D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not a fan of mechanics before fiction, which is what that sounds like to me.

So if a player said something like “I want to try and use my background feature. It says I can seek aid from local nobles. How would that work?” you would have a problem with it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

So if a player said something like “I want to try and use my background feature. It says I can seek aid from local nobles. How would that work?” you would have a problem with it?

Well, I'd much rather they framed that request in a more naturalistic way than, "I'd like to use my class feature now".

 

[tetrasodium]

No it isn't. What is it that you think is in conflict?

Easy...

No matter how much you try, there is no one true way of 5e gameplay. It's an absolute fact that you are wrong, since I've played 5e several different ways.

You start out reasserting that 5e doesn't try to force one particular style of gameplay with its mechanics.

You place too much weight on predictability. So what if I can predictably say that we will trigger pretty much every trap we come across because we are relying on darkvision. That doesn't make triggering all those traps a good thing. So what if I can guarantee us to be ambushed and surprised a ton because we can't see the enemies coming. That doesn't make it a good thing.

Move on to dismiss description of how it does that by declaring that someone cares too much about the thing in question while pushing for that one style of support it offers.

Light is also just as predictable as darkness. Groups I've DM'd for and played in have been using continual light coins since 1e. Now the darkness spell can overcome that, but it also overcomes darkvision. Torches were almost never a limiter in any way. You bought them by the dozens and they were obsolete to the continual light in a few levels.

Demonstrate that you have no understanding of common light sources in d&d like the previously noted torch and previously noted bullseye lantern differ from modern day flash lights

Those same rules have been present since the 1970s.

Go back and see comments about excessively generous hammer space carrying capacity. 5e differs from those in the fact that carrying them was a nontrivial problem and the fact that most PCs couldn't just ignore it in combat with dark vision if they didn't bunch up somewhat or have multiple torches out. Those earlier versions didn't have trivial unlimited light cantrip casting either either(4e maybe excluded) .

There are no inherent problems in the 5e rule set to sandbox games. None. Safety and durability are irrelevant to being in a sandbox. As long as the DM can create a world for the players to explore and the players can pick and choose where they go, it's a perfect Sandbox. What rules prevent me from doing that in 5e? Not one.

Yes because you dismiss everything you are told thwarts a particular type of play or adventure and push the not so flexible 5e style as the only style there is.

Whether you think PCs are too durable and safe is a completely separate metric that has nothing to do with most playstyles.

Wotc even admitted that monsters aren't up to snuff... Having death saves healing word self recharging magic items trivialized resting for excessively generous recovery and so on plus those inept monsters makes for extremely overly durable PCs that clash with certain styles of play & adventure.

 

[Retros_x]

Wotc even admitted that monsters aren't up to snuff... Having death saves healing word self recharging magic items trivialized resting for excessively generous recovery and so on plus those inept monsters makes for extremely overly durable PCs that clash with certain styles of play & adventure.

It trivialized nothing, it makes difficulty adjustment more granular because they are more steps to death than just a difference of 6HP. Yes the default difficulty is much easier nowadays, but I can adjust it so far to run a highly deadly campaign in 5e without homebrew rules if I want to.

 

[Emerikol]

Wrong. With disadvantage to all visual perception checks you will set off pretty much every trap you encounter. Plus undead, constructs and other dark dwelling creatures will surprise and ambush you a ton.

You will take less damage from alerting enemies with the light than stumbling around using darkvison.

Well that will depend on the situation and context of the adventure you are going through. If you are raiding humanoids, then no alerting them with a torch may not be for the best. If you are exploring a musty tomb unopened for centuries then yes torches all the way.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

So far so good. This is traditional D&D. Some might call it old school now.

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

First I agree. I don't care if my style makes someone vomit. Helps me identify who I want to avoid in my games. But, it is more polite to say "I think or this makes ME feel a certain way..." than to say "This is how it is objectively..." And that applies to everyone.

example: This makes me vomit. ok. polite.
example 2: This is vomit inducing. not polite. This second one says it is vomit inducing for everyone.

Now again, I don't care all that much and I've often gotten impolite at times especially when I'm getting it in the face repeatedly from someone who is definitely not polite. But if you want polite the above is better.

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 way it was stated was impolite. I don't think stepping back and fully explaining things like we did is. I think the way it was given off the cuff as objective fact is.

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?

Yes. Just making it up at the last second right before you need it.

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

I don't think as I used hand wave this is what I mean. Yes the DM always invents and constructs the NPCs hopefully with thought and care. And I'm not saying a DM does not have to at times especially for a minor person have to hand wave an NPC. I try to keep in mind the broader knowledge I do have of the town and the various citizens to help me play this one appropriately. And I certainly do have THAT knowledge.

