Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[ChrisCarlson]

Repeating that word isn't an argument.

Not sure what your point is.

Oddly enough, it's that you can keep repeating that magic and non-magic are interchangeable, but that doesn't make it a valid argument.

You tell the half-orc barbarian that he's afraid of your halfing, a die is rolled, and if favors you, you get to decide the barbarian's feelings.

Exactly the premise of this thread. That is your opinion of how you enjoy D&D. We get that your playstyle is comfortable taking away player agency from some for the sake of empowering another. But guess what? Not everyone agrees nor plays that way. There are other playstyles preferences. Many disagree or run counter to that idea. Some probably even find that notion rather abhorrent.

EDIT: But as jayoungr suggests, moving past that. Please try to explain why you enjoy such a playstyle. When you are the recipient of the forced attitude adjustment, how does that impact your enjoyment of the game? I would imagine it enhances it? Why is that?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

There may be some who want that deep down, but I don't think everyone who wants a warlord does. Assuming bad faith won't lead to a productive discussion, anyway.

I'm interested to know whether anyone sees a difference between warlord inspiration and PC-on-PC social skills, though. In other words, is there a correlation between liking inspirational mechanics and being okay with interparty use of other social mechanics?

Fair enough. I'm just working off of the fact that there are certainly some who do feel that way. And catering to their niche isn't necessarily good for 5e. So if people would be upfront, we can weed out those seeking to design in bad faith and keep moving forward with a healthier pool of interested parties.

 

[jayoungr]

Fair enough. I'm just working off of the fact that there are certainly some who do feel that way.

Also, to be clear, I don't think respect is a bad thing to want for your PC. And I like being able to use the dice to give me greater social abilities than I possess IRL (especially after a long day of work). It just becomes potentially tricky when the targets are PCs rather than NPCs.

 

[mellored]

I would also add that a lot of tables--not all, but a lot--would not be cool with a PC casting friends, charm, suggestion, or fear on another PC, except maybe as a joke. To say that a Warlord's abilities are no different just invites those tables to reject the Warlord as well.

I think non-magical skills such as Persuasion and Intimidation are better analogues for the inspiration of a non-magical PC anyway. But then, a lot of tables are also not okay with PCs using those skills on other PCs.

I agree that it would dickish for players/DM's to keep using spells/creatures/skills to control other players. Unless you're intentionally playing an evil character in a group that can handle it.

Though with haste / warlords, it require both players to be willing to work together. So i think that's a better model for these things.


And let's not forget, it's entirely possible for a rogue player to keep telling a wizard player to keep greater invisibility on him, or demand that the warlord to keep granting him attacks. Dickishness doesn't just go one way. I've defiantly seen a player demand that the cleric "save your spells to heal". Suffice to say, i didn't stay long in that group, but i also don't blame the class for it.

 

[mellored]

Oddly enough, it's that you can keep repeating that magic and non-magic are interchangeable, but that doesn't make it a valid argument.

The mechanic is the same. The consequences are the same. The social impact is the same.

You have only said "magic" like it means something.

EDIT: But as jayoungr suggests, moving past that. Please try to explain why you enjoy such a playstyle. When you are the recipient of the forced attitude adjustment, how does that impact your enjoyment of the game? I would imagine it enhances it? Why is that?

I'm do not approve of forced attitude adjustment. If i'm going to control multiple characters, i can just play by myself.


Which is why i prefer warlords and haste over enchanters and charm person.
Willing creature over saving throws.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think non-magical skills such as Persuasion and Intimidation are better analogues for the inspiration of a non-magical PC anyway. But then, a lot of tables are also not okay with PCs using those skills on other PCs.

Except that they're negative, of course. I mean, they might be 'for your own good,' in theory, but they don't actually offer any sort of benefit for going along with them (a DM might offer inspiration of it was in-character for a certain use of Persuasion or Intimidation to affect your PC for some reason, I suppose).

There may be some who want that deep down, but I don't think everyone who wants a warlord does.

No one who honestly wants what the 4e Warlord delivered wants to undermine the agency of other players, because the class didn't do that. It offered tangible mechanical support for a range of concepts that hadn't ever gotten such support before, and presented an appealing, viable, alternative to traditional 'healers.' When a badly-worded power could be read as compelling the target, it was errata'd.

I'm interested to know whether anyone sees a difference between warlord inspiration and PC-on-PC social skills, though. In other words, is there a correlation between liking inspirational mechanics and being okay with interparty use of other social mechanics?

