D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[TwoSix]

I am assuming WotC gave it no thought or ran out of time, which is why we have such an ill considered or poorly worded background in the first place

Is this the feature?

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. 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."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's the funny thing isn't it. What makes the background traits so good is that they help set up all kinds of cool situations like this. 'No they dismiss you out of hand' is not only a loss of player agency it's a loss of colourful things to play out.

I don't think they do, as many of them just autowork, so I think by RAW they would just skip this sort of "do me a favour" thing. I think it is cool gameplay opportunity, but not something I need the feature for, nor something that is aided rather than hindered by their existence.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When you resolve a D&D combat, don't you bend the fiction (eg who's doing what, who's being struck by blows, who's dying) to serve the mechanics (eg the initiative system and action economy, the rolls to hit, the reduction of hp to zero)?

Having the fiction be driven by the mechanics is the point of having mechanics. Otherwise you'd just make up what happens next.

I do it when I have to in a practical sense, which yes does happen most often in the combat system. It is an abstraction necessary for play. Even then, I do my best to use mechanics that fiction at hand, not the other way around. The example we're discussing is easy to not use, so I don't.

 

[Bae'zel]

I don't think they do, as many of them just autowork, so I think by RAW they would just skip this sort of "do me a favour" thing. I think it is cool gameplay opportunity, but not something I need the feature for, nor something that is aided rather than hindered by their existence.

Again, depends on context. If I feel like the party needs some more adventure hooks, I'd do the whole "favor" thing. If not, I'd just handwave it and move on.

I don't work in absolutes, I go with my gut and reading the room, ya know?

 

[Micah Sweet]

that is not what the background says though, and it is also not what your example shows. Dave knew those people from previous encounters, he did not just meet them for the first time and they just welcomed him with open arms

Also, Dave is ridiculous. I'd have a heart attack too dealing with all those narrative contrivances.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Again, depends on context. If I feel like the party needs some more adventure hooks, I'd do the whole "favor" thing. If not, I'd just handwave it and move on.

I don't work in absolutes, I go with my gut and reading the room, ya know?

Sure, and this is perfectly sensible approach in practice. But in previous threads we've had people to argue that it is not cool for GM to put such conditionals and possible failure points on the background features, and by RAW that seems to be correct.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are things within combat that automatically succeed though. You can automatically move your base rate to get into close quarters with someone, for example (barring some sort of legendary interrupt action I guess). You can draw your sword automatically. You can use action surge automatically. These things just don't resolve the actual fight.

Similarly, the background traits are pretty minor effects that mostly set up other rolls or negate minor obstacles. The local populace give you shelter - OK, what next? The underworld messengers send a message for you - OK, how is it received, what happens as a result? The hobgoblin court grants you an audience - OK, can you convince them to do what you want, or even not to eat you?

It's a false equivalence to say the effects of the background traits are like automatically winning a combat. These are minor, minor things.

They are minor things outside the PCs direct control, unlike walking or drawing a weapon. That's the difference to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I haven't looked at the background in a while; isn't it just a person who's traveled extensively and has something like a worldwide contact list?

The whole kerfuffle over backgrounds just strikes me as much ado about nothing; they don't get invoked much normally, and when they do, it's trivial to come up with plausible narrations to fit.

If you're in a situation where a plausible narration isn't forthcoming, the player will just choose not to invoke it then. Easy peasy.

Why wouldn't they invoke it if it benefits them to do so?

 

[Bae'zel]

Sure, and this is perfectly sensible approach in practice. But in previous threads we've had people to argue that it is not cool for GM to put such conditionals and possible failure points on the background features, and by RAW that seems to be correct.

Ah I see. Wow this thread could me feel anxious about my DMing style. I always seek to learn more, but I never see any part of TTRPGs being "one-sided" but as a two-way conversation.

Background traits (or similar rules) have never been just an on-off switch to me, but a massive potential hook to provoke more story-quest options or complications.

Maybe I should have never read the Fate Core RPG...

 

[tetrasodium]

I mean, the mechanical effect of criminal never made sense to me. It's "criminal", not "postman"!

But it's background not "most recent odd job". 5o years of commoner just recently turned to crime is either not an experienced criminal because they are drawing on their commoner roots or it's double dipping by taking two backgrounds to draw on both.

The fact that backgrounds cover everything from birthright (ie noble/urchin/etc) to career made them an even more awkward thing for the GM to juggle because everyone at the table had a wildly different size & scope to the plot/story hooks & ties that their "background" could support even before those are further shrunk or amplified by individual player interest in that aspect of play.

Now that the backgrounds have been kicked to the curb where they belonged we are back to a state where players can talk to their gm about hooking their background into things if they really care & players who don't are going to feel less need to protect a powerful mechanical push button ability if the GM tries to hook some plot thread to the threadbare backstory they didn't care much about to begin with.