiating the price.

 

[bsss]

In older versions of the game, and depending on the DM, alignment could be strictly enforced. If you were lawful good and the DM decided you were not living up to their standard of LG, they would tell you that your alignment had changed. If you were playing a paladin which required the LG alignment you were no longer a paladin. I didn't care for it then, I wouldn't care for it now

This was always a bad pattern. The initial Law/Chaos alignment had much less to do with how a player must act and much more about how the PC was aligned with cosmic forces, a la Elric.

Unsurprisingly to me, because D&D didn't explain social concepts well, it got misconstrued and warped over the years.

Especially in a long term campaign my character may change over time and most of the time when I first come up with a character concept there's a lot of room for that personality to emerge. Since I often play a character for years, I don't want to be stuck with something that only made sense when my character was still just a concept.

I think, incidentally, that D&D (or maybe the tables) is resistant to the idea that those elements can just change for RP reasons. I'd readily say "okay, you changed, you have a new virtue/vice or goal or whatever now".

That feels an awful lot like an agreement to have certain buttons that can be pushed to get a specific type of response. Those buttons only work if those buttons have been defined in a way that the player can't decide when a specific button is pushed. If the player can decide if pushing the button has any effect (or if there are other unstated buttons) then they aren't required.

More like should the buttons exist, they shouldn't elicit specific responses, they should just be more buttons that trigger more roleplaying. The buttons should get pushed by the game though, yes, in what I'm proposing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think putting a bit of fiction into the PC's head, within the "no compelling" constraint, is not violate. Stating, say, this NPC is making a convincing argument --- "Now what do you do?" is more interesting roleplaying than the player going "no they're not!". The PC hitting their breaking point and ignoring the NPC but at a cost of giving in to their carousing vice --- say they tell the king to screw off and tell the rest of the party they'll be at the bar --- is still complete player responsibility, but it's been coaxed out by the system. That's the space I want to explore, not mind control, not compelling action, but hey --- what if the game gave you some framework on how to roleplay non-combat conflict?

All of this sounds pretty decent to me.

Someone doing something stupid that isn't obeying because the argument actually GOT to them? Yeah, that sounds awesome. It's accepting a constraint in the world, that people can say things that get to you even if they don't perfectly succeed or even net succeed at all. That they threw you off your game, or got under your skin, or whatever else, is the point: we are not perfect decision-engines that exclusively do things out of a conscious desire to do them. We are complex. We are faulty, in decisions, in actions, in beliefs, in choices, etc., etc., etc. Failing to do what you wanted to do, failing to be what you wanted to be, is literally the function of the dice. That's what they're for, to allow for some occasions when you just didn't measure up.

 

[billd91]

As above, I think "controlling their mind" needs to be split apart into "compelling a response" (bad) and "prompting more tension in the scene" (good).

I might also include a further subdivision of "compelling a response" to separate the potential to goad someone into some form of vulnerability or lost action from more extensive mind control. There's a reasonable space to carve out for feints in combat or other methods of wrong-footing an opponent that are resolved quickly and don't really count as adding "more tension in the scene".

 

[payn]

In older versions of the game, and depending on the DM, alignment could be strictly enforced. If you were lawful good and the DM decided you were not living up to their standard of LG, they would tell you that your alignment had changed. If you were playing a paladin which required the LG alignment you were no longer a paladin. I didn't care for it then, I wouldn't care for it now. Even when 5e tried to have hard-coded fiction established by the player with BITDs, we quickly abandoned them for multiple reasons. For one, they were regularly so vague as to be meaningless - what does "I will become the greatest thief that ever lived." really mean and what impact does it have on play? Others were quite specific but it's a team game so either "Something important was taken from me, and I aim to steal it back." means your character may want to go in a completely different direction than the rest of the group or once the "something" is recovered it has no meaning.

It's not that we can't have characters with goals and strong convictions, it's that I don't need or want them to me hard coded. Especially in a long term campaign my character may change over time and most of the time when I first come up with a character concept there's a lot of room for that personality to emerge. Since I often play a character for years, I don't want to be stuck with something that only made sense when my character was still just a concept. We can still have plenty of compelling situations arise, but it will be based on the organic growth of the character and campaign.



That feels an awful lot like an agreement to have certain buttons that can be pushed to get a specific type of response. Those buttons only work if those buttons have been defined in a way that the player can't decide when a specific button is pushed. If the player can decide if pushing the button has any effect (or if there are other unstated buttons) then they aren't required.

Replace "button" with "defined responses of what the character thinks or feels" and it's mind control - maybe not to the extreme that the god my character worships could pop in and tell them to murder someone - but at that point we're still just negotiating the price.

One thing ill agree with you on is that BIFTs are very weak conceptually and not implemented well. I think thats the compromise on making them kinda matter or just being easily ignored. Which is why I think with all the intense pushback social mechanics are probably best left to a module.

 

[bsss]

I might also include a further subdivision of "compelling a response" to separate the potential to goad someone into some form of vulnerability or lost action from more extensive mind control. There's a reasonable space to carve out for feints in combat or other methods of wrong-footing an opponent that are resolved quickly and don't really count as adding "more tension in the scene".

Yes, a mental endurance, in a sense. That also sounds pretty cool!

 

[AlViking]

This was always a bad pattern. The initial Law/Chaos alignment had much less to do with how a player must act and much more about how the PC was aligned with cosmic forces, a la Elric.

Unsurprisingly to me, because D&D didn't explain social concepts well, it got misconstrued and warped over the years.

I think, incidentally, that D&D (or maybe the tables) is resistant to the idea that those elements can just change for RP reasons. I'd readily say "okay, you changed, you have a new virtue/vice or goal or whatever now".

More like should the buttons exist, they shouldn't elicit specific responses, they should just be more buttons that trigger more roleplaying. The buttons should get pushed by the game though, yes, in what I'm proposing.

You want those buttons, I don't. I think the game is more interesting when a character surprises me - whether it's mine or a different player's character.

 

[bsss]

You want those buttons, I don't. I think the game is more interesting when a character surprises me - whether it's mine or a different player's character.

Your preference is fair, all I can say there, but if you believe that these buttons don't lead to "surprise", I think you are just not getting the point of them or thinking too inside the D&D box.

 

[AlViking]

Your preference is fair, all I can say there, but if you believe that these buttons don't lead to "surprise", I think you are just not getting the point of them or thinking too inside the D&D box.

I don't want them because I understand them and how they could work. Please don't tell me what I do or do not "get".