Warlord Player's job is to tell other players what to do??

[BryonD]

Only bad because it does not go far enough. I don't just want a class that lets me tell other PCs what to do. I want a class that allows me to dictate the actions of the other players.

Powers could include:
- Shut the hell up, Mike (minor, at will) - Mike must shut the hell up.
- Look that up for me (minor, per encounter) - Player within LOS must look up the rule and cite relevant parts before the end of the round.
- Grab me up a six pack (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.

Cheers, -- N

Now THAT is a game I would play!!!!!

 

[Nifft]

Pesky double-posts.

 

[Spatula]

I disagree. This hyper-literalism, for all we know, is precisely the intent of the game designers.

After nearly a decade of them reading posts on all types of message boards, one would think that precision in language is something that they work on when editing a document.

Back when MtG first came out (the "beta" release with the black borders) me & my gaming buddies picked up a bunch of decks & boosters and started playing, and had a lot of fun. One day a friend of a friend came over with his cards to join in, and some card (I forget which) ground everything to a halt with a big arguement. The text of the card, the reading of which I & my friends all thought was perfectly obvious, meant something else to the new guy and he didn't agree with our interpretation.

When the "unlimited" white-border MtG cards were released soon thereafter, the rules & card text were much more precise and left no room for creative interpretations. So someone at WotC saw the problem and took moves to fix it.

That, plus playing Games Workshop games (where even games between friends frequently broke down into rule interpretation arguments) has taught me that precise language in game rules is to everyone's advantage.

 

[Holy Bovine]

I get the impression from the description that the warlord player's job is to tell other players what to do?? I always thought this was on the top 10 list of gamer no-no's. Isn't the cleric a "tell other players what to do" class too?

Thoughts?

"The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around. Taken to extremes, that style of gameplay is still annoying. But if you're the type of player who loves studying tactical situations and trying to puzzle out the best way to get everyone through alive, the warlord provides roleplaying hooks and flexible powers to support your play style in a way that will endear you to your allies."



jh

So even though the description says that 'The warlord doesn't have unlimited license to boss other players around' you assume it does? You're logic confuses me to no end.

 

[Rel]

It would be nice if people acted like people equipped with the facility to exercise discretion, as opposed to bots programmatically unable to do so.

Ok, hong, you've bothered these people enough. Go find a different thread to make trouble in.

 

[Wiman]

- Grab me up a six pack (standard, nightly) - Designated player must bring me a six-pack of beer.

With your permission Nifft, I'm going to make this a general feat in my game and make sure it is strictly adhered to. Pure genius, ah the possibilities of daily (nightly) powers. Anyone who plays a bard in year two will get this as a free feat.

Cheers,

Wiman

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That, plus playing Games Workshop games (where even games between friends frequently broke down into rule interpretation arguments) has taught me that precise language in game rules is to everyone's advantage.

Depends on the specifics, when rules become to specific and too controlling of the setting we get bogged down in such specific writing that things become mundane and there is no creative/descriptive flair to the game when it comes to the rules.

 

[Hussar]

Isn't it funny how it comes full circle. People constantly complained that 3e sucked the soul out of D&D because it tried to cover every base within the rules. Now that DM's have to exercise some power at the table to interpret rules, we're sucking the soul out of D&D.

This bill is folded ENTIRELY the wrong way!

 

[Zimri]

But getting back to the Warlord, some people are bossy. They're not jerks; they feel they know the best possible moves everyone can make and aren't meek about it. Some people resent being bossed around. The design article takes note of this and says the warlord allows bossy players to channel their energies in a positive manner. Presumably the class does this by providing incentives to follow the player's orders - "attack this guy because you get a bonus," vs "attack this guy because it's the superior move" - but in the end the player is still telling others what to do. And looking at the daily powers, I see even more opportunities for bossiness in the warlord, in that the rest of the group will need to be in position to make use of the warlord's powers (like with iron dragon charge). Which creates an added incentive for an overbearing warlord to tell other players where to move to, or to move them there himself.

I guess it comes down to the people at the table, and the control the DM (or someone else) has over what happens within the group dynamic. I suppose one could make the argument that I am the "most bossy" at the table when it comes to poor feat and gear choices among newer players. My advice has been known to come in the "*sigh* what were you thinking you aren't gonna hurt anyone with that weapon". I have been quickly reprimanded, reminded it is their character and told to let it go if they want advice they'll ask.

That said even I wouldn't use this to take control from someone else but rather to with their consent/permission move them closer to where they want to be or if they want me to use my judgement I will.

If anyone's table has an issue over overly bossy players, or overly sensitve ones THAT issue needs addressed with or without the warlord class.

"The power of RAW allows me to compel Joe's character to move where I want it to despite what Joe, the DM, or the rest of you tactical newbs have to say about it!" should quickly be followed by "The power of DM and RAW 0 allows me to roll all these dice in damage from a bolt of blue lightning landing on your head if you ever do that again and you will be invited to leave now and not return"

 

[KarinsDad]

Depends on the specifics, when rules become to specific and too controlling of the setting we get bogged down in such specific writing that things become mundane and there is no creative/descriptive flair to the game when it comes to the rules.

I think he is referring to situations (like this one) where the language is not correct, the intent should be one thing, the rules are not complex, and the author was just not being due diligent enough.

It's not a matter of adding a boatload of rules to make imprecise sentences clear. It's a matter of the designers being aware that a given sentence is open to multiple interpretations (or like in this case, the literal interpretation is unpalatable and if it is designer intent, they will be flooded with WTs???).