Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Mark CMG]

Of course it is. That is what 'over' generally means. Or at the very least superfluous.

Attachment is of course A wonderful thing, unless you have a kill happy GM, or if it leads you to being overcautious as a player.

Yup. When someone ignores the qualifier billd91 had intentionally included, it creates an argument that is merely a trick of semantics. billd91 is absolutely correct that over-attachment to characters is problematic. CoC is a great game to help curb such tendancies, as is Paranoia and other games that emphasize other aspects of gameplay.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

Spells and Prayers are magic so I don't worry too much about those.

/snip.

See, this one bugs me. Why is it that the non-casters get beaten with the "reality" stick but the casters get a free ride? Sure, "it's magic" means you can give a big one finger salute to physics, but, the non-casters are heroes in fantasy fiction - a genre replete with non-magical characters doing fantastic things that would turn you into paste in real life.

I just find this double standard very frustrating because it permeates so much game design philosophy.

 

[Hussar]

well, since my style of play and/or dm has been called -in this thread- wrong, unfair, and "the worst ever", let me just share a few items from the rules:

page 277 of Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook clearly states:
when prone you are lying on the ground...it is not some "mechanical affect" of "abstract combat rules"

Umm, how does that actually counter anything I said? Or are you claiming that a snake or ooze cannot lie on the ground? Is there someone arguing that being knocked prone does not, in some way, cause you to touch the ground with a majority of your body?

I said:

Your attack disrupts the targets movement such that it takes an action to right itself in some fashion and grants a bonus to melee attacks until such time as it rights itself.

Which, again, is a pretty wordy way of saying, "you're lying on the ground". No one, as far as I can see, is denying that when you are knocked Prone (game condition) you are not touching the ground with a large portion of your body.

 

[LostSoul]

See, this one bugs me. Why is it that the non-casters get beaten with the "reality" stick but the casters get a free ride? Sure, "it's magic" means you can give a big one finger salute to physics, but, the non-casters are heroes in fantasy fiction - a genre replete with non-magical characters doing fantastic things that would turn you into paste in real life.

I just find this double standard very frustrating because it permeates so much game design philosophy.

I didn't make a change to spells and prayers because I didn't feel like there was a need to. Spells are already reasonably grounded in the game's fiction, and I had seen players improvise with them without any changes. I figured with the changes to martial exploits that would be enough to spur it on. (Prayers are too out there for me to make much sense of, so I added stuff in other areas to pick up the slack.)

But anyway. If someone said their PC's action was to knock a rider off a horse with Reaping Strike, Tide of Iron, Cleave, or Sure Strike, I'd allow it*. If someone said their PC's action was to knock a rider off a horse with Ray of Frost, Magic Missile, Scorching Burst, or Cloud of Daggers, I wouldn't. Thunderwave would, of course, but that's what it does.

I haven't seen the "double standard" in playtesting. It might exist, and it might be revealed if I played with the intent of breaking the game, but so far I haven't gone down that path.

 

[Hussar]

I didn't make a change to spells and prayers because I didn't feel like there was a need to. Spells are already reasonably grounded in the game's fiction, and I had seen players improvise with them without any changes. I figured with the changes to martial exploits that would be enough to spur it on. (Prayers are too out there for me to make much sense of, so I added stuff in other areas to pick up the slack.)

But anyway. If someone said their PC's action was to knock a rider off a horse with Reaping Strike, Tide of Iron, Cleave, or Sure Strike, I'd allow it*. If someone said their PC's action was to knock a rider off a horse with Ray of Frost, Magic Missile, Scorching Burst, or Cloud of Daggers, I wouldn't. Thunderwave would, of course, but that's what it does.

I haven't seen the "double standard" in playtesting. It might exist, and it might be revealed if I played with the intent of breaking the game, but so far I haven't gone down that path.

If they're going to knock someone off of a horse, why wouldn't they just Bull rush? Isn't that what Bull Rush is for?

Let's examine this a bit further though. Ok, I try to Reaping strike and try to knock a rider off the horse. Does he still fall off on the miss, since Reaping Strike always hits in some way?

