D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

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

Because they care about the integrity of the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Everything in combat, just like the rest of the game, starts with action declaration: ie, the fiction. We then use the mechanics to adjudicate it.

Huh? "I hook up with my contact!" is an action declaration too.

 

[pemerton]

Sure. I can do so without a background feature prompting me to, but I understand if some people need training wheels.

I assume you're intending that remark in some non-dismissive, non-pejorative sense?

Like, they're training wheels for you, but not for those who like and use the features?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I assume you're intending that remark in some non-dismissive, non-pejorative sense?

Just as much as the comment I was responding to.

 

[TwoSix]

I assume you're intending that remark in some non-dismissive, non-pejorative sense?

Like, they're training wheels for you, but not for those who like and use the features?

I wish people would stop using words that denigrate my playstyle.

 

[pemerton]

When people here talk about the mechanic being subservient to the fiction, they are talking about a mechanic that always works, even when the fiction says it shouldn't.

By "the fiction" in that last clause, I take it that you mean what the GM is imagining?

EDIT:

You can draw your sword automatically or use action surge automatically. Oh, wait. No you can't. You can't do those things when you are asleep or unconscious in the fiction.

I don't think a character who is asleep or unconscious can reach out to their networks and contacts either, unless they have some ability to do so via dreams.

 

[Bae'zel]

I wish people would stop using words that denigrate my playstyle.

It's very easy to get angry when this happens (I empathize fully) but in the end, we're all strangers here, not personal friends or colleagues and so who the hell cares what some random jabronies think about the way I play my elf games?

This is why I no longer read <rpg forum website name omitted to avoid inter forum drama>.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's actually no reason combat can't be free-formed too. (As I think someone already said upthread - maybe @soviet?)

Except there are combat rules in virtually every traditional RPG (and many others), and ignoring them seems a little silly to me (especially since they represent the bulk of many rulesets).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because they care about the integrity of the fiction.

Not a priority for some players IME, and assuming that it is in a rulebook would be, in my opinion, a mistake.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Why not? If it was a spell, it would be guaranteed and no one would think twice about it. Even though magic is merely the fluff that we hang on some game moves.

To me, a PC ability should work as described without needing approval by the GM. If there's clear reason it would not work, okay, so be it... that happens. If there's maybe some doubt about it? We should find a way to explain how it works.

It's a game, right? Before you said you don't like to think of the characters as literary characters... and in the past you've stated you don't like to think of play as a story. Okay... so then let's look at it as a game.

Why should the game mechanics be overridden in this way? Why preserve one player's moves over those of another?