D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Mort]

There are! So why play D&D if that’s your preference?

One reason -

As one of my friends is overly fond of complaining to me -

Getting players for any game other than 5e (and possibly pathfinder) these days is SURPRISINGLY challenging. Certainly for more than anything other than a 1 shot or 2. Especially if your trying for in person.

But also, D&D (for me) and despite the many issues, is still my game of choice for any prolonged period of time.

 

[TwoSix]

There are! So why play D&D if that’s your preference?

That's the interesting question, isn't it? I DO like D&D. I like mechanics, I like fiddling around with character builds, even though actual challenge at the table isn't a major priority. I like plenty of games MORE, but D&D is fairly easy and has a lot of material, which is fun.

It helps that more of my tables are slowly converting away from 5e, so it doesn't feel quite as overwhelming.

But yea, 5e has some solidity to it, which is nice, but it's still easy to reskin and get into a form I want, which makes it good for shambolic hangout games I end up in quite a bit. And everyone already knows it.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah my approach has been to keep it simple and go with something that they did in the Baldur's Gate 3 game: dish out advantage to a PC's skill check when I feel that their Background, Class or Species would give them the upper hand.

Eg, the whole party does a Religion check to identify the god/goddess depicted in a mural. As a DM, I know that it is a Nature plant deity, so the Druid and the Fighter with the Farmer background both get advantage to the check.

Same. It's generally more useful in the long run and doesn't require bending the world logic. Something like the sailor's feature of getting free passage on a ship will almost never come up. On the other hand, if you're trying to get free passage to cross the Sea of Fire to get to the City of Brass? Yeah the odds that you just happen to know someone who can get your whole party on board without paying any thing is slim and none. Especially since Slim just left town.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do

Seems a little disparaging to the anti 2014 background features folks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fixing the game how?

How do you fix something when there are wide disagreements on what the problem is or if it's even a problem?

The very features we are talking about have been called useful to great by some and awful and game disruptive by others. You can remove them (as WoTC has actually done) but the people who like them wouldn't call that a fix.

You fix it for your table, obviously. Don't use or change rules that don't work for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That seems to be a big difference.

I don't need real world realism in my mid-high fantasy.

In fact, something being TOO grounded in "real world" realism would likely break my verisimilitude of the high fantasy setting!

Now we're very clearly in personal preference territory. I want real world realism in my fantasy, as much as can be managed practically.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's a slight exaggeration, but yes, I had a lot of 17 year old archmages during the 3e years. Most DMs don't advance time that much during campaigns.

That said, "hamstring the criminal background" is also an exaggeration.

 

[Mort]

You fix it for your table, obviously. Don't use or change rules that don't work for you.

It's NOT a problem at my table, and if something was I wouldn't use it (or would change it).

The discussion here is more in line on why the mechanic is good, bad etc. Opinions aren't changing (they rarely do) but it might give someone reading this thread who hasn't formed a full opinion some interesting perspectives.

 

[Bae'zel]

Now we're very clearly in personal preference territory. I want real world realism in my fantasy, as much as can be managed practically.

I personally want there to be SOME baseline for mundane reality, even in a high fantasy setting. Or else if EVERYTHING is fantastic, then nothing is. And that becomes... dare I say... boring?

Now granted I treat some mid to later tier Class abilities as mythical in nature. I don't like spellcasters to have the sole monopoly on the fantastic.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I see young criminals like Jimmy the Hand from the Raymond Feist books. He had extensive knowledge despite his young age, being a thief prodigy. He was also able to make contact with thieves guilds in other cities. Those contacts didn't always go well, though, and in some cities there wasn't someone he knew or was able to contact.