D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[prabe]

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.

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 seems to me that you're anticipating nothing but bad-faith, exploitative play from the players, and I'm expecting at least more of a range. If a player made a choice at chargen that enables them to establish contacts in places, I see no problem with with allowing the player to establish contacts in places. As a GM, I might ask them for those contacts before play entered places ... "So, y'all are about to go into Embernook, first time y'all have been there as a group. I-know-a-guy Guy, who's your contact here?" Of course, I'm not really good at tracking PC abilities, so I might forget a time or three, but I might tell the player that they're much more likely to have the sort of contacts they want if they establish them that sort of not-in-play way.

Normally when I see expectations of or complaints about bad-faith, exploitative play, the problem usually boils down to a given GM not wanting the players to have any say in the setting. This is plausibly OK, I know there are tables that have lots of fun that way, I just wish people would be more honest--with themselves, even--about that.

we agree on this one


works for me

I'm so glad you agree that consistency and player input don't conflict.

 

[Mort]

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.

The problem is many DMs over limit what non-magical stuff can do (see this thread and many more like it) while being extremely overly permissive with magic.

This is compounded by the fact that, in D&D (5e or otherwise) Magic has very very few consequences. Caster casts the spell, stuff happens - no chance of anything bad happening to caster (with very few exceptions).

In some systems, failing a spellcasting check can literally kill the caster - then sure OK be permissive with magic.

 

[Mort]

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

With most spells it's actually pretty easy - just don't allow spells to do more than they say they can do. WAY too many DMs are overly permissive with allowing spells to be multitools when they should be very specific.

Granted this often goes out the window once high level is reached, spells start being general by design. But that's when it's also best to not be stingy with non-magical solutions.

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

As long as the latter can be useful to the player then it is functionally equivalent and just fine. Too many DMs will just shut the ability down rather than do that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is many DMs over limit what non-magical stuff can do (see this thread and many more like it) while being extremely overly permissive with magic.

This is compounded by the fact that, in D&D (5e or otherwise) Magic has very very few consequences. Caster casts the spell, stuff happens - no chance of anything bad happening to caster (with very few exceptions).

In some systems, failing a spellcasting check can literally kill the caster - then sure OK be permissive with magic.

I agree magic should be more dangerous. But the ease of spellcasting has nothing to do with what magic is capable of.

 

[mamba]

If a player made a choice at chargen that enables them to establish contacts in places, I see no problem with with allowing the player to establish contacts in places.

and I see no reason to not go into more detail in session 0 and rule out that this is understood as ‘literally anywhere’ instead of ‘in the region I grew up in’ or something similar

Also, establishing new contacts is very different from already having contacts, I have no issue with the former

 

[prabe]

It seems to me that you're anticipating nothing but bad-faith, exploitative play from the players, and I'm expecting at least more of a range. If a player made a choice at chargen that enables them to establish contacts in places, I see no problem with with allowing the player to establish contacts in places. As a GM, I might ask them for those contacts before play entered places ... "So, y'all are about to go into Embernook, first time y'all have been there as a group. I-know-a-guy Guy, who's your contact here?" Of course, I'm not really good at tracking PC abilities, so I might forget a time or three, but I might tell the player that they're much more likely to have the sort of contacts they want if they establish them that sort of not-in-play way.

and I see no reason to not go into more detail in session 0 and rule out that this is understood as ‘literally anywhere’ instead of ‘in the region I grew up in’ or something similar

Seems to me as though Session Zero would be a perfect time to establish the limits of a chargen choice, if chargen choices are supposed to matter. You could limit it as seemed apt, so long as the player felt they were getting something for it roughly equivalent to what they'd get for some other choice. You could limit it by distance from their home, or to their home city if you were really planning to run most of the campaign there, or you could explicitly make it a roll, or you could rule that outside of some limited range they could make contacts (which would at least start out non-hostile) with/in the local underworld, but they needed to explicitly do that. The last, I think, seems most in keeping with the expectations the background ability raises.

See? It's easy, and it doesn't challenge established fiction at all.

 

[Mort]

I agree magic should be more dangerous. But the ease of spellcasting has nothing to do with what magic is capable of.

Sure it does.

Because D&D magic is easy (maybe a better term would be "consequence free") Designers keep piling on more and more magic, adventure writers use it as a crutch to have magic be the solution to many things in many modules. Even in world building too many professional and homebrew people use "because magic..." as a handwaive for why things are the way they are. Thus magic becomes capable of just about anything because there are no consequences for it being so.

And that leads right back to DMs, taking this as a que, being very liberal with "it's magic..." reasoning while giving the stink eye to anything non-magic. When, IME, the exact opposite should usually be true. The DM should be giving the overly broad use of magic the stink eye.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure it does.

Because D&D magic is easy (maybe a better term would be "consequence free") Designers keep piling on more and more magic, adventure writers use it as a crutch to have magic be the solution to many things in many modules. Even in world building too many professional and homebrew people use "because magic..." as a handwaive for why things are the way they are. Thus magic becomes capable of just about anything because there are no consequences for it being so.

And that leads right back to DMs, taking this as a que, being very liberal with "it's magic..." reasoning while giving the stink eye to anything non-magic. When, IME, the exact opposite should usually be true. The DM should be giving the overly broad use of magic the stink eye.

I can only speak for myself, but I have nonproblem allowing not-magic to be powerful, providing it makes sense to me in the setting. And the same goes with magic.

 

[mamba]

See? It's easy, and it doesn't challenge established fiction at all.

it also is nowhere near the case this started out as…

 

[prabe]

it also is nowhere near the case this started out as…

If you say so. I don't see a problem with the background feature as written, but I'd probably go with my suggestion above that the PC would be able to make non-hostile contact with the local underworld. It's not wildly different than the Thieves' Cant being the same everywhere as far as plausibility, and I have no problem with that working as written.