And, fair enough with melee attacks, but, what about ranged ones? Can my Rogue Sly Flourish someone off the horse with a well thrown dagger? If so, then why can't the wizard Magic Missile the guy off the horse? Can my Warlock Eyebite him off the horse, since Eyebite in the description actually talks about the victim "reeling"?

Or is it always a case by case decision? Which btw, I'm perfectly fine with. There's loads of games that work like this and it can be really fun.

 

[LostSoul]

If they're going to knock someone off of a horse, why wouldn't they just Bull rush? Isn't that what Bull Rush is for?

That would work, too. You could also slam into the horse, get it to rear up, then Spinning Sweep those exposed legs.

Let's examine this a bit further though. Ok, I try to Reaping strike and try to knock a rider off the horse. Does he still fall off on the miss, since Reaping Strike always hits in some way?

No, because the roll resolves your action. You failed. Reaping Strike does damage on a miss, but it doesn't mean your action was successful.

And, fair enough with melee attacks, but, what about ranged ones? Can my Rogue Sly Flourish someone off the horse with a well thrown dagger? If so, then why can't the wizard Magic Missile the guy off the horse? Can my Warlock Eyebite him off the horse, since Eyebite in the description actually talks about the victim "reeling"?

Or is it always a case by case decision? Which btw, I'm perfectly fine with. There's loads of games that work like this and it can be really fun.

I don't see how Sly Flourish with a thrown dagger would knock someone off a horse. Maybe if he was already off-balance... riding over some rough terrain, making a leap, if he was blinded... same goes with Magic Missile.

Eyebite's more interesting. (Warlocks usually are.) It would probably depend on what your Pact is and what your Eyebite is actually doing. You might be able to Eyebite the horse and cause it to throw its rider off. One PC in my game (a Fighter-Warlock in the vein of AD&D multiclassing - I told you there was more to it! ) forces the target to see ultimate despair and lose all hope when she nails someone with her Eyebite. That wouldn't knock a guy off a horse or cause the horse to rear up. Maybe if she had made a Pact with Bryakus, Father of Serpents...

As you can see, it's a case by case decision. That's the main goal, to make those fictional details matter, so that players are forced to pay attention to the game world. Well - they aren't actually forced to do that, but it's the smart way to play. The PCs in my game are usually a mix of levels; I've seen low-level PCs (2 or 3) be much more effective than higher level PCs (6 or 7) in the same encounter. The cool thing is that this effectiveness comes from playing your character to type (ie. using your skills, as you defined them) and manipulating the game world.

That's a lot of text. Still worked up after the game.

 

[Celtavian]

I agree that a DM should challenge his players. However, some ways of challenging are (IMO) better than others.

I personally tend to favor giving the players secondary objectives in addition to simply defeating the monsters. For example: running a gauntlet of monsters while staying ahead of an advancing wall of magical fire; encountering monsters enhanced by a magical effect and choosing to either focus on fighting the monsters in their more powerful state, or attempt to dispel the effect first; fighting on a sheet of moving ice that threatens to drop the PCs over a ledge (this is especially interesting when combined with monsters that slow or immobilize).

Alternatively, I could simply increase the challenge level by using a higher-level by the book opponent or advancing a by the book opponent to a higher level.

I try to avoid simply negating the PCs' abilities by using either monsters with specific immunities or environmental effects that shut down specific abilities (the latter was more common in previous editions - anti-magic zones being a prime example). This is the sort of challenge which tends to annoy me most as a player, especially if it gets used frequently.

I don't shut down their abilities unless it is an abiilty that shouldn't be in the game. I don't like abilities that have a high percentage of working and turning an encounter trivial. I don't think games should have abilities in them that work 100% of the time and are not counterable.