I don't expect players to contribute to the creation of the campaign setting NPCs unless they do so BEFORE they start playing in session 0 while devising a background. Even then it will be collaborative with the DM.

 

[Emerikol]

But that's the point.

The PC knows not to approach the low level thug who can't get it done, that's a rookie mistake for someone clueless or desperate. They (The PC) understand how things work, they know WHO to approach that would work, because as long as 1700 era Boston functions remotely like wherever they're from - they know how the system works. As for why would THAT person help them? Because the PC knows how to grease palms and get them to help.

It's not rocket science or magic!

Which, again, is the real issue. While the PC is trying to use his background and is being vetted by the DM for the non-magic ability, the Wizard casts sending and obviates the entire scenario.

We are probably on opposite ends of this spectrum. Whatever they've done to try and mollify you have done nothing but ruin the game for me. There is a difference between magic and a social skill. The former in D&D is like pulling the trigger on a modern pistol. It's going to work most of the time as expected. That is D&D. Perhaps a game like DCC is more to your liking where magic is very uncertain and unreliable. I could accept that far easier than making the other side certain. Then it just doesn't have any verisimilitude for me.

I think trying to make non-magical abilities have the reliability of magical abilities in D&D goes against all of it's roots and playstyle. If you have to change it though change magic don't change reality.

 

[Emerikol]

I realize there are many ways to play. There is very much a make it up as you go style of play where the DM's input into the setting is deemphasized though not eliminated by any means.

What many of you don't seem to ever understand is the opposite. The fact that many of us prefer a style where the DM's creation of the setting is perhaps the most important thing the DM does. That making the setting feel like a real place in the same way a good author crafts a setting is important to us. We want to adventure in an immersive believable setting. We want to interact with NPCs and establish relationships with them. We don't want to do things that pushes us out of that immersion and if we contribute to the setting while playing as a character that will shatter the suspension of disbelief. You may feel differently but we feel as we do.

 

[Oofta]

Okay… what’s it about then?

For me? It's about separation of responsibility, who controls what in that both DM and players have spheres of control. It's about an approach to the game that I simply prefer. Basically, when I play D&D I want to inhabit a character. As much as possible I want to be that person in a fantasy novel just trying to survive with my allies. I want to explore, discover, be surprised by what happens in the world around me. I want to be like a protagonist in a novel, I don't want to be the author of the scenarios the protagonist comes across. I don't want to add to the fiction of the world, even minor things because it takes me out of the mindset of what my character is experiencing. I definitely don't want to go to the extremes I saw in streams for Dungeon World. Minor details of my past are part of fleshing out my character's history, but I want it to fit into the world the DM has created.

As a DM? I have a long, long history with my campaign world. For some of the lore? I'm the only one who knows it and I like to keep it consistent. Other parts of lore my wife knows. Since I moved a few years back most of my current players don't know that lore and occasionally I run for a different group or add a new player. I don't create a new world for every campaign. I want consistency in my world building and just as much I want the world to be logical. I may drop hints of a connection of two seemingly disparate occurrences or groups, things that the players don't know about. I find it easier to have a living, breathing world and one that can be changed, sometimes dramatically, by the words and deeds of the characters.

Other games that I've tried one-shots in, that had more shared fiction? Simply were not as enjoyable. I like the roles D&D has always used, different people in the group have control over different aspects of the game. It's not about control, it's about running the most enjoyable game for my players that I know how. I will never the be the right DM for everyone, but for the ones I am right for? I've been playing the game this way for decades now and it just works for me and the other people at the table. No matter which side of the DM's screen I'm on.

EDIT: it's not about control because if I thought it would make the game better for everyone at the table I would have no issue with sharing world building. It wouldn't so I don't.

 

[Emerikol]

For me? It's about separation of responsibility, who controls what in that both DM and players have spheres of control. It's about an approach to the game that I simply prefer. Basically, when I play D&D I want to inhabit a character. As much as possible I want to be that person in a fantasy novel just trying to survive with my allies. I want to explore, discover, be surprised by what happens in the world around me. I want to be like a protagonist in a novel, I don't want to be the author of the scenarios the protagonist comes across. I don't want to add to the fiction of the world, even minor things because it takes me out of the mindset of what my character is experiencing. I definitely don't want to go to the extremes I saw in streams for Dungeon World. Minor details of my past are part of fleshing out my character's history, but I want it to fit into the world the DM has created.

<snip>

double love this post. I am very much in this camp.