D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[mamba]

It was clear from the backgrounds thread that it's a skill issue.

I disagree, as I said earlier coming up with an explanation is not really a challenge, anyone can come up with improbable ideas - and from what I have seen as ‘solutions to the challenge’ in this thread, that is exactly what happens…

If you want to pat yourself on the back for how skillfully you navigate such creative challenges, then please provide some examples for it (general you). So far all we got is

all sorts of coincidences seem plausible and appropriate.

which is basically what I described as highly improbable nonsense, and all of you giving that a thumbs up…

 

[mamba]

It seems like there is a Pacific Ocean's worth of excluded middle between the GM making all the decisions about the world and "who cares what the player makes up or how probable it is, just let them run wild and roll with it."

sure, these are not the only two options. I also did not say the player can never propose something that gets accepted.

This started with the player being able to argue why there is someone they can use as a contact in any given location, and at that point we are very much at the ‘who cares about probability, just roll with it’ end of the spectrum as far as I am concerned

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't agree that the mechanics focus on one playstyle. There are games out there that revolve around a playstyle and they generally do that playstyle exceptionally well. D&D is broader, though. It doesn't do ANY playstyle exceptionally well, but it does do almost all of them decently to well. House rules then improve your particular playstyle from there.

No not really. Soviet is right about 5e combining mechanics to pretty much force a single playstyle. It really only does other styles "decently well" if the goal is to use them as reletively unimportant low impact fluff struggling against the OneTrueWay

 

[mamba]

But who is saying that "who cares what they make up or how probable it is" is the best way to create fiction.

certainly not me, I won’t speak for ‘your side’…

I mean, do you think that GMs just make up <whatever> without caring about it or how probable it is? Why would players be different?

because it is convenient / easy and gets the job done, different goals.

If having a criminal contact would help significantly in the situation, what player will not ‘happen to know someone’? I’d argue very few

 

[soviet]

I disagree, as I said earlier coming up with an explanation is not really a challenge, anyone can come up with improbable ideas - and from what I have seen as ‘solutions to the challenge’ in this thread, that is exactly what happens…

If you want to pat yourself on the back for how skillfully you navigate such creative challenges, then please provide some examples for it (general you). So far all we got is

which is basically what I described as highly improbable nonsense, and all of you giving that a thumbs up…

I posted several examples in the thread we are now re-litigating

 

[soviet]

And I would heartily disagree with you about flat characters and hollow societies. In fact, what I have experienced is just the opposite. A DM running the world the way you run it would to me not be doing the work and the world would not ring true.

Pemerton didn't say that as a position, rather as a hypothetical to show how insulting the equivalent ('improbable nonsense') is.

 

[Emerikol]

Pemerton didn't say that as a position, rather as a hypothetical to show how insulting the equivalent ('improbable nonsense') is.

My point then would be to say -- when someone says something makes THEM feel a certain way it is fine. When people say it IS that way objectively then that is not best. I often put "I feel" in front of those sentences giving the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure I've said such things myself in the past. But it is best to say it.


Edit: And this does not apply to "I think" which while I use it to avoid arguments is completely unnecessary. You are writing it of course it's what you think.

 

[soviet]

My point then would be to say -- when someone says something makes THEM feel a certain way it is fine. When people say it IS that way objectively then that is not best. I often put "I feel" in front of those sentences giving the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure I've said such things myself in the past. But it is best to say it.

? The text was perfectly clear that it was a hypothetical. Did you miss the preceding part that went 'If I said'?

 

[Emerikol]

? The text was perfectly clear that it was a hypothetical. Did you miss the preceding part that went 'If I said'?

No. I was responding by giving a general statement on my overall position in light of what you had said.

 

[soviet]

No. I was responding by giving a general statement on my overall position in light of what you had said.

OK