I'm less OK with intraparty social checks than with inspiration or other non-magical support. The latter is a positive and the benefits can always be declined, sometimes the former can be neither (though, in 5e, it depends very much on the DM).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The mechanic is the same. The consequences are the same. The social impact is the same.

That's nice for a boardgame. This isn't Chutes & Wizards. This is a roleplaying game. Things aren't cast in a sterile vacuum of vanilla pluses and minuses. Mechanics, consequences, and social impacts, all mean things in the narrative.

You have only said "magic" like it means something.

When you say things like this I have to question if you have ever even played a fantasy RPG. And if you have, I can only pity you for the wonder your games must no doubt be lacking.

I'm do not approve of forced attitude adjustment. If i'm going to control multiple characters, i can just play by myself.

...he says while advocating for a class who's entire concept is adjusting the attitudes of his fellow PCs. Nice.

Which is why i prefer warlords and haste over enchanters and charm person.
Willing creature over saving throws.

Ignoring the obvious strawman, and woeful lack of 5e system awareness for a sec, define "willing".

Is Jim really "willingly" accepting Mike's constant uses of warlord inspiration on him? Is he given a real choice? Or is he acquiescing because not doing so would invalidate Mike's need to play a warlord? So instead he just bites his tongue and lets it go on?

Exactly. That's some real subversively manipulative stuff right there.

Mike: "If you don't accept me as your inspiration and natural leader, all my warlord's abilities will go unused and be wasted. And that makes it harder on all of us to succeed. So best to just respect my authority and look up to me. For all our sake..."

I'm betting a therapist could really get into some of the underlying control issues Mike likely needs to work through...

 

[jayoungr]

Except that they're negative, of course.

In what sense are Persuasion and Intimidation negative? Wouldn't that depend on what they're being used for?

I mean, they might be 'for your own good,' in theory, but they don't actually offer any sort of benefit for going along with them (a DM might offer inspiration of it was in-character for a certain use of Persuasion or Intimidation to affect your PC for some reason, I suppose).

To be clear, when you say they don't offer "any sort of benefit," you mean any sort of mechanical benefit, right?

I'm less OK with intraparty social checks than with inspiration or other non-magical support. The latter is a positive

Again, you mean a mechanical positive, right?

 

[mellored]

...he says while advocating for a class who's entire concept is adjusting the attitudes of his fellow PCs. Nice.

You mean the enchanter?
No, i'm not advocating them. I'd be fine if friends / charm person / command / crown of maddness / suggestion / dominate was removed from the game. Along with vampires, sucubus, and the like. As well as charisma.

Ignoring the obvious strawman, and woeful lack of 5e system awareness for a sec, define "willing".

ready, eager, or prepared to do something.

You cannot cast haste on someone who doesn't want it cast on them.

Is Jim really "willingly" accepting Mike's constant uses of warlord inspiration on him? Is he given a real choice?

Yes.

"Ally" was always a willing target in 4e.

Or is he acquiescing because not doing so would invalidate Mike's need to play a warlord? So instead he just bites his tongue and lets it go on?

He might. But that doesn't really have anything to do with a warlord. That can happen with any class, or race, or player.

Mike could also play a fighter, and tell Jim to play a warlord and keep granting him attacks.
A fighter might tell a cleric into saving his spell slots for healing him.
An assassin might tell the paladin to stay behind so not to make noise and invalidate his surprise.
A wizard might want to cast fireball, but the monk rushes in the middle.
An illusionist might make an illusion of a fake wall, and the warlock could walk right though it.
A player might want to play a drow, and another player might have a backstory about his family being killed by drow.
etc....

What your describing is a social issue, not a game issue.

I'm betting a therapist could really get into some of the underlying control issues Mike likely needs to work through...

I agree.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

You mean the enchanter?
No, i'm not advocating them. I'd be fine if friends / charm person / command / crown of maddness / suggestion / dominate was removed from the game. Along with vampires, sucubus, and the like. As well as charisma.

Sounds like you'd be better served using a system more suited to your preferences.

ready, eager, or prepared to do something.

The player, or their character?

You cannot cast haste on someone who doesn't want it cast on them.

You really do need to read through the 5e PHB. Statements like this reveal your lack of system knowledge.

Yes.

"Ally" was always a willing target in 4e.

Great. Sounds like you are starting to pick up on the kind of system/edition better suited to your particular playstyle (and there is nothing wrong with that). Congrats.

What your describing is a social issue, not a game issue.

I feel compelled to once again direct you to the OP explaining the premise of this thread.