D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

I would say that there are many DMs who need a reminder that they shouldn’t say no as often as they do. And 5e has brought in a lot of new folks to the game… so it’s probably good for them to include auto-yes elements of play.



So do the background features, though.

“I want to seek aid from the local nobility.”

“I’d like to get a message to my contact in Waterdeep. I seek out caravans heading to the west.”

“With the sheriff on our tail, we’re gonna need a place to hide. The commoners love me… I’ll see if any will provide us with a place to hide.”

Then we use the mechanics to determine what happens, and then we narrate accordingly.

Except the mechanics for those things are not within the grasp of the PC, and in the fiction would not be guarenteed, so IMO the mechanic shouldn't be guaranteed either.

 

[prabe]

Why let the player choose it and only say it doesn't work when they try to use it?

Because it's "funny."

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that if the DM is just going to nope-out background features--and it's clear there are a lot of DMs who do exactly that--then the change in both 5e2024 and ToV to feats/talents instead of more-narrative background features is probably going to work out better all around. DMs won't have to worry about players getting their sticky fingerprints on their precious settings; players won't have to worry about whether the DM will allow their background features to do what they say they do.

Do you think that sounds like a fair description of both sides of this issue?

 

[mamba]

I wouldn't read the Criminal background feature not so much as a network as the ability to find a network (or whatever) and make non-hostile contact with it, more or less wherever they are. It doesn't seem out-of-whack to me.

because you are reading something that is not there… if I imagined it to be what I want rather than what it actually says, I’d have no issues with it either

I have no problem with your ‘interpretation’ (generous term…), that basically is how I treat it, but it is completely removed from what the feature actually says it is

 

[TwoSix]

We're discussing picking backgrounds, age, and the criminal background ability. Young criminals have this extensive network that they aren't old enough to have created just the same as the older ones. The background ability is out of whack for the background.

I'm assuming for a young criminal, they're assuming something like a Locke Lamora situation, where they were raised among criminals; or possibly something like the connection between Oliver Twist and Fagin (although Oliver Twist would seem to be the archetypal Urchin).

Just one more reason that backgrounds should be considered very loosely, and only applied after determining some of the backstory of the character. If someone wanted to play Oliver Twist, Urchin or Criminal could be appropriate, depending on how they wanted to emphasize their backstory.

 

[mamba]

5e can EASILY be made much more gritty (if that's what you want) and the DMG has plenty of advice for how to do so.

not the new one, unfortunately

 

[TwoSix]

You mean, if the feature is explicitly considered to be the result of time spent in the underworld making contacts, the player shouldn't take it if their character is too young to have done that? That's defensible, at least.

Realistically, I would want the player to pick the background based on what feature seemed most fitting; we can always reskin the name and concept of the background to fit.

Certainly at least for 2014 5e, custom backgrounds are explicitly RAW.

 

[mamba]

Sure, a wizard can go from apprentice to creating a pocket dimension (rope trick) in a few adventuring days time, but lets hamstring the criminal background.

@soviet, not sure why you gave that a thumbs up when you just wrote

Which is why they shouldn't take it.

seems you are arguing both sides here

 

[prabe]

Do you think that sounds like a fair description of both sides of this issue?

I think it's pretty close, yeah. Seems to me the conflict is between DMs who hold their settings closely--as in, are really reluctant to let go of anything in them--and players who want the abilities they choose to work the way they understand them to--and who will have at least some tendency to read them overly (self-) generously. Look at people saying that as DMs they don't even want the Criminal background feature to allow non-hostile contact in a new-to-the-PC place; how is that not holding the setting too closely? Look at the players expecting the same feature to give them a deus ex machina whenever/wherever they want; how is that not being overly self-generous in reading the feature?

 

[Mort]

Except the mechanics for those things are not within the grasp of the PC, and in the fiction would not be guarenteed, so IMO the mechanic shouldn't be guaranteed either.

The features IN NO way guaranty the fiction:

“I want to seek aid from the local nobility.”

The feature allows access, doesn't mean they like you and won't sell you out or even try to kill you. DM has a huge amount of control here,

“I’d like to get a message to my contact in Waterdeep. I seek out caravans heading to the west.”

The feature allows sending the message. EVERYTHING else is up to the DM to establish the fiction.

“With the sheriff on our tail, we’re gonna need a place to hide. The commoners love me… I’ll see if any will provide us with a place to hide.”

The feature allows a place to hide. But does not guaranty a good impression or that one of the commoners won't sell out the PC for their (the commoners) benefit. Again full DM discretion here.

The features are a tiny short cut that don't curtail the DMs control of the situation much at all and allow for interesting directions for the characters.

But I get it, I REALLY do, some don't like it. Looks like the designers recognized that and have new backgrounds that are IMO blander, but certainly more in line with that feeling.