D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[prabe]

My "rationale" was that if the the game was about fate then the theme of the game might be taken to demand some wild coincidences, and even if not that, then they might be appropriate. Also, good job just blasting past the idea that even those wild coincidences need to be consistent with what's already established. Also, sometimes even in somewhat more grounded fiction, a character might have incredible luck--or a wide net of contacts, or whatever--as at least a part of their shtick, and it might make sense for things to break their way, or for them to know someone here. GM introduces NPC; player does mechanically allowed game thing and says, "I went to college with him!" The GM now has the challenge of running the scene, with that change, being consistent with all the things that are established--none of which necessarily needs to be anything in the way of an explanation of how did the PC's college classmate wind out as a waterfront thug?

so you are basically establishing a scenario in which it works by default and then try to use that as proof why it cannot ever be improbable nonsense?

That does work..

No, I'm saying "improbable nonsense" will be dependent on context, as well as on personal taste. One scenario might demand it, one might tolerate it, one might reject it. I'm also saying that even if the scenario kinda demands it, it's still at least very likely to need to be consistent with what has come before, what has already been established; I'm also saying that maintaining that consistency is the creative challenge a GM who allows such things is accepting.

As it happens, I personally do not prefer games that specifically allow the players to add such things in play, though as GM I very much enjoy asking them for things I can use, that I then have to make fit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

not to that degree that he knows someone everywhere, no, and even well connected ones usually have a better explanation than ‘because I am a 2nd level Rogue with the criminal background’

They don't even have to know someone everywhere. Maybe in some places they know people, maybe in others they know the name of someone who may help, maybe in others they know how to make contact with someone who may help.

No one has advocated for leaving it at "he's a second level rogue with the criminal background".

all the decisions, not sure, but ‘who cares what the player makes up or how probable it is, just let them run wild and roll with it’ just is not for me.
It might work for you and @pemerton, but I would lose interest, whether as DM or player

I don't think it's something that has to be left entirely up to the player. The GM can have input.

These kinds of connections are, in my opinion, one of the things that makes the setting feel lived in... that the characters exist in that place and have prior to the start of play. That they aren't obviously visitors to the DM's setting.

summon criminal contact?

Somehow more acceptable, because magic by definition is not grounded in probability or logic.

I still might not like it, D&D definitely has its shares of spells I do not like / think need to be removed or nerfed, but at least it then has more of a case for it than the background does, as it is harder to argue that this is not just an unintended result of the background being phrased poorly / too vaguely.

On the upside at least it costs resources, so that is something too

So this is something that always interests me. "Because magic" is an acceptable explanation for so much. But "because mundane" is not. And while this may make sense for some things... like throwing a fireball that would explode and kill one's enemies... it's just not true about something like knowing many people or being well-connected or well-travelled.

depends on the one person

Nah, railroads ruin my verisimilitude every time.

 

[prabe]

These kinds of connections are, in my opinion, one of the things that makes the setting feel lived in... that the characters exist in that place and have prior to the start of play. That they aren't obviously visitors to the DM's setting.

Asking for connections to the setting before Session One, establishing the PCs as locals to the starting city, is a thing the players in the campaign I did that for have called out multiple times as making that city feel more "there." As GM, I don't handle in-play player-instigated additions super-well, so I mostly don't allow that (barring special abilities, of course) but I do ask for inputs from time to time, and I use what the players give me, and it's sometimes a challenge to make it all fit.

 

[Maxperson]

You really don't see how the near universal ability to basically ignore the dark barring this kind of tenuous edge case while being unhindered adding to removing from & carrying around an inventory charging straight into hammerspace superpower undermines a dungeon crawling adventure? Likewise with sandbox campaigns being undermined byPCs with kyrptonian level durability in combat who can nap anywhere under any conditions other than GM fiat level "no" to snap back from basically anything?

Spoiler

That is correct. Darkvison in 5e is a big nothing burger.

The edge case comic while amusing, misses the biggest issue with 5e darkvison. Namely that you get disadvantage on every perception check involving vision. So it doesn't matter if you need the green sword or red sword, because in all likelihood you can't see the sword.

In any case, what happens if you take all darkvison away? People just use torches or cast light. The party is still going to be able to see in the dungeon, so what is the real difference between light spell or darkvison? The dungeon crawl is going to play out roughly the same whether the darkvison is there or not.

