D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Mort]

Not generally for all or most of a campaign. It happens for a bit, and then they usually go home. And it's also very common for it not to happen at all.

It was just one example. There are many, many ways for the ability to "not make sense." Especially if the DM doesn't care for it to.

 

[Maxperson]

It was just one example. There are many, many ways for the ability to "not make sense." Especially if the DM doesn't care for it to.

I don't assume the bolded, though. It's not an ability worth caring for or not caring for. It would be like me not caring for Magic Missile or something.

 

[prabe]

I, on the other hand, would also allow the PC to be good at recognizing messenger networks and methods. For example, Is the town far from the PCs usual area but there is a messenger pigeon network in the town? The PC could find it to send a message. Minor but useful.

If I were to run that sort of game for most or all of a campaign, the Criminal would probably not start with the ability, but would quickly make allies in the underworld that would kickstart the ability. Tell them who to contact, give them secret codewords, etc.

Some mix between these two is pretty much how I run the ability, period: You can make non-hostile contact, you can send messages. I also used the Rogue with the Criminal background in my third campaign as a conduit of Underworld information to the party: This is who these guys are, this is their reputation, that sort of thing, without a roll. That campaign has mostly taken place inside the starting city, so its utility elsewhere is from the PC's perspective unexplored.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I already said how I handle it. You know messengers in some region defined by the player (not the size, but which region), not beyond it. You could get lucky and run into one of those messengers traveling with the caravans if you are along their route. Outside of that you are out of luck, if there is no messenger then there is no messenger.

What you can do instead, and your background helps with that, is establish contacts to the seedy parts of town where you are.

It’s not about knowing the specific messenger, man. This was already explained to you. It’s about knowing the system… the kinds of people who will send such messages and how to make contact with them.

It’s about the character seeming like a criminal who knows about criminal stuff.

But sure… that doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Mort]

I don't assume the bolded, though. It's not an ability worth caring for or not caring for. It would be like me not caring for Magic Missile or something.

There are way too many DMs who look for reasons to say no. Newbie and veteran alike.

 

[mamba]

I, on the other hand, would also allow the PC to be good at recognizing messenger networks and methods. For example, Is the town far from the PCs usual area but there is a messenger pigeon network in the town? The PC could find it to send a message. Minor but useful.

oh sure, if there is something they can find it and use it, mine was not an exhaustive list

 

[Maxperson]

There are way too many DMs who look for reasons to say no. Newbie and veteran alike.

That hasn't been my experience for the last 41 years, so we're going to have to agree to disagree here. It's a divide that can't be bridged.

 

[mamba]

It’s not about knowing the specific messenger, man. This was already explained to you. It’s about knowing the system… the kinds of people who will send such messages and how to make contact with them.

except that this is literally what the feature says…

The ‘kind of people’ do not help you to reach your contact, that guy is not known around the world and if this were about sending a letter in the mail it would not take a background

It’s about the character seeming like a criminal who knows about criminal stuff.

But sure… that doesn’t make any sense.

that is precisely why he can establish new contacts

 

[clearstream]

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.

A year ago now I posted

[1] So far as pre-existing norms extend, participants can often agree that a description D will have the consequences C.​

​

[2] Rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them.​

​

[3] During play it can be decided if any D has the consequences C by matching that D to a norm or rule that explicitly states or implies that C.​

What you are appealing to is the notion that where it says that

backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions​

The background "features" concrete benefits are game mechanics that supersede and extend beyond other norms. However, it's also evident that said superseding and extending can fail to banish pre-existing norms. PF and 4e debates over prone snakes provides some evidence of that. And they must fail because our capacity to grasp rules depends upon a web of meaning that is never completely specified by the rule.

The following may prompt reflections on that (emphasis generally mine)

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.

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.

These two quotes can be reconciled by supposing the group have meta-norms that guide them between "using the real world as your basis will be an error" and those "sometimes--mostly in matters of classical physics" cases that follow some other norms for fictional-truth determination. Something like David Lewis' principle of least difference from collective beliefs.

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.

As it appears this player is trusted to have self-regulated toward.

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... I don't really see anything inconsistent between D&D 2014's background features and D&D's genre fiction.

The setting is more important to me than the ruleset, so I make sure the rules can model the setting as closely as I can practically manage.

And it appears that such beliefs include as regards the nature of the fiction itself, i.e. that it's genre or milieu is such-amd-such and this is to prevail over other norms.

Often it's enough to find a phrasing that makes the proposition fitting, such as

the original poster... knows the strict rules answer... Instead, he is looking for advice on how it "should" be played.

Which may lead to

“This condition can affect limbless creatures, such as fish and snakes, as well as amorphous creatures, such as oozes. When such a creature falls prone, imagine it is writhing or unsteady, rather than literally lying down.”

To me the rules by which fictional-truth is determined are subtle and remain puzzling. It seems that there can be a principle in play (which may be unwritten) with sufficient force to bend game mechanics to some other perceived demands. And I feel confident in observing that not all elements of a given fiction must obey the same set of fictional-truth determinants, based on the ability of folk to articulate different sets and speak about choosing between them.

 

[pemerton]

Who was outraged? No one that I know was outraged.

Hey! I was outraged, and you kinda know me.