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

[pemerton]

Ok. I belive that, outside of the PC's (not the player's) direct actions, the GM is the world of the game.

Happy?

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

 

[pemerton]

Please show where anyone said that. You can taunt all you want, the reaction of the target will be up to the DM's judgement because barring magic the DM is responsible for the reactions of NPCs.

Says who?

There are some battlemaster maneuvers that I consider explicitly supernatural which is fine.

You are now houseruling the game, and insisting that that is a standard everyone else must play by.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree.

To me it's far more ridiculous to have the bro who just has their God take in the dry cleaning every day, or the lady who just says "screw it, I'll just make another me" or the rando who just turns into an air elemental several times a day..

than it is to just have a person who is just really good at fighting...being really good at fighting.

Not without explanation (ie, some supernatural ability, like all the other beings you mentioned).

None of the characters described, including the fighter, are in any way relatable. Its just ridiculous power fantasy if you keep going up like that without changing the game, and more so if it is somehow done without magic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

 

[pemerton]

Looks like an awful rule ready to be misused and leading to a lot of discussion about what a reasonable request is.

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"?

Way to miss the point (that we should be responsible in the way we discuss play techniques so as to not be dismissive of and misdescribe the way that other people play roleplaying games).

Also that this is General D&D thread and not a 5e thread so we should take care to respect the full legacy of the game.

That's crazy talk!

But they don't demand specific actions from the NPCs, particularly ones that put their lives in danger, without magic.

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?

The flip side of that is that if that power is limited to a certain class or subclass, some DMs will then rule that in order to taunt an enemy into a fight it is only possible if you have that specific power. After all, they don't want to step on the toes of people that do have that special power.

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?

And if the game limited the player to only use those abilities when genre appropriate, that would be a fine philosophy (albeit for a different game). But D&D doesn't do that, so that ability will get used any time a player sees a mechanical advantage in doing so.

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?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do the creators of WotC consider them supernatural? Or is this a fiction of your own device that you impose on the game to reconcile your own cognitive biases? I think that it's fine if it's your own biases or preferences, but I think trying to pretend that the game does or should follow those preferences is where the problem exists.


The fighter also has an ability that reliably heals himself back up using a limited resource that recharges on a long rest. Clearly Second Wind is a magical healing spell!


FWIW, D&D is neither a fiction first game nor a mechanics first game. It may claim to be fiction first, but it's an inconsistent mix. It actually has a LOT of mechanics first as part of its game. Falling damage in D&D, for example, is an example of mechanics first and not fiction first. The fiction is only pertinent in so far as the GM consults the mechanical table that determines how much fall damage the character takes on the basis of distance. The rest of the fiction, first or otherwise, doesn't matter to the consequences.

An example of falling damage in a more fiction first oriented game would be like in Fate or Blades in the Dark, where things like a broken foot are possible consequences of a fall that can impair the character and be used against them. But these are games where the consequences are meant to follow the established fiction.

Oh, I'm sorry. Am I supposed to care what  WotC thinks?

 

[pemerton]

what’s the alternative, the DM saying what happens?

<snip>

If all there were is what the DM decides, we have story hour, not a game

But this is exactly what you, @Oofta, and @Micah Sweet are proposing for the ability of a warrior to goad opponents into attacking!

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's worth noting, in reply to this, that the Fireball and Lightning Bolt spells have been part of the game since its inception. "Pressing buttons" has always been the core play experience for players of D&D spell casters.

Worth noting that both those spells were considerably riskier to use in 1e than they are now: the button could backfire if you weren't careful with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not looking to play a game where fighters have the ability to supernaturally influence reality. I am looking to play and run games (sometimes) where fighters can be just that damn good at provoking people. Insisting I'm doing the former when I'm really doing the latter is messed up. It doesn't have to appeal to you, but there is no need to blatantly misrepresent what's happening here.

I know that's how you see it, and it is perfectly fine for it work that way in your game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But this is exactly what you, @Oofta, and @Micah Sweet are proposing for the ability of a warrior to goad opponents into attacking!

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.