D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Oofta]

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...)

I was just trying to explain my approach. In session 0 I would explain that I don't use background features as written but I will try to find ways to make the background matter. In large part because when playing with other DMs, I don't remember a single time the background feature made any difference.

Let's say my PC finds themselves magically transported from FR to Greyhawk. I would never expect my criminal background feature to work, but even if it did what possible impact could it have on the game? So Nine Fingers Louie knows I'm in Greyhawk. They have no influence in Greyhawk, no way of sending aid even if they wanted to. Perhaps as part of my backstory we didn't leave on the best of terms ... after all I'm an ex criminal and not currently a member of his gang. What difference would it make if I could get them a message? What benefit does the character get?

Instead the player will have a better understanding of criminal organizations, know how certain grifts work or have proficiency (or advantage if they already have proficiency) in skills related to criminal activity. Those to me are actual benefits that have an impact on a game when sending a telegram to someone far away that will rarely make a difference would not.

 

[soviet]

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.

Did any players try to do such a thing though? I'm guessing no. The starting point has to be that if you have reasonable players they will try reasonable things.

 

[Emerikol]

That's all well and good--for you. The bigger problem is that this isn't nearly as true for several other playstyles. For example, folks whose playstyle relies on the survival-and-logistics stuff, or folks looking for "story now" play, or folks wanting well-tested game balance so that they feel reasonably challenged but not punished by BS.

Well I can't speak for 5e as I have not played it. But I think my struggles with 4e can't be greater in 5e having looked at the rules. I play a survival and logistics sort of game. I as DM have to do a lot of encounter modification to make it challenging but I usually can. Is it beginner friendly for my style? Maybe not.

Contrary position: D&D should provide multiple different options that are all well-developed and full-throated, so that different groups can develop their preferred playstyle within that space. Instead of moving toward absolute smoothness and unobjectionable non-commitment, move toward commitment to multiple distinct flavors that are actually well-developed.

I doubt this is possible. I suspect what you propose would require me to do as much house ruling as I would have to do with 5e to make it usable. The hardest job I had was 4e. I have not played 5e though.

<snip>

This would easily cover the vast majority of preferred playstyles. Folks who want a grim-and-gritty game where you grub for every single advantage because the rules are always against you until you bend them to your will have Nastier Specials, Novice levels, incremental advances, and the survival module. Folks who want high-flying awesome narrative action heroics have the rigorous core, skill challenges, improvisation rules, and (possibly) the roleplay-and-rules advice. Folks looking for simulationist puzzle-solving have a robust skill system, world-development rules, and advice on how to address issues when established patterns produce problematic results.

I'd have to see it. The key would be to not make a muddle of it and that is the challenge.

Add in some examples of "legacy" rules (such as GP=XP) as opt-in stuff, and you're pretty much golden.

Now, of course, I've just described a TON of design work. That's...sort of the point. You're designing a game system. It's going to be an effort, and it's going to require a hell of a lot of testing and refinement. But it's entirely achievable, especially by the biggest names in the business.

I'm still skeptical since they don't even know what many of the issues are. I asked them a question at Gencon to their faces about something going into the original 5e and they said they were addressing those concerns. They didn't.

 

[Oofta]

Did any players try to do such a thing though? I'm guessing no. The starting point has to be that if you have reasonable players they will try reasonable things.

Then you are making an assumption that does not match my experience. It's also not answering the question I posed.

 

[Emerikol]

Here's the thing:

Both when playing, and when GMing, I love it when the setting feels like a real place (it has depth, surprises, strange revelations, weird coincidences like the time when I was walking through the streets of London and bumped into one of the half-dozen Australians there whom I know, etc). I want the players to interact with NPCs and establish relationships with them.

And thankfully, my RPGing is replete with this all the things that I want and love!

I suspect if I played in your game I would not experience those things. And I accept that if you played in mine you might not experience those things. There is something in how we perceive the world that affects how we judge these things and we both are wired very differently.

 

[Bae'zel]

I was just trying to explain my approach. In session 0 I would explain that I don't use background features as written but I will try to find ways to make the background matter. In large part because when playing with other DMs, I don't remember a single time the background feature made any difference.

Let's say my PC finds themselves magically transported from FR to Greyhawk. I would never expect my criminal background feature to work, but even if it did what possible impact could it have on the game? So Nine Fingers Louie knows I'm in Greyhawk. They have no influence in Greyhawk, no way of sending aid even if they wanted to. Perhaps as part of my backstory we didn't leave on the best of terms ... after all I'm an ex criminal and not currently a member of his gang. What difference would it make if I could get them a message? What benefit does the character get?

Instead the player will have a better understanding of criminal organizations, know how certain grifts work or have proficiency (or advantage if they already have proficiency) in skills related to criminal activity. Those to me are actual benefits that have an impact on a game when sending a telegram to someone far away that will rarely make a difference would not.

Right on, I like this approach a lot. I’d do something very similar.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

What makes you assume the DM would deem practically every usage unreasonable?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Why wouldn't they? Mundane actions are subject to the laws of reality and internal setting logic. Magic actions are subject to the laws of magic (whatever those are in the setting), which ought to be consistently applied. You may want different laws of magic than WotC D&D 5.5 provides (me too), but there are still laws for both.

 

[Mort]

What makes you assume the DM would deem practically every usage unreasonable?

I would hope they would not.

But why else the quibble about "reasonable can vary..." if not to say there are a lot of unreasonable demands and they need to be quashed?

 

[soviet]

Then you are making an assumption that does not match my experience. It's also not answering the question I posed.

If players are unreasonable and invoke the ability without it making any sense then I agree that's jerk behaviour.

I don't have any players that would do that. A simple 'OK how do you go about it?' is probably all that's required.

I can think immediately of four ways to justify use of the trait in that situation, although the GM may choose not to accept them:

1. Some races live long enough to have been a part of the network from the last time the town was here. My contact is one of them.

2. Someone in town is a descendant of the last contact and still maintains the connections

3. Notwithstanding any actual connection, the character uses thieves cant and their common experience to plug into whatever network is available

4. Magic

I would also say that this recurring hypothetical of 'suddenly you are a vast distance from everyone you've ever known' is not conducive to having characters with any depth or stakes in the world.