D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[Micah Sweet]

And DMs will still be reluctant to let players try anything that's not codified.

At least the DM has the ball in his court whereas players are always at the mercy of the DM.

If you don't trust your DM, don't let them run a game for you.

 

[niklinna]

And DMs will still be reluctant to let players try anything that's not codified.

At least the DM has the ball in his court whereas players are always at the mercy of the DM.

Of course the DM has the ball in his court; the players don't even have a court!

 

[pemerton]

But if the fighter has such an ability that reliable works whenever he wants, that he compell NPCs by speaking to do something they normally wouldn't do, that is mind control.
D&D is a fiction first game.
What you are describing is a mechanics first game, where the mechanics determine the narrative instead of just helping the DM to adjucate the player characters actions.

D&D is not fiction first in many places.

@Aldarc already gave the example of falling. I would put forward most of the combat rules: the action economy is not fiction first; and the defeat of foes in melee is not fiction first, it is driven by the mechanical process of attack rolls and hit point depletion. Part of the reason why ranged combat in D&D is always wonkier than melee combat (the hit point model is harder to apply, we have the arguments over keeping track of arrows shot or not) is because some parts of ranged combat in D&D (namely, distance and positioning) are fiction first.

Another part of D&D that is not fiction first is the use of magic. This is driven by the mechanics of slots, and often also by the mechanics of saving throws. Eg there is no prior fiction about whether or not someone evades a fireball. That is a retroactive narration that follows the rolling of their saving throw.

Ingame, an attack is an attack, if that Hits it Hits. That is not comparable to speaking and having the exact same 100% reaction.

Why not? This is not self-evident. It's just a design choice. That doesn't mean that, in the fiction, what the taunting PC is doing is performing a feat of magic.

So why can't the GM just decide whether or not a NPC dodges an arrow shot by a PC?

Because there are rules. The DM is there when the rules don't do the job. They're the final authority on the world.

Is this some kind of rhetorical trick? I can't believe you're not familiar with this idea.

But if the GM is constrained by rule that forbid them from declaring that a NPC dodges an arrow, why can the GM not be constrained by rules that forbid them from declaring that a NPC ignores a taunt?

The fact that, in the former case, the GM is constrained doesn't mean that, in the fiction, the arrow is magical. Why would the fact that, in the latter case, the GM is similarly constrained mean that the taunt is magical?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Huh? I mean, I know that rule is from Pathfinder, but isn't the whole premise of the objection to the taunt ability that the GM decides what it is reasonable for NPCs to do, in all circumstances?

Also, what do you mean by "misused"?

That's crazy talk!

In the original OA, published in 1985, two classes - the Kensai and the Samurai - have the ability to cause fear at will. Not because they are magicians, but because they are fierce warriors. And of course this has the affected NPCs put their lives in danger - they either surrender (which is a way of putting one's life in danger) or turn and flee (which is a different way of putting one's life in danger). From pp 17, 22:

At 7th level . . . [the kensai] also causes fear the same as a samurai . . .​

​

At 6th level the appearance of the samurai can cause fear in all creatures with 1 HD or less (saving throw versus breath weapon is allowed). The samurai can control this power, turning it on and off (as it ware) at will. Any characters or creatures struck by fear flee from the samurai or surrender to him, depending on the circumstances. A creature that passes its saving throw is immune to this effect for the remainder of the encounter.​

And more generally, I don't understand why a warrior who is able to taunt and intimidate, wouldn't be able to goad another into putting their life in danger. I mean, this is a thing that happens all the time in the real world. Why is it not a thing that can happen in the fiction of the game?

So why are Sneak Attack, Extra Attack, Cunning Action etc special abilities?

Can anyone try and strike with advantage from behind (a thing real people do in the real world), try and strike more blows, try and duck into cover really quickly, etc?

And what about spells? For instance, does the existence of the cleric class mean that no one else can pray to the gods for help?

