D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Micah Sweet]

In the case of STR, plausibly. I'm not sure what physics would have to do with language/s, though--at least as normally applied and understood.

How did language come into your example?

 

[prabe]

I don't know. IME players are expected to try to make their powers work any time it would be an advantage in their current situation, and it's the DMs job to mediate that understandable desire through the lense of setting logic if the players don't so it themselves.

I think the players are still bound by the fictional position. I'm pretty sure the player in my third campaign who has that feature isn't expecting it to work outside the starting city--I'm (I hope, obviously) going to make it clear it still will. Hell, she might not think she still has access to it in the starting city (she was granted an Out by the Guilds) and I should make it clear her character can, in fact, still make non-hostile contact and can plausibly at least get information at minimal cost.

This is related, it seems, to my thinking that GMs get the player behavior they expect.

 

[prabe]

How did language come into your example?

Last paragraph. Languages don't work in most D&D settings the way they do in the real world.

You mean this?

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.

 

[Mort]

yes and yes, you on the other hand continue to misrepresent one side consistently


do you think that this is not an exception? It’s not about good faith, it is about the limits of ‘you know a contact everywhere’ and yet you cannot bring yourself to say that yes, in this case the feature should not work

For me, unless all communication from that plane was cut off (like Carceri - that's the plane's whole schtick) then I don't see why the ability shouldn't work - even then. That, for me, would be part of the fun of it.

That said, If I'm not the DM - I'd certainly respect the DMs decision -

BUT and I suspect where @soviet and @prabe, among others, are getting frustrated is the constant - but there need to be limits. but there needs to be exceptions! and the belief that these "exceptions" would subsume the rule to such a degree - why even have it?

But if not, if we're really not that far apart? Great! Hopefully, at the end of the day, it's just talking about fun ways to give players the best experiences.

 

[prabe]

BUT and I suspect where @soviet and @prabe, among others, are getting frustrated is the constant - but there need to be limits. but there needs to be exceptions! and the belief that these "exceptions" would subsume the rule to such a degree - why even have it?

I'm open to the idea there is some reason this particular context overrides the rulebook, but I think it's the GM's responsibility to convey that context to the player/s such that there is adequate buy-in to move on. "Nope" won't do it, most of the time.

Apparently I'm refusing to accept there are limits on the PC ability, though.

 

[Emerikol]

My approach is that outright failure--either you can't make contact, or they're implacably hostile--seems as though it should be rare, and if it's not based on known (or at least visible) fictional positioning, then it's perhaps itself something that PC might want to look into; and the PC can plausibly mishandle the contact and get nothing (or worse) out of it.

EDIT: If 5e had kept Streetwise as a thing people could choose to be good at, that'd work.

My general approach is...define as much as you can and when you can't you roll dice. In this case, I honestly think even if there were ten cities, I could manage 30 to 60 NPCs with brief backstories to scatter around those cities fairly easily. I'd give the player the list. That doesn't mean you couldn't spot someone that you recognize but don't really know well.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

That's kind of the thing. While we can talk about "mundane" versus "magical," IMHO, that distinction doesn't really matter too much when we view this from the lens of genre: i.e., fantasy adventure. For example, there are a lot of mundane happenings in the realm of superhero comics, but even the mundane lives of the characters, whether they are superheroes or the supporting cast of normies, are extraordinarily dramatic with a lot of dubious realism for the sake of dramatic superhero storytelling. The same is likewise true for non-magical genres like crime dramas, science fiction, and the like or even Hallmark movies. The genre of fantasy adventure, particularly D&D-style fantasy adventure, is more concerned with its tropes than its realism, and if Gary Gygax is to be the judge (pun intended), then that has always been the case. I don't really see anything inconsistent between D&D 2014's background features and D&D's genre fiction.

 

[prabe]

My general approach is...define as much as you can and when you can't you roll dice. In this case, I honestly think even if there were ten cities, I could manage 30 to 60 NPCs with brief backstories to scatter around those cities fairly easily. I'd give the player the list. That doesn't mean you couldn't spot someone that you recognize but don't really know well.

I honestly don't think I've pre-defined even thirty (let alone sixty) NPCs in even that much detail, across the three campaigns I've started. I'm planning ahead if I have a name.

Obviously, there are different ways to make the setting engaging.

 

[prabe]

That's kind of the thing. While we can talk about "mundane" versus "magical," IMHO, that distinction doesn't really matter too much when we view this from the lens of genre: i.e., fantasy adventure. For example, there are a lot of mundane happenings in the realm of superhero comics, but even the mundane lives of the characters, whether they are superheroes or the supporting cast of normies, are extraordinarily dramatic with a lot of dubious realism for the sake of dramatic superhero storytelling. The same is likewise true for non-magical genres like crime dramas, science fiction, and the like or even Hallmark movies. The genre of fantasy adventure, particularly D&D-style fantasy adventure, is more concerned with its tropes than its realism, and if Gary Gygax is to be the judge (pun intended), then that has always been the case. I don't really see anything inconsistent between D&D 2014's background features and D&D's genre fiction.

I don't think we disagree about game-level stuff.

I'd be inclined to say that in the majority of fiction, regardless of genre or medium, something is being exaggerated in some way.

 

[Oofta]

For me, unless all communication from that plane was cut off (like Carceri - that's the plane's whole schtick) then I don't see why the ability shouldn't work - even then. That, for me, would be part of the fun of it.

That said, If I'm not the DM - I'd certainly respect the DMs decision -

BUT and I suspect where @soviet and @prabe, among others, are getting frustrated is the constant - but there need to be limits. but there needs to be exceptions! and the belief that these "exceptions" would subsume the rule to such a degree - why even have it?

But if not, if we're really not that far apart? Great! Hopefully, at the end of the day, it's just talking about fun ways to give players the best experiences.

Yes, there do need to be limits and as DM and referee sometimes we have to say no. It depends on campaign style and assumptions. In FR for example, there's apparently a dozen or so organizations (I can't keep track of them all) that seemingly span the known world(s). With a network like that, perhaps it is reasonable to assume you can find someone with the right tattoo or symbol to send a message no matter where you are. I don't assume that, so there's no way for a PC to automatically identify those shady characters who are willing to not only take a message but also, in many cases, hand off that message to another shady character who in turn hands it off to another shady character until it gets to the final target. All automatically and never, ever, fails. To me it's illogical even before the PCs find themselves in alternate dimensions, other planes of existence, a lost city or valley*. But I also don't remember a single instance where it would have been useful either in any game I've ever DMed or played.

But when people repeatedly, every single time, just say it's a lack of imagination and a failing of DM? That gets old. We're just trying to run the game the best way we know how. In my case, the means making decisions on what is reasonable or not and sometimes saying no.

*Seriously, am I the only one who does this in my campaign? I didn't think it was that far out that at some point you're going to find yourself in an area cut off from the PC's origin locale.