D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[tetrasodium]

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?

Mainly because the only spell that fits would often be an improved version of a well known 9th level enchantment spell that was altered to have global/omniplanar unlimited number of targets with no save & permanent duration that was cast during chargen.

Magic has a lot of limits though

 

[prabe]

I don't think players can be expected to care about that. They're not mind-readers. And even if they were, why should they prioritise your imagining about caravan guards over their own, when the rulebook expressly says that it is the player's imagining that is to prevail in this particular context?

I'm open to the idea there is some reason this particular context overrides the rulebook, but I think it's the GM's responsibility to convey that context to the player/s such that there is adequate buy-in to move on. "Nope" won't do it, most of the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If magic is just better than why are there non-magical loser classes who are just less than?

Because most fantasy worlds don't consist entirely of magic-users?

Seriously though, the magical classes are supposed to have those checks and balances I mentioned in the post to which you responded. And I never said magic was better, I said it has advantages over not-magic. Not-magic has advantages over magic too, under different circumstances. Magic isn't the best way to do everything, but it is the only way to do some things (again if technology isn't a factor).

This is why I like sci-fi. This whole argument instantly loses its teeth.

 

[Bae'zel]

If magic is just better than why are there non-magical loser classes who are just less than?

Ah the eternal struggle with D&D.

Personally, I view many (not all) of the non-spell abilities of Classes as mythical in nature. The Fighter's second wind, the Rogue's incredible stealth, the Barbarian's rage... there are other fighters, rogues and barbarians in my setting but the PCs are the only "actual" Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians for many miles (beyond named NPC villains). They're Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser and Sinbad.

Also, the necessity to supplement the heroes' deeds with magical items and boons from fantastical beings is the stuff of legend. No, the Fighter cannot harm the Witch Queen... but if they can acquire the famed sword Black Razor, they definitely stand a chance at exacting their vengeance! More so than the Wizard's lightning bolts and fireballs.

That's just me though. Plus non-martials tend to score more in the love department than casters (with the exception of bards). That's just some levity there.

 

[Pedantic]

If magic is just better than why are there non-magical loser classes who are just less than?

Yes, it is unethical to print the Fighter. In this talk I will...

 

[soviet]

Nor did @soviet. The "bad player" was the character who declares an action for their PC even when they believe that their fictional position makes the declared action nonsensical.

Thank you, yes.

I'm starting to see a distinction here. I play with friends. They're good players who care about the game. I'm a permissive GM that trusts them and likes to roll with their ideas. My games are great.

Other people seem to play with people who don't care about the game, who will knowingly declare nonsensical actions just to get a perceived advantage and will do so repeatedly. The GM in such a game might feel like they have to hang on for dear life, keeping control of the game's integrity against the players, and might well conclude that trusting players doesn't work.

 

[TwoSix]

That's just me though. Plus non-martials tend to score more in the love department than casters (with the exception of bards). That's just some levity there.

Tell that to Shadowheart and Gale!

 

[prabe]

Thank you, yes.

I'm starting to see a distinction here. I play with friends. They're good players who care about the game. I'm a permissive GM that trusts them and likes to roll with their ideas. My games are great.

Other people seem to play with people who don't care about the game, who will knowingly declare nonsensical actions just to get a perceived advantage and will do so repeatedly. The GM in such a game might feel like they have to hang on for dear life, keeping control of the game's integrity against the players, and might well conclude that trusting players doesn't work.

I have to figure there are feedback loops, which might drift between or otherwise connect otherwise unrelated tables, where trustworthy builds on trust--and the opposite.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Because most fantasy worlds don't consist entirely of magic-users?

Seriously though, the magical classes are supposed to have those checks and balances I mentioned in the post to which you responded. And I never said magic was better, I said it has advantages over not-magic. Not-magic has advantages over magic too, under different circumstances. Magic isn't the best way to do everything, but it is the only way to do some things (again if technology isn't a factor).

This is why I like sci-fi. This whole argument instantly loses its teeth.

Fantasy worlds consist primarily of non-PC's. The PC's are inherently special by virtue of them being PC's. They have levels and classes, which others don't, and acapacity for absurd growth over a short time. Again, your arguing what you wish D&D was, rather than what D&D IS. And in D&D, the focus is on people who are special.

You arent running a world simulation in a vacuum. You already consciously put the spotlight on special people doing heroic things, not some chump cobbler mending shoes 7 days a week to barely make ends meet and pay his taxes. PC's don't slip off a ladder and die while lighting a street lamp or choke to death on a fish bone while eating, all things that happen in the real world. Extend the same logic you're already applying a bit further.

 

[mamba]

?
Yes they did. 'Your character is 16 and only just became a criminal, he doesn't have a network of contacts'

to which you replied

Which is why they shouldn't take it.

So which one is it? Are you hamstringing the 16 year old or not?