D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[prabe]

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

Because there are people who seem to be declaring practically every suggested usage a "nope?"

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The rules for mundane and magical actions are often different, and IMO in many cases it makes sense that they would be.

 

[prabe]

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.

I think I'm at least gesturing (wildly, subtly, frantically) at the idea that in a world where magic works the way it's presumed to in most D&D 5e settings, things that seem as though they'd work in-game the same way they would in the real world might not in fact work the same way they do in the real world. In other world, internal setting logic might mean the laws of reality in the game world aren't the same as in the real world, so using the real world as your basis will be an error.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Still dodging the question while simultaneously telling me that something not working is just a failure of DMing. I give up.

Most background features were never used because they were never actually beneficial. I'd rather reward a player for having a backstory with concrete benefits that are useful on a regular basis.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I think some actions defined for any class are clear cut well defined activities. A fighter knows he can attack and do such and such damage. A wizard knows if he casts a fireball it will have a well defined effect.

Other things though are not as reliable. Most skill checks are not as reliable. Some spells like divination in some cases are not as reliable.

And for some of us, we want anything not "magical" which includes psionics, primal, etc... to be somewhat bound by the limits of cinematic reality. So a guy might jump from two stories and not take damage but if he jumps off the empire state building he needs to die. That does create challenges for people who want absolute parity at all levels. It either means suppressing what magic can do or it means making the non-magical world somewhat magic.

 

[soviet]

Still dodging the question while simultaneously telling me that something not working is just a failure of DMing. I give up.

Most background features were never used because they were never actually beneficial. I'd rather reward a player for having a backstory with concrete benefits that are useful on a regular basis.

What is your question?

 

[Oofta]

I think I'm at least gesturing (wildly, subtly, frantically) at the idea that in a world where magic works the way it's presumed to in most D&D 5e settings, things that seem as though they'd work in-game the same way they would in the real world might not in fact work the same way they do in the real world. In other world, internal setting logic might mean the laws of reality in the game world aren't the same as in the real world, so using the real world as your basis will be an error.

Whereas I assume the campaign world works like the real world unless there's something supernatural.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

There's no implication. I was literally saying that different people have different standards of reasonableness, so disagreement can occur without either side being "wrong".

 

[Mort]

The rules for mundane and magical actions are often different, and IMO in many cases it makes sense that they would be.

And yet, when they are not different, such as a "mundane" ability that always works* there is a MASSIVE amount of pushback on the ability - and none for the magic.

*with "always works" being extremely loose - as the DM is generally in 100% control of framing the ability in the fiction and, in reality, the ability works as well or as poorly as the DM wants - whether they actually allowed it or not. That's one reason I'm actually a bit surprised at the pushback as the DM remains firmly in control of the fiction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because there are people who seem to be declaring practically every suggested usage a "nope?"

Who are those people? Can you cite a post that made that claim in good faith?