D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[clearstream]

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.

Yes, that seems like the most obvious initial theory, but how many game texts make it a principle that the effects of mechanics on the fiction must have such parity?

When I focus on the fiction being created around the table and the norms for what is admitted to that fiction, it seems not especially outre to say of "magical effects" that "it's magic" and find that enough. In sci-fi games sometimes "it's high-tech" has the same result. I'm wondering what makes us bound to apply the same tests for what we accept into the fiction given that folk can have different norms of acceptance for "magic" and "high-tech" compared with "mundane"?

Your second point -- let's call it foreseeability -- is easily addressed: here is what to expect for the magical, here is what to expect for the mundane. (And both are equally down to a web of largely unstated norms!) I'm not saying one can't assert a principle of parity or that it would be wrong to do so; but if it is as I am alleging not often stated, then -- with my focus on the fiction -- it seems reasonable to wonder what makes it apply?

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The biggest problem here is that it will be very much based on the specific circumstances of the game, which will be far different than talking in very general terms the way we are here in the thread.

It's easy to make broad statements about the DM or player being wrong or right, but not so easy when it's actually being applied in a game.

 

[Emerikol]

But that's the world we live in. It's pretty rare to find a group of people that have completely shared preferences.

One of my current DMs is much more in the style of what you prefer, with a detailed world and heavy prep. I still enjoy his game because he does that style well, and I understand and embrace that style when I'm playing it, even though it's not to my preference.

And in exchange, he embraces most of my differences in style when I take a turn DMing. No one in my group crosses their arms and grumbles "that's not how roleplaying games should work".

No. You've both found the others preference at least tolerable and I hope at least somewhat fun. I mostly DM so it is easier to get a game in my style. I don't think though I would like a lot of styles played here so it wouldn't be fun for me so I wouldn't do it. I'm not desperate for a group I guess. There are enough people who want what I offer to keep me happy. But I do do my style well. I realize some don't.

 

[Oofta]

If I may interject; if the lore is particularly obscure, or directly related to the overarching plot, mystery of big final boss, I may use that moment to trigger a quest to find the lore (eg, the Sage finds out that the book has pages torn out, or they only find an obscure map, or they realize that the only other Sage or Library with this info is in location X etc...).

I've used background features to provide adventure hooks and to move the plot forward. And the PC in question is the one to reveal this to the party and prompt the call to action.

Which can be a lot of fun. But I don't need a background feature to make that happen. As I said above, if the background and backstory of a character is important to the character I'll look for ways for it to matter. For better or worse, most people just chose backgrounds for the proficiencies they granted. I know that's what I did because I've never seen a background feature being particularly useful when I played.

 

[Emerikol]

Again, I never said this or even implied this.

@Emirikol said "the DM's creation of the setting is perhaps the most important thing the DM does". If that's the most important thing the DM does (not the only important thing, but "perhaps the MOST" important), that certainly sounds like something that would require labor (hence, laborious) and certainly deserving of being appreciated in play. (Why wouldn't players appreciate a DM's labors?)

First I'm Emerikol not Emirikol.

Second, it's not so much the work required as the fundamental concept of the DM being the ultimate arbiter in his campaign. There are many reasons why this is necessary in my style of play. One fact may be the amount of work the DM does, I'd say that is one factor for sure but it is not the entirety of the reason. You can read the rule 0 thread for an endless debate on the matter.

 

[Oofta]

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.

You twisted my scenario, that's not what I asked. I was asking if who the jerk under exactly the same scenario changes whether the person is DM or player.

My assumption? The background feature doesn't make sense because of the current situation. An example from a game I ran a while back: the PCs stumble across a mysterious village that only appears once every hundred years ala Brigadoon. There is no way any PC logically knows anyone in the village or even knew it existed.

The player says they use their criminal background to send a message to their contact. Are they being a jerk? To me, yes, it makes no sense for this scenario. Is the DM a jerk to say no? I don't think so.

 

[Oofta]

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!

I could see them going away if they give us templates for NPCs in the new MM. The monsters don't need all the options PCs have but if I want to add a few levels of sorcerer to that dragon, character classes are generally the easiest way to do it.

 

[prabe]

Yes, that seems like the most obvious initial theory, but how many game texts make it a principle that the effects of mechanics on the fiction must have such parity?

When I focus on the fiction being created around the table and the norms for what is admitted to that fiction, it seems not especially outre to say of "magical effects" that "it's magic" and find that enough. In sci-fi games sometimes "it's high-tech" has the same result. I'm wondering what makes us bound to apply the same tests for what we accept into the fiction given that folk can have different norms of acceptance for "magic" and "high-tech" compared with "mundane"?

Your second point -- let's call it foreseeability -- is easily addressed: here is what to expect for the magical, here is what to expect for the mundane. (And both are equally down to a web of largely unstated norms!) I'm not saying one can't assert a principle of parity or that it would be wrong to do so; but if it is as I am alleging not often stated, then -- with my focus on the fiction -- it seems reasonable to wonder what makes it apply?

I guess I'm sticking with the obvious. We're playing a game, and things should work the way/s the rules say they do, the vast majority of the time. That seems like a standard that should apply, whether a given thing is magic or not.

 

[Bae'zel]

But I don't need a background feature to make that happen.

Well, yes, but we were specifically talking about Backgrounds and the Background Features from 2014's D&D 5e. I'm responding to those saying that DMs shouldn't have to ALWAYS agree that those features are always True all of the time. I was saying that I never just negate the effect, I turn them into an interesting twist or adventure hook (for those times when the Sage can't just auto find the Big Secret of the campaign, or the Criminal arriving in a foreign city can't just auto find contacts even if they haven't ever been there before, or the Folk Hero is in a village that is immensely fearful and distrustful of outsiders etc...)

edit: in the revised 2024 edition, there are no features like these anyway, so all of this is just theoretical now, as I probably won't use those features any longer.

 

[Pedantic]

Yes, that seems like the most obvious initial theory, but how many game texts make it a principle that the effects of mechanics on the fiction must have such parity?

When I focus on the fiction being created around the table and the norms for what is admitted to that fiction, it seems not especially outre to say of "magical effects" that "it's magic" and find that enough. In sci-fi games sometimes "it's high-tech" has the same result. I'm wondering what makes us bound to apply the same tests for what we accept into the fiction given that folk can have different norms of acceptance for "magic" and "high-tech" compared with "mundane"?

This is the primary strength of magic (or other unreal phlebotinum powered effects). It yields to definition into specific techniques in a way that's significantly more complicated for mundane effects. You can spell out the rules and requirements and they aren't beholden to any tests beyond those; "magic" is really just an excuse for arbitrary causality. You can draw a line from ability usage to fictional result without any intervening steps, or only the steps you explicitly put there yourself.

"Mundane" isn't an aesthetic gloss on that same process, the way "alien tech" or "psychic powers" might be. Instead it invokes known chains of causality that are not subject to definition by the game designer, and actually must do so, or it is just another kind of magic.

Your second point -- let's call it foreseeability -- is easily addressed: here is what to expect for the magical, here is what to expect for the mundane. (And both are equally down to a web of largely unstated norms!) I'm not saying one can't assert a principle of parity or that it would be wrong to do so; but if it is as I am alleging not often stated, then -- with my focus on the fiction -- it seems reasonable to wonder what makes it apply?

This could also be read as a balance argument; it's not sufficient to give players actions that produce the same outcomes, if they invoke processes that are subject to differing levels of interpretation/interruption. Giving players generally equal power budgets is absolutely a valid design goal, but it's a mistake to think you can do that by fiat, without regard to the impact of your aesthetic choices.