D&D 5E Rant about Forced Movement

[Vaalingrade]

Not chasing. Just reminding people that talk doesn't get you want you want. Action does. If a person doesn't act, the person doesn't get what they want.

I mean if you think that if you just think reaaaaaaaallllly hard about what you wish the game was that it'll suddenly turn into that thing... that's certainly a choice. Best of luck to you if that's the way you're going.

But really, it just comes down to telling people to shut up and go away because they said something one doesn't like about the game.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Owning your game and enforcing your rulings is not the same as being a tyrant.

A loooot of people take it there though.

And frankly, thinking of it as 'your' game when there's 1-7 other people there also isn't the best thing to be doing either.

 

[Nefermandias]

A loooot of people take it there though.

And frankly, thinking of it as 'your' game when there's 1-7 other people there also isn't the best thing to be doing either.

It is the DM's game though.

Sure, the players are also there, but that doesn't mean players and DMs are equal.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but the idea of running a game on democracy sounds utterly ludicrous to me.

 

[FrozenNorth]

To be honest, we’ve generally ruled that forced movement doesn’t force repeat effects because it’s just too cheap.

I think a simpler ruling might be that a given effect can only injure a character once per round (barring clear language otherwise in the spell description). The problem isn’t the zone, it’s that events that are supposed to be happening simultaneously are happening sequentially (which has been a problem for every edition of D&D).

Suppose the party wizard casts Sickening radiance. Each of the 3 characters then alternates pushing and pulling a monster into the spell. In the fiction, those three actions are happening in the same 6 seconds. It doesn’t make sense that the monster would suffer the effects of the spell 3 separate times.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Then he started saying "well if the rules work the way you say, then people should take damage when the Cleric approaches them with spirit guardians" and I was like, "no, that's been clarified. There's a difference between moving into spirit guardians, and having spirit guardians dropped on top of you". To which he said "that doesn't make any sense".

In my opinion, he’s ignoring the fact that the monster and the caster’s turn is supposed to be taking place simultaneously.

The target takes damage on their turn. Not both on their turn and your turn. You want him to take damage when you move towards him? Fine, but then he doesn’t take damage at the beginning of his turn.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Then they're like "well it says here that Jeremy Crawford said not only is red a shade of blue in D&D, but vermilion is a shade of lavender!" and I found myself wondering if I had gone mad!

I always tell the players up front. For anything that isn’t the books themselves, Jeremy Crawford is just a guy on the internet, and I don’t « do » appeals to authority.

Make your argument. Don’t crib someone else’s non-argument.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But really, it just comes down to telling people to shut up and go away because they said something one doesn't like about the game.

Okay, then don't find other games better suited to your desires and remain unhappy. That's cool. It doesn't matter to me either way. Quite frankly I'm unconcerned with your unhappiness. I was just pointing out how one could fix their unhappiness if they really wanted to... but apparently none of you do. You just enjoy being unhappy with your roleplaying game situation. And that's fine... no biggie. But I'm never going to stop pointing out where you could go to possibly become happy because you all are creating massive holes in the walls where you keep slamming your heads against.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is the DM's game though.

It's not. Everyone is there to come together and have fun. That one person is playing the world rather than a single PC and adjudicates rules doesn't make them defacto 'owner' of the game.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but the idea of running a game on democracy sounds utterly ludicrous to me.

The term is 'collaborative storytelling' and it's been around along, long time.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It doesn't matter to me either way.

It kinda seems lie it does if they're a big enough threat to try to remove from discussion in such a heavy-handed way.

 

[ezo]

It's not. Everyone is there to come together and have fun. That one person is playing the world rather than a single PC and adjudicates rules doesn't make them defacto 'owner' of the game.

I am running the game, it is my game. If another DM runs the game, it is their game.

The term is 'collaborative storytelling' and it's been around along, long time.

I've never actually seen this work they way it is supposed to work. It is always the players reacting to the DM's prompt.