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

[Micah Sweet]

Fortunately, Gygax didn't want the same...

Fortunately?

 

[billd91]

i didn't realise it was specifying melee attacks, i'd be fine with 'affected targets must target an attack or effect against the user and can't move further away than they currently are'

Indeed, it would be a generally better construction for that sort of effect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes but we can fix that by making it a combat-only ability.

People are nitpicking edge cases.

Why would it be a combat only ability? You can yell at and insult people at any time. And that doesn't address people who aren't going to charge you in melee just because you insult them, like wizards, archers on a wall, high individuals, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i didn't realise it was specifying melee attacks, i'd be fine with 'affected targets must target an attack or effect against the user and can't move further away than they currently are'

just for the guaranteed control over the battlefield, i realise it's looking at it as a game but isn't one of the complaints about martial's tanking ability (or rather inability) is that they lack any way to actually make anyone target them?

Yeah, because its very hard to make such abilities realistic without supernatural effects.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Having a game benefit justification for it working doesn't change the nature of the feature.

The justification is distinct from the nature. I'm just justifying it.

I simply think there are many situations where it should not work. Even if there were limits on the targets, what about situational limits? Your PC is a prisoner and you want the guards to attack you as a distraction but they're incredibly disciplined and they don't consider you a threat. The targets fear repercussions of attacking because they know they'll face the wrath of their leader. The targets are capable of combat but are pacifists. You may be a threat but they know the guy in robes twiddling his fingers in the back is a bigger threat. The guards have no emotions and cannot be angered into attacking foolishly.

You can make up plenty of scenarios where it does not work, but then that is up to the GM to decide when we are playing. If there is a spell that doesn't work unless the moon is blue or whatever, then that is also up to the GM to adjudicate.

Why would it be a combat only ability? You can yell at and insult people at any time. And that doesn't address people who aren't going to charge you in melee just because you insult them, like wizards, archers on a wall, high individuals, etc.

I'm doing it just to avoid needless nitpicking. The people arguing against this are stuck trying to find arguments to justify why this ability shouldn't exist based on things like "realism" when what they really want to do is say that the ability is too much like a "game ability" and thereby proving the point of the OP.

Predictably, the whole thread was derailed as a consequence.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah, because its very hard to make such abilities realistic without supernatural effects.

i personally don't see why not

 

[Micah Sweet]

The justification is distinct from the nature. I'm just justifying it.

You can make up plenty of scenarios where it does not work, but then that is up to the GM to decide when we are playing. If there is a spell that doesn't work unless the moon is blue or whatever, then that is also up to the GM to adjudicate.

I'm doing it just to avoid needless nitpicking. The people arguing against this are stuck trying to find arguments to justify why this ability shouldn't exist based on things like "realism" when what they really want to do is say that the ability is too much like a "game ability" and thereby proving the point of the OP.

Predictably, the whole thread was derailed as a consequence.

I actually have a problem with it for both reasons, but the realism one matters more to me. I can get over gamism if it makes sense in the world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i personally don't see why not

None of the reasons posited why it wouldn't always work as described matter to you?

 

[Oofta]

The justification is distinct from the nature. I'm just justifying it.

You can make up plenty of scenarios where it does not work, but then that is up to the GM to decide when we are playing. If there is a spell that doesn't work unless the moon is blue or whatever, then that is also up to the GM to adjudicate.

I'm doing it just to avoid needless nitpicking. The people arguing against this are stuck trying to find arguments to justify why this ability shouldn't exist based on things like "realism" when what they really want to do is say that the ability is too much like a "game ability" and thereby proving the point of the OP.

Predictably, the whole thread was derailed as a consequence.

I have no problem with D&D being a game. I just want options to play a PC that doesn't use magic by another name.

 

[Oofta]

i personally don't see why not

How many restrictions do you have? At what point does it just go back to "It's an option depending on the situation?"