D&D 5E What should be in the Advanced Tactical Module?

[DMZ2112]

When a fighter pushes an elephant, he startles it and threatens it so it takes a few steps back. When he slides an iron golem, he figures out its attack pattern and steps in a way to prompt it to lunge where he wants it to end up. When he trips an ooze, . . . well okay, that doesn't make any sense. But 'viscous fluid' as an enemy doesn't make much sense in the first place.

It's not a matter of explanations. A sufficiently creative mind can explain anything; I know that. And if that's how you want to run your game you should feel free, but those of us who /want/ to limit player control of the battlefield ought to have the tools to do so without being reduced to "because I said so."

I /understand/ the playstyle that believes that the fighter should have the ability to narrate the effects of startling an elephant, or sidestepping an iron golem. I do. But when that playstyle is the only one supported by the ruleset, it makes it very difficult for the DM to justify saying "that doesn't work because {perfectly logical reason}," which is important.

I'll be perfectly honest -- I don't personally believe in compromise between the DM and the players. I'm an advocate of absolute DM authority. I think that's his role and I think it makes the game more fun (when it's done well). But at the very least, the rules have to permit narrative compromise, and dictating that a tactical "power" has a specific, non-negotiable effect on the battlefield interferes with narrative compromise just as much as leaving the effect of the "power" entirely up to DM fiat.

 

[billd91]

Advanced Rules? Spraying fire, assault fire, off-board artillery, more armor values, more vehicle rules, new maps and counters ...

Off-board artillery? Without a flowchart?!?

 

[Obryn]

Comparing it to magic does the concept a bit of a disservice, only because magic isn't narrative control in the metagame space. It entirely exists withing the setting. By keeping the concepts distinct in our minds, we can more readily see a metagame module that is truly its own.

My point is that narrative control is narrative control, from a functional standpoint. So in my mind, they should not be seen as distinct. Both spells and "martial powers" are tools for a player to impose their will on the narrative via fiat (possibly with a die roll) , without DM intervention.

The fact that the one has an in-fiction token in the form of "prepared spells" isn't relevant, in my view. The important part is that the players are provided with these tools, whether or not it's "visible" to their fictional character. (Who has no rights here, AFAICT )

-O

 

[Dausuul]

My point is that narrative control is narrative control, from a functional standpoint. So in my mind, they should not be seen as distinct. Both spells and "martial powers" are tools for a player to impose their will on the narrative via fiat (possibly with a die roll) , without DM intervention.

The fact that the one has an in-fiction token in the form of "prepared spells" isn't relevant, in my view.

Whereas to me it is extremely relevant. From where I'm standing, when I'm a player, I want to get "into the head" of my character. As much as possible, the tools at my disposal should be ones my character is aware of and makes a conscious choice to use. The ability to take that fictional positioning is important to my enjoyment of D&D.

Obviously there will be a bit of abstraction involved--my barbarian isn't aware that she has the ability to rage exactly three times per day. But she knows she can only unleash her berserkergang so many times before she gets too tired to do it again, and she knows she can manage it about three times in a day, give or take. Suppose I, as a player, decide to avoid a battle because I've only got one rage left and I want to save it in case we get attacked while in camp. That maps easily onto my barbarian knowing she's getting tired and having trouble summoning up her fighting fury, and not wanting to be so exhausted she can't fight effectively if we get ambushed that night.

The more I'm making decisions for metagame reasons that don't map onto the fiction, the less immersed I am and the less I enjoy the game. If I want to make decisions on a metagame basis and treat the fiction as window dressing, I'll play a game that was built from the ground up to do that, like Magic: The Gathering. D&D for me is about pretending to be a necromancer, not playing a board game while making up stories about a necromancer.

(And yes, there have always been some purely metagame elements that affect player decision-making, like XP. I would prefer to have as few such elements as possible.)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

My point is that narrative control is narrative control, from a functional standpoint. So in my mind, they should not be seen as distinct. Both spells and "martial powers" are tools for a player to impose their will on the narrative via fiat (possibly with a die roll) , without DM intervention.

The fact that the one has an in-fiction token in the form of "prepared spells" isn't relevant, in my view. The important part is that the players are provided with these tools, whether or not it's "visible" to their fictional character. (Who has no rights here, AFAICT )

-O

Narrativist play requires narrativist tools, just as simulationist play requires simulationist tools. Magic is foremost a simulation mechanic. It needs to operate within that space. Which is a good thing, because it allows for metagame mechanics that can interact with spellcasting.

 

[DMZ2112]

Narrativist play requires narrativist tools, just as simulationist play requires simulationist tools.

I see this as being relatively easily covered by having an italicized (or whatever) portion of every "power" that is the narrativist effect, with a paragraph at the beginning of the combat section clearly stating that the narrativist effect is provided for groups that enjoy narrative control, and that in groups that desire less narrative control the DM can dictate the ultimate effect of the power.

 

[Dausuul]

I see this as being relatively easily covered by having an italicized (or whatever) portion of every "power" that is the narrativist effect, with a paragraph at the beginning of the combat section clearly stating that the narrativist effect is provided for groups that enjoy narrative control, and that in groups that desire less narrative control the DM can dictate the ultimate effect of the power.

Could you give an example? (Apparently I'm all about asking for examples today.)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I see this as being relatively easily covered by having an italicized (or whatever) portion of every "power" that is the narrativist effect, with a paragraph at the beginning of the combat section clearly stating that the narrativist effect is provided for groups that enjoy narrative control, and that in groups that desire less narrative control the DM can dictate the ultimate effect of the power.

What's the point of having these powers at all for groups that aren't after narrative control? And why is this part of the combat chapter? It sounds like you're too focused on the way 4E used metagame powers, which was a necessary balance construct for the framework of that game. With D&D Next, the game's framework doesn't require them, which frees metagame mechanics of the limitations they had in 4E.

 

[Obryn]

Whereas to me it is extremely relevant. From where I'm standing, when I'm a player, I want to get "into the head" of my character. As much as possible, the tools at my disposal should be ones my character is aware of and makes a conscious choice to use. The ability to take that fictional positioning is important to my enjoyment of D&D.

I'm not saying anything about that, only talking about my own perspectives here. Not that you should agree with me.

It illustrates the point, though - I'm not sure Next can provide what you're looking for and what I am at the same time.

-O

 

[DMZ2112]

Could you give an example? (Apparently I'm all about asking for examples today.)

In working up this response I've reconsidered slightly. Take Funneling Fury:

1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and you slide the target 1 square.

I'd reword it as follows:

1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target slides 1 square.

The paragraph at the beginning of the Combat chapter just needs to specify that who holds the responsibility of determining the destination of the slide (or push) is for the group to decide, according to their desired playstyle.

Speaking personally, I think nine times out of ten I'd be content to let the PC slide his opponent wherever he wanted, but every now and then I need to be able to step in and say, "That destination just doesn't make sense considering how you are engaged; you can put him here or here, instead."

In completing this little exercise I've come to the conclusion that sliding is too open-ended a mechanic and should probably be eliminated, but that's another issue.