D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Maxperson]

Maybe you're not seeing all the posters in the thread, but my post was in response to people who are saying that it's offensive to say a GM veto is about control

I don't see everyone, so that's entirely possible.

I clearly agree, though, the DM veto is not about control.

 

[soviet]

Not if you are going to insult the style and those who play them. Sharing a view is saying why you like or don't like something. Insults are something else entirely.

I was told that 'groan inducing', 'improbable nonsense' and 'logic be damned' are merely neutral descriptors with no value judgement

 

[hawkeyefan]

Depends on the move. For my part, such a move would have to make setting sense to apply as written in every circumstance for it to "simply work" with no comment.

Right… but don’t you think that’s what any group would try and do? Like, the move is a game thing, but in the fiction of the game world, you’d describe what it meant. I think the group can work together to make sense of any use of the ability.

Not if you are going to insult the style and those who play them. Sharing a view is saying why you like or don't like something. Insults are something else entirely.

I think perhaps you missed the point I was making, Max. Others were describing what I was advocating for as “nonsensical” and “groan-inducing” and the like, and then stating that because that’s how they feel, they should be able to express it.

So then I did the same.

I clearly agree, though, the DM veto is not about control.

I mean… that’s literally what it is.

Player: “This happens.”

DM: “Actually, no… that happens.”

How is that not exercising control?

 

[Maxperson]

I was told that 'groan inducing', 'improbable nonsense' and 'logic be damned' are merely neutral descriptors with no value judgement

That would depend on the context. Those could all be insulting or not, depending on said context. I didn't see those posts, so I can't really say.

 

[Maxperson]

I think perhaps you missed the point I was making, Max. Others were describing what I was advocating for as “nonsensical” and “groan-inducing” and the like, and then stating that because that’s how they feel, they should be able to express it.

So then I did the same.

I didn't see those posts, but if that was the context, then they were also wrong.

I mean… that’s literally what it is.

Player: “This happens.”

DM: “Actually, no… that happens.”

How is that not exercising control?

It is, but that doesn't make it ABOUT control.

 

[mamba]

It may have started as the background, but right from the jump, I suggested coming up with ways to make it work.

all you did was say 'I take it as a creative challenge' without providing any solution that was not one of those highly improbable coincidences to get it to 'work'

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

whether that was a legal move is highly debatable, I'd say it was a badly worded background that got exploited

 

[Xetheral]

Right… but don’t you think that’s what any group would try and do? Like, the move is a game thing, but in the fiction of the game world, you’d describe what it meant. I think the group can work together to make sense of any use of the ability.



I think perhaps you missed the point I was making, Max. Others were describing what I was advocating for as “nonsensical” and “groan-inducing” and the like, and then stating that because that’s how they feel, they should be able to express it.

So then I did the same.



I mean… that’s literally what it is.

Player: “This happens.”

DM: “Actually, no… that happens.”

How is that not exercising control?

Exercising control is not necessarily about control. At the most basic level, exercising control can be secondary to some other purpose, in which case exercising control is "about" whatever that purpose is.

More broadly, as I pointed out previously, the concept of control is freighted with complex connotations. It doesn't take much to switch from a positive or neutral connotation to a negative one when discussing control. In particular, anything that touches on control being an end in its own right (e.g. calling something "about control," suggesting that achieving control is a primary motivation) is going to carry a negative connotation for many people, whereas saying someone is "exercising control" can more easily carry a neutral connotation of doing a job, or even a positive connotation of satisfying a responsibility. Since "exercising control" and "about control" have incompatible connotations, they can't be interchangeable.

 

[mamba]

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

Which of the things he mentioned? Creating a setting in which fate / the gods frequently intervene, so some badly designed background can always work? No. Enabling the character to establish new contacts in new places, sure, I never was against that, but that also is not what the background says

 

[mamba]

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?

then the background has nothing to do with it though, does it?

 

[mamba]

I think it's written just fine, and I think it's pretty clear.

one of the two is true

A player trying to use it to put someone they know everywhere they go is, as I says, misunderstanding or misusing it.

what part of 'you know the local messengers, ..." are they misunderstanding?