When you have an ability that works if the creature fails to resist, then you can control the amount of resistance for the various creatures so that you can make an encounter more difficult or less so. You do not want your BBEG being defeated easily or he really isn't a BBEG is he? If it was easy to beat Dr. Doom, Sauron, of Voldemorte, then they really aren't a BBEG. Their the path LBEG (Little Bad Evil Guy) that wasn't really a threat, it was only a matter of getting to him to kill him. That may work now and then, but certainly shouldn't be the norm.

The BBEG should make your players feel like they were in the fight of their lives. You want to DM so well the players fall in love with their characters. And then you want to make them feel like they are fighting for their lives when they face that ultimate villain driving the adventure along.

I use the tactics you recommend on lesser encounters and occasionally on main encounters if I want an added element of danger or uniqueness.

But if you're not designing BBEGs to be knock down, drag out fights, then that BBEG doesn't deserve being called a BBEG does he? An enemy has to live up to its billing. Or it isn't much of a story is it.

And a BBEG won't live up to his billing if your players wander in there, stun him multiple times, no one really gets even close to losing their life, and kill him fairly quickly with ridiculous ease never even tasting their own mortality as they battle an evil so powerful, so wicked, so threatening that it is capable of destroying towns, cities, nations, and worlds. What kind of weak BBEG would that be?

And as an aside, no way am I ever running a dragon no matter the system or rules where the players destroy it with ease because game designers gave the players powers that make the game too easy. That's not happening in my games. 1,000 plus year old dragons will always be well-prepared for dealing with adventuring parties as they should be. Dragon and demon lord killing isn't meant to be easy.

 

[billd91]

I just find this double standard very frustrating because it permeates so much game design philosophy.

There are plenty of people who don't agree that it's a double standard. It's a different standard because there's a significant different factor - magical spells.

 

[TheUltramark]

Umm, how does that actually counter anything I said? Or are you claiming that a snake or ooze cannot lie on the ground? Is there someone arguing that being knocked prone does not, in some way, cause you to touch the ground with a majority of your body?

=======

Which, again, is a pretty wordy way of saying, "you're lying on the ground". No one, as far as I can see, is denying that when you are knocked Prone (game condition) you are not touching the ground with a large portion of your body.

for the umpteenth time:
if your game adheres to the letter of the law when it comes to powers, and everyone at your table has fun doing it that way - then God bless ya man! I hope you keep having fun for the next 1000 years!
I assure you, at the game I play at, we take a more imaginative approach, meaning slithering beasts cannot be knocked prone, and things made of stone can't be petrified, and things without a sense of hearing can't be deafened, and it works for US, we have a great time.

I am sorry I tried to defend our game style, it won't happen again.

 

[FireLance]

I don't shut down their abilities unless it is an abiilty that shouldn't be in the game. I don't like abilities that have a high percentage of working and turning an encounter trivial. I don't think games should have abilities in them that work 100% of the time and are not counterable.

To a certain extent, I agree. Abilities that turn an encounter trivial are fun initially, but they eventually go stale. However, I don't think that reliable abilities are necessarily bad. Certain types of players enjoy having reliable abilities because it allows them to make plans with a high degree of certainty. (You could argue that they might as well be playing chess, which is composed almost entirely of reliable and irresistable attacks, but if that's the play style they enjoy, I see no harm in mixing a little chess into their D&D.) The trick is to find ways to make the abilities reliable without allowing them to trivialize the encounter. My personal sense is that the 4E approach has generally been to limit such abilities in terms of frequency (X times per encounter or day) and/or duration (not more than a single turn). Perhaps it should have gone further, to somehow limit the number of such abilities per character (by carefully tailoring the power list from each class, for example).

And as an aside, no way am I ever running a dragon no matter the system or rules where the players destroy it with ease because game designers gave the players powers that make the game too easy. That's not happening in my games. 1,000 plus year old dragons will always be well-prepared for dealing with adventuring parties as they should be. Dragon and demon lord killing isn't meant to be easy.

Heh. I would probably let them do it once, just to reward them for the effort they took to plan and find the right abilities (or simply because they were lucky enough to pick them). Then, I would tell them how I'm changing the way the abilities work (or maybe even outright banning certain powers) in the next campaign.