Unless you play by RAW, in which case the darkvison folks still use light to avoid the perception penalty.

 

[Emerikol]

That is correct. Darkvison in 5e is a big nothing burger.

The edge case comic while amusing, misses the biggest issue with 5e darkvison. Namely that you get disadvantage on every perception check involving vision. So it doesn't matter if you need the green sword or red sword, because in all likelihood you can't see the sword.

In any case, what happens if you take all darkvison away? People just use torches or cast light. The party is still going to be able to see in the dungeon, so what is the real difference between light spell or darkvison? The dungeon crawl is going to play out roughly the same whether the darkvison is there or not.

Unless you play by RAW, in which case the darkvison folks still use light to avoid the perception penalty.

The light of a torch will warn most enemies. Far better to not alert them by using darkvision.

 

[mamba]

No, I'm saying "improbable nonsense" will be dependent on context, as well as on personal taste. One scenario might demand it, one might tolerate it, one might reject it.

then I am not really sure what your point is, that is not really that far from where I am. Nothing was established, all there was was a poorly worded character background and a maximal interpretation by the player to be able to say ‘Would you look at this, I just spotted my old buddy deus ex machina over there. I wonder what he is up to, maybe he can even help us with the situation we find ourselves in. I go over to talk to him’…

it's still at least very likely to need to be consistent with what has come before, what has already been established

we agree on this one

As it happens, I personally do not prefer games that specifically allow the players to add such things in play, though as GM I very much enjoy asking them for things I can use, that I then have to make fit.

works for me

 

[Mort]

summon criminal contact?

Somehow more acceptable, because magic by definition is not grounded in probability or logic.

I still might not like it, D&D definitely has its shares of spells I do not like / think need to be removed or nerfed, but at least it then has more of a case for it than the background does, as it is harder to argue that this is not just an unintended result of the background being phrased poorly / too vaguely.

On the upside at least it costs resources, so that is something too

Can I just say how much I HATE, it's ok "because magic..."

PC has a "mundane" ability that establishes they are part of something that has contacts nearly everywhere or at least can get to some contacts. DM first demands that it pass "the smell test.." then demands it not be too "improbable..." then demands it only works when they "say it works" because reasons - Often hurdle after hurdle (I've seen it happen).

PC has a magical ability/spell that summons help or allows a message to be relayed.
PC: I have a magical way to...
DM: Say no more - your good...

Seen this happen too. More often than not, same DM.

 

[mamba]

They don't even have to know someone everywhere. Maybe in some places they know people, maybe in others they know the name of someone who may help, maybe in others they know how to make contact with someone who may help.

and maybe sometimes they just do not know anyone

No one has advocated for leaving it at "he's a second level rogue with the criminal background".

you are correct, it could be a 1st level Fighter with the criminal background too…

The whole argument started with ‘and because of my background, I…’ so I’d say that was very much what was being advocated for

Nah, railroads ruin my verisimilitude every time.

because that is the only other option if the DM does not say ‘yes’ to everything a player suggests

 

[Micah Sweet]

Can I just say how much I HATE, it's ok "because magic..."

PC has a "mundane" ability that establishes they are part of something that has contacts nearly everywhere or at least can get to some contacts. DM first demands that it pass "the smell test.." then demands it not be too "improbable..." then demands it only works when they "say it works" because reasons - Often hurdle after hurdle (I've seen it happen).

PC has a magical ability/spell that summons help or allows a message to be relayed.
PC: I have a magical way too...
DM: Say no more - your good...

Seen this happen too. More often than not, same DM.

It can be annoying, but like it or not magic can conceptually do things not-magic can't, especially if you take technology out of the equation.

 

[mamba]

Can I just say how much I HATE, it's ok "because

sure, all I am saying is that it is hard to argue that something is highly improbable to be achievable via magic when the very definition of magic is that it allows the impossible

Didn’t say I was happy with it, only that it is harder to argue against

PC has a "mundane" ability that establishes they are part of something that has contacts nearly everywhere or at least can get to some contacts.

I am perfectly fine with the latter, and the criminal background does that. It does not do the former as far as I am concerned, that is a consequence of poor wording, not intent