D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[mamba]

If you say so.

here is the beginning of this, slightly condensed

Actually, the closest 5e came was several of the Background Features in the 2014 version. They allowed a player to outright declare something… the presence of food, friendly locals that will help, a criminal contact in a new city, and so on.

two on topic posts or so later I replied with

no it’s more a matter of ‘it makes no sense for you to know some contact in this far away land / plane you happen to find yourself in, no matter what your background says’

I would, as a GM, take the explanation for such to be a creative challenge.

and we are off…

I'd probably go with my suggestion above that the PC would be able to make non-hostile contact with the local underworld.

I agree that this is much better, I have no issue with that one

 

[Mort]

here is the beginning of this, slightly condensed


two on topic posts or so later I replied with


and we are off…


I agree that this is much better, I have no issue with that one

So the trick here is to recognize where you (the general you) have issues and make sure any abilities of the players take those issues into account and are modified accordingly (as was just done at the end there). Preferably in some way acceptable both to player and DM.

The absolute worst result is to allow the player to have the feature (ability, whatever) and then just constantly shut it down.

 

[prabe]

here is the beginning of this, slightly condensed


two on topic posts or so later I replied with


and we are off…

The background feature you argued about at some length gives the PC one contact, which I'd presume they'd name and place at start of campaign. It says you can always make contact with them, that you know the underworld messaging systems (couriers, et al.). As I said, I see nothing problematic with the background. Now, if someone wanted it to be more generalizable, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing them to make non-hostile contact with the criminal underworld when they traveled to a new place; I wouldn't expect that to be a deus ex machina of any sort.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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

I remember having a scenario where the PCs were in a land far, far, away from home. I made it clear they had never been to the place, hadn't even known it existed. One of the players pipes up and says "I get hold of my criminal contact in the city". So maybe you never have the player that would take the wording literally and assume they have a contact wherever they happened to go, logic be damned, but I have. It just doesn't work for me.

I'm happy to give people benefits for backstory. They may know where they are more likely to find someone, may have a better understanding of how to make a contact. But it's not going to be automatic and it will frequently take a fair amount of effort depending on the scenario.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'll just say here. If you mean DM control of the setting outside the player characters then yes. That is a playstyle and I want it whether I am a player or a DM. If you mean a person as a human being is obsessed with control then I disagree. Obviously they might overlap but they don't have to overlap.

This is the kind of straightforward talk I prefer. I am very much talking about control of the setting and the contents that comprise it. Whether a person may have control issues beyond that is not something I care about (as far as this discussion goes).

I've run just about every iteration of D&D since I was a kid. I've read the rule books and tons of supplemental material. The DM as primary storyteller, as arbiter of the world, and so on... it's a very strong theme across the board for D&D.

For him it is groan inducing. For many it probably is but for others it is not. Yes he used derogatory language as you do often. But he is showing how it makes him feel. Why he rejects it is that it produces that groan inside him that the whole thing is a farce. I would agree with him on this fact. But he was talking about his personal feelings on the matter.

I have no problem with him expressing his views or his thoughts on the matter. He can criticize my comments or my chosen methods of play all he likes. I can take it.

I'm only pointing it out because when folks even approach criticism of his preferred styles... or if he perceives such criticism, he points out that it's a problem.

Personally, I prefer we actually be able to examine things critically. I

Really? Control is not an insult as you used it? I think not. In fact you didn't caveat and say "this feels more controlling to me" but instead you just stated it matter of factly.

No, control is not an insult. It's literally what people are claiming they want. I don't know why folks would explain how they prefer to keep control over the setting, but then balk when it's pointed out as such.

The desire to control things is, in my opinion, at the heart of a lot of matters of playstyle.

I think the objection is the player just handwaving such people into existence as needed. I'd be fine ahead of time defining some NPCs that the player knew if his or her schtick was knowing a lot of people.

I don't know what "hand-waving" means in this context. Do you mean "introducing only as needed in the moment"? If so, why is that a problem?

If the DM invents a character two weeks before play, are they "hand-waving" that NPC into existence?

 

[Oofta]

The background feature you argued about at some length gives the PC one contact, which I'd presume they'd name and place at start of campaign. It says you can always make contact with them, that you know the underworld messaging systems (couriers, et al.). As I said, I see nothing problematic with the background. Now, if someone wanted it to be more generalizable, I wouldn't have a problem with allowing them to make non-hostile contact with the criminal underworld when they traveled to a new place; I wouldn't expect that to be a deus ex machina of any sort.

But that's the issue. People interpret it as having a contact wherever they go.

EDIT: The specific wording "You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you." basically says you can always get a message to your contact no matter where you are. I think it's a poorly written background.

 

[mamba]

The background feature you argued about at some length gives the PC one contact, which I'd presume they'd name and place at start of campaign. It says you can always make contact with them, that you know the underworld messaging systems (couriers, et al.). As I said, I see nothing problematic with the background

so you are on a different plane you have never been to, but somehow you recognize a messenger there who just happens to know your contact and can deliver a message to them? You mighty not see a problem here, but I do...

 

[hawkeyefan]

"Groan-inducing" is also pretty negative. If I said "A game where people just play their characters, and have to wait for the DM to tell them any little detail would produce a pretty groan-inducing game, for me and my preferences", I don't think you would view that charitably.

If you said this to @Oofta he would absolutely complain and then start talking about carrots.

 

[TwoSix]

If you said this to @Oofta he would absolutely complain and then start talking about carrots.

 

[Mort]

But that's the issue. People interpret it as having a contact wherever they go.

But that's not what it says - so that's an easy one!

EDIT: The specific wording "You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you." basically says you can always get a message to your contact no matter where you are. I think it's a poorly written background.

And here's the "why not" question. all it allows you to do is get a message to your contact, whether that will be of real benefit - that's not what the feature does. ALL it says is, criminal organizations tend to be similar and a true criminal (the background) has a good understanding of how they work and can exploit that, even somewhere they've never been before.

It's meant to be a roleplaying aid not an I win button.

If they're in a TRULY alien place where NOTHING works as they know it to? well that's a different story and that's the challenge.