D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Maxperson]

If an existing character, say a Fighter, decides to take a level of wizard with no prior mention of learning magic or interacting with wizards, and in a wilderness with no opportunity to find another wizard, would you let them go ahead?

Generally no. Some exceptions might exist for other background or gameplay reasons, but characters generally aren't going to spontaneously develop wizard abilities. Sorcerer, sure. Wizard, no.

 

[Bae'zel]

Yes, and the reason the cobbler didn't do it is because he's not a PC. He's an NPC. The game's not about him.

Clearly they're different. I get the urge to consider them the same in the setting... that "no one's special". But that idea simply does not extend to the game itself. With the game, we are focused on the exploits of the PCs. They are the cyphers for the players. That's a significant difference and lends them so much more importance.

Clearly some people prefer games and settings where the PCs really do start off as unremarkable nobodies who attain the status of "hero" by deed, and not by abilities or powers that they acquire automatically through choice of class, species or background features.

I think that their preference is games where this style of play is more easily, or outright supported, such as older editions of D&D (pre 3e?) or other games entirely.

Their argument is that 21st century D&D doesn't meet that preference. And that's okay.

To argue that this mode of game play is TRVE KVLT or "the one true way" is another subject to debate.

 

[Maxperson]

good thing no one actually suggested that then and it was only used to smear the ‘other side’

This.

 

[Oofta]

Except they don't have classes or levels anymore in 5E. That was a 3E thing from almost 20 years ago at this point!

Look through any published adventure. NPC's have monster stat blocks and operate differently. I don't think Elminster has a published stat block, but he'd probably be an archmage modified by some legendary abilities.

Look at skills like persuasion or intimidate beyond applying the frightened condition. Those work on NPC's for compelling actions, not PC's.

They may not in your campaign. They don't in the MM because there's no reason to have the same flexibility and corresponding complexity as PCs.

As the 2024 DMG states, the rules are not physics. They don't describe every NPC in every campaign either.

How skills work is irrelevant.

 

[Maxperson]

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

The shared imagining, yes. I'm very reasonable as a DM and I have yet to have players disagree with me when the fiction clearly indicates something should or should not work.

EDIT:
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.

Exactly! Now that you, and @soviet, @prabe, and @hawkeyefan(since they liked your post) have acknowledged that there are circumstances in the fiction which will override mechanical abilities that "always" work, we are all on the same page!

 

[Maxperson]

I swear, they should just say that every non-spell ability can include fortuitous happenstance magic by way of the force so we can move past the v-tude crowd's willing lack of imagination for how an ability could work. Abilities not working because of DM fiat should occur as often as anti magic zones do (so... next to never).

I really hate this failed argument. It 100% has nothing to do with "lack of imagination" and it's rather arrogant and insulting to imply that it does.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. That's not the case. But we do play with people who aren't perfect and sometimes declare an action without thinking fully about the fictional circumstances, or aren't 100% certain that it would fail and so make the request just in case it might. Perhaps don't think the worst about the players of those of us on the other side of this discussion.

I could make a comment about the "lack of imagination" involved in only seeing it as people who don't care about the game, but I won't. I'll leave that sort of thing to your side of this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Magic is the fluff for that whole section of game, though. I don't say that to diminish its importance in the fiction, but rather to describe it as a game element. It consists of moves that the player can make.

As I said, the idea that magic always works but mundane abilities that always work are a problem is due to a flawed way of looking at the game.

I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that magic always works. It doesn't always work, or sometimes works, but not as expected.

 

[Maxperson]

Except they don't have classes or levels anymore in 5E. That was a 3E thing from almost 20 years ago at this point!

Except that they do have class levels in 5e, or at least some of them do per the 5e DMG.

"NPC STATISTICS
When you give an NPC game statistics, you have three main options: giving the NPC only the few statistics it needs, give the NPC a monster stat block, or give the NPC a class and levels. The latter two options require a bit of explanation."

 

[soviet]

Generally no. Some exceptions might exist for other background or gameplay reasons, but characters generally aren't going to spontaneously develop wizard abilities. Sorcerer, sure. Wizard, no.

But the rules say they can.