Here are some quotes I've pulled off the discussion on Rogues, tricks, compulsion, and DM Fiat. The argument seems to be that a creative rogue player could do many of the the things 4E listed as "powers." So having things in the game life compelling an enemy to blunder forward on a failed saving throw is unnecessary. The counterargument to that is while the rogue is able to do these creative things, without them being spelled out they are subject to "DM Fiat." This is where the DM makes a decision that alters the mechanical/narrative direction things would naturally take. I have bolded my comments below.
I think that it makes sense for the rogue to have a few tricks up its sleave that go beyond (meaning not subject to?) DM fiat. Spellcasters should not be the only ones with access to such powers. To me, this seemed just an explicit declaration if what had been true all along, to shut up the "classes aren't balanced" whiners. A rogue could try a trick like this ALREADY. In EVERY edition of D&D. (technically, any class could, a rogue just had a better chance of success.) Making the process explicit makes the Balance Brigade shut up, without changing the game one iota. I agree with this poster that one of the rogue's best features is it offers a better chance of success (through skill bonuses) to a creative player.
Reply to the Above
--Yeah. If your DM allowed it, sure. There's a huge difference between stating it explicitly in the rules and leaving it up to the DM, though. Personally, I wouldn't play in a game that allowed anyone to non-magically mind-control anyone just by talking; I'm fairly certain that most of the DMs I've played under would not allow it, either.
Reply to Above the Above
A rogue could try a trick like this ALREADY. In EVERY edition of D&D.
Lightning Round - Each Line is a reply to the above.
-They had some options for it in 4E, but in every other edition is was restricted to DM fiat. Having your entirely schtick always be determined by DM fiat isn't acceptable. I don't think is fair. You tell the DM what you do, he doesn't tell you. The Fiat is where the DM changes what would naturally happen. You attempt to goad the enemy into blundering forward. The Fiat comes when despite you bluffing that you kidnapped his wife, the enemy gives you the finger and pulls out a ranged weapon. The Fiat is when the enemy moves forward, but steps around the trap you cunningly prepared before the encounter without a spot check.
--Yeah. Imagine if other classes had to put up with that. So Fighters could attack if the DM said it was ok. A wizard could cast a spell if the DM said that it would work. We might as well not have any rules. On the plus side, the books will be VERY cheap.
---Yes really. Imagine, if you will, that a wizard's magical ability was one paragraph of suggestions about how magic might be used. So as a wizard, you have to imagine what kind of spell you're wanting to cast, what its effects, range, and rolls might be, and ask the DM if that will work.
----If it's something your class is intended to be able to do (casting spells for wizards, tricking enemies for rogues), it should have concrete mechanics, so that the DM has to explicitly go out of his way to change how it works if he wants to. That's the only way to keep it fair to players.
----- There is no such thing as "DM fiat." All D&D games are negotiations between players and DMs. Always have been. If you wanted a game with immutable rules, you should have been playing chess.
------Yes, but part of those negotiations involves giving the DM the authority to make autonomous decisions. The name for that is DM Fiat.
“I'm not certain why a mechanical compulsion MUST necessarily translate into a narrative compulsion. Just because the ability forces a creature to take a certain action doesn't mean that there is any magical force at work which compels that action; it is merely a mechanical representation of something very realistic and possible. To insist that such an ability MUST be non-magical hypnosis is to be willfully obstinate.” Does it fall to the DM, or the player to describe what happens when a power compels an NPC to do something? Charm and Suggestion place the onus on the DM. But more than that, if there's a rule for something, there will be a point when it doesn't make sense.
I'm not convinced it's something that needs to be a codified power. These 'mind tricks' are subject to DM fiat and to the situation at hand. It's clear that against some creatures it will automatically fail. In addition, this "power" does nothing that the Improvised Action doesn't already cover.
"It does something very special that the Improvised Action doesn't already cover, as people have explained. It tells the DM: "This action has been approved by the designers. It is balanced and appropriate."
Saying that you can just use the Improvised Action isn't an argument, because it applies to everything. Why have rules for attacking? For casting spells? For anything? The entire combat section could just be: Improvised Action. Tell your DM what you want to do and they tell you if you can do it or not."
A while ago I got to play Fiasco with a group of people. It's not really a game, more like a structure to let you improvise a story. And I didn't really enjoy it too much. A big part of this was because, I really felt lost with the lack of structure. So I really do see the appeal in getting suggestions for how to use skills in fights and in general. Saying I can do whatever I want with the rules doesn't give me ideas for what I should do. But I don't see the possibility of being able to do anything as complete anarchy.