D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[prabe]

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.

I'm not sure how "you can make non-hostile contact with the local criminal underworld, just about wherever you go" is "making the non-magical world somewhat magic." It seems to me to be much more in line with a "cinematic reality."

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

My assumption is always that the setting operates like the real world unless a clearly supernatural element is in play.

 

[prabe]

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

Whereas my primary campaign world is slowly awakening to sapience: This seems inherently supernatural.

 

[prabe]

My assumption is always that the setting operates like the real world unless a clearly supernatural element is in play.

The world needs to behave in ways the players can predict, so they can make decisions on some reasonable basis. Sometimes--mostly in matters of classical physics--this means things in the game world behave pretty much the way they do in the real world. Other times, this means they behave in ways more consistent with the game rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I'll push back on the magic all day long, if it follows inconsistent magic rules. Additionally, my preference is for less, more dangerous magic in any case (but not necessarily less powerful).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whereas my primary campaign world is slowly awakening to sapience: This seems inherently supernatural.

Then your setting would use different rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The world needs to behave in ways the players can predict, so they can make decisions on some reasonable basis. Sometimes--mostly in matters of classical physics--this means things in the game world behave pretty much the way they do in the real world. Other times, this means they behave in ways more consistent with the game rules.

Can you give an example of the latter, so I can understand your position better?

 

[prabe]

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

Have you been reading this thread? Can you really claim in good faith there aren't people posting in this thread who at least come across as declaring just about every usage some people suggest as a "nope?" Do you really think jumping to "You're on some other plane of existence where neither you nor anyone you've ever met has ever been" is a scenario being posited in good faith?

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not sure how "you can make non-hostile contact with the local criminal underworld, just about wherever you go" is "making the non-magical world somewhat magic." It seems to me to be much more in line with a "cinematic reality."

Well it might be possible most of the time but is rolling something akin to a Streetwise roll that terrible. The fact something works without any chance of failure doesn't feel right to me. Even if the DC is 5 and 99% of the time you get it, there is in fact at least some chance something could go wrong.

 

[prabe]

Can you give an example of the latter, so I can understand your position better?

You mean this?

Other times, this means they behave in ways more consistent with the game rules.

Uh, the obvious answer is allowing high-STR characters to carry, or at least move things that'd be impracticable in the real world. A glaive sized for a storm giant, for instance (a sentient one, that refused to be reduced). Even though someone had a belt of storm giant strength, recovering that thing was a bit of a logistical challenge, even once they found it.

Things like languages--including Thieves' Cant--seem to be in a similar "this works because the game says it does, real world can take a flying leap" place.