D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[hawkeyefan]

between a PC and an NPC, as you well know

No one stopped the neighbor blacksmith from becoming a wizard, no one would have stopped the cobbler either, it’s just that the player did not pick that occupation


in the game world the difference is that one is controlled by the player and the other by the DM, that is it

I don't even know what it is you're trying to say anymore. But I'm still pretty sure it's wrong.

Skill use has a chance of failure.

Not always. In many cases, sure, but sometimes a skill can simply succeed.

All the background features did was take away the risk of failure in a few very specific circumstances.

But I think you can see why I'd compare them more to skill use than high level magic, right?

 

[Bae'zel]

Yeah, if you're going to do that sort of thing, you need to get some player buy-in. Less than a twist-centric campaign, I think, but some; and making sure no one picked a background that'd just get nuked seems like a way to make that easier.

EDIT: But see my comment upthread containing my feelings about "fish out of water" in TRPGs. (spoiler: I don't like it)

To clarify, I never do "SURPRISE HAHAHA" it's always part of the pitch and if players reject that, I go with something else. We do a formal session zero as a follow up.

I don't mind the fish out of water if it creates an opportunity to be outsider heroes who make a difference, which is always my hope. Also, the social isolation, at least at first, can create party cohesion as they are familiar with each other, but not with the setting so much. It's worked out very well for me so far.

 

[prabe]

To clarify, I never do "SURPRISE HAHAHA" it's always part of the pitch and if players reject that, I go with something else. We do a formal session zero as a follow up.

I don't mind the fish out of water if it creates an opportunity to be outsider heroes who make a difference, which is always my hope. Also, the social isolation, at least at first, can create party cohesion as they are familiar with each other, but not with the setting so much. It's worked out very well for me so far.

Yeah, I think it's possible to run a twist with player buy-in, it just takes more work to get there. In principle, fish-out-of-water stuff can be fine, I've just always found it, as player and DM, to be deeply frustrating (and not found it to do anything particularly extra for party cohesion) because it can make it really hard to get enough information about the setting and situation/s to make good decisions; but that's me--and an explanation of why I don't do it. If someone in a game I'm running wants to play an outsider hero ... I'll see if I can figure something out, I guess.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Different priorities, of course. I generally am happy to write a setting that works with the expectations of the game (ruleset) I want to run.

The ruleset I want to run is generally not WotC D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't even know what it is you're trying to say anymore. But I'm still pretty sure it's wrong.



Not always. In many cases, sure, but sometimes a skill can simply succeed.

All the background features did was take away the risk of failure in a few very specific circumstances.

But I think you can see why I'd compare them more to skill use than high level magic, right?

Because both skill use and 2014 background features represent non-magucal aspects if the setting?

 

[prabe]

The ruleset I want to run is generally not WotC D&D.

I specifically wrote my setting for D&D 5e, because that was the ruleset I wanted to play and run. When I ran a game of Cypher, I used a (homebrewed) "Real World + Weird" setting, because that seemed to be where the game wanted to be. If I ever run Chaosium's Rvers of London TRPG, it won't be in London and it'll barely connect to the novels--but I'll still try to build a setting that suits the game. (Actually, I'm more likely to run a ruleset I have percolating in my head than the Rivers of London game, even if I stick with those particular setting ideas. Different thing.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I specifically wrote my setting for D&D 5e, because that was the ruleset I wanted to play and run. When I ran a game of Cypher, I used a (homebrewed) "Real World + Weird" setting, because that seemed to be where the game wanted to be. If I ever run Chaosium's Rvers of London TRPG, it won't be in London and it'll barely connect to the novels--but I'll still try to build a setting that suits the game. (Actually, I'm more likely to run a ruleset I have percolating in my head than the Rivers of London game, even if I stick with those particular setting ideas. Different thing.)

Cool. My homebrew world has rules-presence in Level Up and ACKS. The science fiction setting I'm working on will be playable in Level Up (through the Voidrunner's Codex) and also in Stars Without Number. Not sure which one I'll end up playing either in when I start a new campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because both skill use and 2014 background features represent non-magucal aspects if the setting?

No, I mean more from a mechanical standpoint. Why the background features and what they do is closer to skill use and what it does than to high level magic and what it does.

To clarify, @tetrasodium compared the background features to high level magic on par with 9th level spells. I was disagreeing with that comparison.

 

[mamba]

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.

you can use it however you want, up to you. I would not, but to each their own. My point was simply that there is no bad faith argument here, just an exploration of the limits

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!

eh, if you do not want exceptions then do not have them. I am simply interested in whether you would have any and which ones. I do not need to convince you of my way.

I’d definitely have some, but hey, that does not mean you are wrong and I am right or vice versa, it just means we have different approaches and probably goals too

 

[mamba]

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

either you are or you aren’t… given what you wrote you do that is basically how I handle it, yet you are constantly on the other side in this discussion, arguing for a point you do not even follow yourself