So in another recent thread that you've participated in, much virtual ink was spilled by some posters, who play a lot of 5e D&D, arguing that the GM can always veto any player action declaration to ensure consistency with genre, the GM's conception of the hidden fiction, etc. Why would that not apply to this mooted ability?

Between your post and @Oofta's quoted just above, I'm trying to work out whether you think 5e GMs have the power of "rulings not rules", or not?

It's much harder to tell a player they can't use an ability when the rules of the ability explicitly say they can. If it were up to me, I'd ban the "super-power" I see this as and go with an adjudicated ability check, as I've said above. Twice.

 

[Lanefan]

The example has an in game reason: the user is being provocative. Perhaps they're talking about their fat mamas; perhaps they're constantly misrepresenting their arguments to the point where it seems intentional, maybe they're saying they like the 2014 Ranger. They're just asking for it and the guards are happy to provide and will do so if they can't get a hold of themselves via a save.

I'd rather them make the game fun instead of stopping me from goading some chumps into catching a beating.

I don't mind the idea of your PC being able to goad* some chumps into meeting your fist the hard way provided your PC has the same vulnerability and can itself be goaded* by someone else.

* - enforced by game mechanics

 

[pemerton]

Again, there are rules. The DM steps in when they don't work or don't cover something. The reason you don't see it that way is because you're playing a different game, and that's ok. Nobody is disparaging your game.

About a month ago you made these posts, arguing that a GM in 5e D&D can veto or modify an action declaration based on how they imagine the hidden backstory, what makes sense, etc:

How about some people just don't like the idea of this ability working as advertised regardless of circumstance and want some latitude?

So the only way a PC ability doesn't work is when the thing it works on doesn't exist?

I'm trying to work out whether you've now changed your mind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

About a month ago you made these posts, arguing that a GM in 5e D&D can veto or modify an action declaration based on how they imagine the hidden backstory, what makes sense, etc:
I'm trying to work out whether you've now changed your mind.

Nope. The DMs in charge, but most of the time the rules, if they meet with expectations, can handle the situation. If they can't, that's when the DM steps in.

My issue here is that the rules for pretty much every game you talk about do not meet my expectations, so the DM has to step in more.

 

[pemerton]

You don't play D&D so why do you care? Are you just trolling?

I play 4e D&D from time to time. I play AD&D from time to time. From memory, I played both last year.

I also have an interest in a respectful culture of discussion. To reiterate a point I've made, and that @Campbell has made, the fact that you don't like a particular structure of authority - that is, the player having an ability that permits them to affect the behaviour of NPCs - doesn't mean that it is reasonable to misdescribe the fiction that the author and/or user of that ability is evoking. Which, in this case, is the relatively well-known idea of goading one's foes into attacking.

 

[Campbell]

Again, there are rules. The DM steps in when they don't work or don't cover something. The reason you don't see it that way is because you're playing a different game, and that's ok. Nobody is disparaging your game.

You don't think telling people they are mistaken about the fictional content of the game they are playing/running is disparaging or disrespectful? You don't think that disregarding the essential thematic elements involved in playing a martial character and instead insisting that because there is a measure of social influence or discrete rules involved that they must be rewriting reality is disparaging? I find it pretty damn disparaging.

 

[Oofta]

I play 4e D&D from time to time. I play AD&D from time to time. From memory, I played both last year.

I also have an interest in a respectful culture of discussion. To reiterate a point I've made, and that @Campbell has made, the fact that you don't like a particular structure of authority - that is, the player having an ability that permits them to affect the behaviour of NPCs - doesn't mean that it is reasonable to misdescribe the fiction that the author and/or user of that ability is evoking. Which, in this case, is the relatively well-known idea of goading one's foes into attacking.

You misrepresented the core play structure of the game. It's fine that there are other approaches to gaming, I see no reason why we should have yet another thread derailed into how PbtA games work. The players can describe their PC's attempting to goad an NPC, the DM describes the result of that attempt in D&D.

There are plenty of ways to play games. Not all of them are relevant.