D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Maxperson]

Do you think it is a bit of a double standard that you seem very concerned by players exploiting the rules and not by DMs doing so?

After all, Rule 0 pretty much gives DMs unlimited scope to modify anything.

DMs can't really exploit the rules, because of Rule 0. However, DMs can abuse their authority, which is a semantical difference I will grant you. DMs who do abuse their authority should see the players leave his game behind and find some other DM to play with, or perhaps on of the players can become DM.

 

[Mort]

What is reasonable can vary.

Of course, but what exactly is the quibble here?

You seem to be going for the DM should be able to say no when HE deems a usage unreasonable. Ok, but if the DM deems practically every usage unreasonable, why even allow the ability?

Which goes back to my original point, If you're going to nope the ability out of existence, why allow it in the first place?

 

[Maxperson]

But the example being put forward is players deliberately making outrageous action declarations that ignore or misrepresent the fictional positioning in the hope that the GM will accede. Not so much in-character playing to win but out-of-character metagame playing to win.

As I brought up earlier in the thread, when hitting a lot of resistance on a subject, we(a general we because I see all sides do it) often have to go to an extreme just to set a starting point that can't really be argued. It's not because we believe the players will do something that extreme, or that we play with people that extreme, we are just frustrated by the situation and are becoming more and more extreme with out examples to get to a starting point for the discussion to really begin.

 

[clearstream]

You are applying a different standard to spells than to background features.

Why should they follow the same standard?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You seem to be going for the DM should be able to say no when HE deems a usage unreasonable. Ok, but if the DM deems practically every usage unreasonable, why even allow the ability

Someone has to be the person to make the call. One of the DM’s many hats is referee. But the DM is not going to rule every usage unreasonable because the DM’s job is to make the game fun for the players.

 

[mamba]

You seem to be going for the DM should be able to say no when HE deems a usage unreasonable.

yes

Ok, but if the DM deems practically every usage unreasonable, why even allow the ability?

Which goes back to my original point, If you're going to nope the ability out of existence, why allow it in the first place?

nothing wrong with throwing it out altogether / replacing it. In fact in your case where it would be rarely allowed, that would be the better way to handle it

The main case where I would see this not happening is with new-ish DMs and the issue coming up for the first time(s). If you played for some years, chances are you filed those annoying edges off already

 

[prabe]

Why should they follow the same standard?

Because they're both game elements? They should at least both be things the players can understand, in the sense of knowing what they can rely on.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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."

Huh, I stand corrected! Good callout Maxperson! I'd been doing that for a while for certain NPC's anyways, but figured it was just my ruling.

 

[FrozenNorth]

So under exactly the same situation the player saying "yes" is being a jerk because they should say "no" but the DM saying "no" instead of "yes" is the jerk? Am I really reading that right?

Clearly not. You seem to be making two assumptions:
1. If a player invokes a background feature in a way that the DM believes is nonsense, the player doesn’t have a reason to believe that the feature is applicable; and
2. The DM isn’t wrong that the applicability of the background feature is nonsense.

I take issue with both of the assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh, I stand corrected! Good callout Maxperson! I'd been doing that for a while for certain NPC's anyways, but figured it was just my ruling.

I'm not surprised you didn't know. Nobody reads the DMG!!

In all seriousness, though, WotC doesn't use class and levels in any of their products as far as I know. I think that they have moved past class and levels as a rule, but included that in the DMG because a lot of us like to use them for all, or in the case of you and I, certain NPCs who we feel should have them.

I wouldn't be surprised to eventually see that rule leave and it be a real house rule to give NPCs class and levels, but we aren't there yet!