D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[LordOfTheWaffleHouse]

It is a forum expression that D&D is "everyone's second choice." IMO, this was never meant to be taken seriously and is certainly not something WotC (or anyone else) would design around. It's a farcical statement. D&D is pretty obviously the first and often only choice for the vast majority of TTRPGers, given its absolutely gigantic market dominance.

The extent to which mechanics determine play style is never going to be cut and dry in a TTRPG, simply because the medium is built around the core notion that each group has final say over their interpretation of the rules and how they will be expressed in play. Even a game as simple as Dread can vary greatly from table to table. In general, the more codified the rules system, the more play style can be controlled, but if a TTRPG is over-codified, it stops being an RPG and becomes a complex boardgame (e.g. Gloomhaven).

4e is probably the farthest D&D has gone in terms of trying to mechanically codify the play experience, and this received significant backlash. 5e went in the other direction, leaving significant space open to player and DM interpretation. I prefer the latter.

This was largely the biggest source of discontent with 4e, yeah, was that it was described by many as "Just WoW but in dnd". It ultimately didn't feel like D&D to me, even though mechanically I'd agree with many that 4e was pretty easily the single most "mechanically functional" version of D&D, but it was also the "least D&D" version of D&D. Which is a problem when you're here to play D&D. I think it's an issue not with either play style or mechanics though, rather I think it's an issue with "the game being played" at it's core. 4e was not D&D, it felt more like Warhammer, which are two very distinctly different games. Even comparing different war games like, say, X-Wing and Warhammer 40,000, you end up with vastly different games.

If I go somewhere bringing my necron army intending to play 40k, it means I'm going to play 40k. I'll not be happy if I get there and everyone who advertised 40k is then playing x-wing, in that situation I'd just leave and go find MY game that I came to play. That was 4e's issue imo, they advertised the game as D&D that was distinctly a different game. It was not a TTRPG, it was more of a hero based war game with a handful of RPG elements.

Otherwise, I dunno maybe genre or campaign preference is being conflated with playstyle. I've played Dark Sun, D&D 2e (Planescape) 3.5 (primarily Greyhawk), and 5e (GH and FR and once Ebberon). I also recently played a mech style game, I can't remember what it was called, for several of my friends, and I have one friend that always wants to play Weird West or Starfinder. I have unfortunately just no interest in these games, the SciFi setting does nothing for me. I like fantasy and my favorite settings are planescape and greyhawk. It's a preference for setting and genre, but I don't think it should be mistaken for a play style or mechanics issue.

 

[Oofta]

So messages are just not sent from where the PCs are? And it's not possible for a PC to have knowledge of how to utilize a message network, even outside their usual hangouts?

All the feature does is circumvent the fetch quest the DM would likely send the PCs on so they can send the message.

But, of course, magic already does that.

That's the real issue, IMO.

I've explained my thoughts on the topic, repeating the question isn't going to change anything.

 

[Mort]

I've explained my thoughts on the topic, repeating the question isn't going to change anything.

I was responding to your post so someone else following along can see my thoughts on the issue.

I've found it's best not to expect any minds to be changed, but opinions can still be posted

 

[hawkeyefan]

and maybe sometimes they just do not know anyone

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

It may have started as the background, but right from the jump, I suggested coming up with ways to make it work. Instead of just saying "ugh, that's implausible and makes me groan, so NO!" to first see if you can think of a reason to say yes.

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

No, but if the DM just overrides things the player does that are legal moves, then that's pretty much all that's left.

Player: "I cast Zone of Truth!"

DM: "No, you don't because I need this NPC to lie to you!"

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.

Yes, this permissibility is rampant. Magic can do it all because magic. Anything else needs to adhere to bizarre standards.

But really, what we're talking about, magic or not, are game moves. Privileging one set of moves over another just seems like a crappy approach to a game.

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

Well, it's a game... so magic is capable of whatever the designers and participants decide its capable of. Same as mundane elements meant to represent the characters and their qualities.

here is the beginning of this, slightly condensed


two on topic posts or so later I replied with


and we are off…

And you don't see what @prabe suggested as being the kind of creative collaboration that I mentioned?

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.

I think the key here is that it's meant to be a roleplaying aid rather than an I-Win button. I mean, presumably at some point, the PCs are likely to make a contact in the new location. So this simply facilitates something that would most likely happen anyway.

Now, if the PCs are in some far off, hostile city or what have you? Sure, there can be exceptions. Generally speaking, I think "No" should be the exception rather than "Yes" when it comes to PC abilities.

 

[soviet]

If magic can do anything, but nonmagical means are ineffective, isn't it likely that your friend who is a member of a large criminal conspiracy, has magical ways to transmit a message?

 

[Mort]

If magic can do anything, but nonmagical means are ineffective, isn't it likely that your friend who is a member of a large criminal conspiracy, has magical ways to transmit a message?

Sure:

" I saw you have a fancy wizard in your group, why don't you ask him!"

Feature fulfilled.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
Stop making this personal. Really. Just stop. Thanks.

 

[prabe]

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.

If this is the D&D 5e Criminal Background, they're misusing it, or misunderstanding it--though they should as I read it be able to make non-hostile contact with the underworld no matter where they are, they don't know some specific person in any/every city they could possibly go to.

If this is something more like the Spirit of the Century Stunt "I Know a Guy Who Knows a Guy," they literally have contacts--often at a level of at least one remove, as the name implies--everywhere they go. That's a build-level choice and I wouldn't just blithely negate that.

Backstory isn't the same as build, of course, but if someone gives me backstory stuff I can use, I see no reason not to use it.

 

[prabe]

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.

I think it's written just fine, and I think it's pretty clear. A player trying to use it to put someone they know everywhere they go is, as I says, misunderstanding or misusing it. Knowing how to get a message to your contact--a build feature--seems eminently reasonable; hence, my thinking about allowing non-hostile contact with whatever criminal underworld exists, wherever. I think it's obvious that "non-hostile contact" contains limits in its own description, and any player who tried to push those boundaries after an explanation of the rules might well come to regret that.

 

[prabe]

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...

Depends on the plane, of course, but weren't we talking about more conventional travel and more conventional cities? The feature says what it says, and I wouldn't just blithely negate it; planar travel doesn't seem as though it needs to be blithe, though it might depend on the how and why the PCs ended up doing it.