D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[pemerton]

The player uses a background feature that makes no sense in the context's fictional positioning and they're a bad player. A DM says no when the context's fictional positioning is exactly the same and suddenly it's railroading.

<snip>

Do you not see how you are changing what constitutes bad behavior in your opinion based on who is determining that the background feature makes no sense? That in some cases the background feature is completely illogical?

the contradiction is that the GM reminding them of the fictional position is what is being criticized here

The examples that have been given in this thread are not of the GM reminding players of their fictional position. They have been of GM's stipulating fictional position - eg because the PC is on another plane, or in another part of the world, they lose their ability to "know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

For reasons that I hope are obvious, I describe this sort of GM stipulation of fictional positioning, so as to defeat player action declarations, railroading.

If you have an audience with the king, you can also have no one talk at all and just roll some dice to get a result if you consider actually making your case jumping through hoops. Just a matter of preference

This seems to be an example of pointless exaggeration.

Here is my post:

How long does it take a Criminal character to locate someone locally who will carry their message to their contact? I don't think the rules say, do they? So can't all the "jumping through the hoops" be subsumed as part of the use of the feature? Just like when a player of a wizard/MU says "I scribe a scroll, taking N days/weeks", we don't make the player play though each moment of preparing inks, preparing the writing surface, drawing all the sigils, etc. Those details are all subsumed within the action declaration "I scribe a scroll".

Similarly, "I get a message to my contact" can subsume whatever is involved in seeking out the local caravans or underworld figures or whatever, giving the message to them, etc. It seems to me that part of the point of the background feature is that the player doesn't have to actually play through all this minutia.

So, to reiterate, it seems to me that part of the point of the Criminal background is that the player is relieved of any obligation to actually play through all the minutiae of making contacts, etc. That is all subsumed within their use of their background ability.

Why do you think this is comparable to a diplomatic audience with the king? Do you think that meeting up with the shady caravan master, so as to get them to take the first step of sending a message to your contact, is as exciting as the audience with the king? Do you also require the players of spellcasters to actually speak the words of their spells? Or the player of the scroll-scriber to actually write out the sigils using a goose-quill pen?

 

[mamba]

Why do you think this is comparable to a diplomatic audience with the king? Do you think that meeting up with the shady caravan master, so as to get them to take the first step of sending a message to your contact, is as exciting as the audience with the king?

it was about establishing new contacts, not talking to a messenger to pass something on to your existing contact (remember, where you are you do not know any of those…)

I’d say first meeting Jabba the Hutt in an effort to gain support from him is not all that different from a meeting with a king, so yes, it very well can be comparable, but obviously it was in part also an exaggeration to make a point because the background was praised as providing good roleplaying opportunities only to then never use it as such and just handwave all of that away with a ‘why bother’

 

[Maxperson]

I don't agree re physics. D&D worlds permit perpetual motion (via "magic"), and there's no reason to think that universal gravitation (as opposed to the local phenomenon of objects falling to earth) is true.

I disagree. From the outset the game has treated campaign worlds as like the real world(but without super accurate modeling) unless something is called out as specifically different, such as magic. Gravity would be a universal force, even if we don't super accurately model the effects of gravity(falling damage I'm looking at you) in the game.

 

[Maxperson]

The examples that have been given in this thread are not of the GM reminding players of their fictional position. They have been of GM's stipulating fictional position - eg because the PC is on another plane, or in another part of the world, they lose their ability to "know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

For reasons that I hope are obvious, I describe this sort of GM stipulation of fictional positioning, so as to defeat player action declarations, railroading.

Your obvious reasons are wrong, though. Railroading requires the the DM have an agenda that he is forcing the game toward with his rulings. There is no desired agenda in ruling that on an isolated island with a native tribe the PC has never seen or heard of before, he has no one local to know or get a message out. The DM in that case is making a neutral ruling based on the facts of the fiction and what would reasonably be the case, not forcing a desired agenda like, "I hate this ability, so I'm going to foil it no matter what."

Neutral rulings are not railroading, even if done unilaterally by the DM.

 

[pemerton]

From the outset the game has treated campaign worlds as like the real world(but without super accurate modeling) unless something is called out as specifically different, such as magic. Gravity would be a universal force, even if we don't super accurately model the effects of gravity(falling damage I'm looking at you) in the game.

No. Have a look at how Gygax, in his DMG, suggests treating a journey to the moon on a flying steed.

The game has always accepted that objects fall to earth. But nothing in the game has ever implied universal gravitation.

 

[Maxperson]

No. Have a look at how Gygax, in his DMG, suggests treating a journey to the moon on a flying steed.

The game has always accepted that objects fall to earth. But nothing in the game has ever implied universal gravitation.

Why would a FLYING steed imply that there's no gravity? He's also talking about the DM making rulings that would allow such things, not that they are that way by default.

What's more, he very clearly indicates that the world is like Earth,

"Furthermore, once beyond the normal limits of earth's atmosphere, gravity and resistance are such that speed increases dramatically, and the whole journey will take but a few days."

 

[pemerton]

Why would a FLYING steed imply that there's no gravity? He's also talking about the DM making rulings that would allow such things, not that they are that way by default.

What's more, he very clearly indicates that the world is like Earth,

"Furthermore, once beyond the normal limits of earth's atmosphere, gravity and resistance are such that speed increases dramatically, and the whole journey will take but a few days."

Universal gravitation is a principle that explains both (i) the tendency of objects to fall to earth, and (ii) the motion of celestial bodies. (ii) encompasses the orbit of the moon around the earth.

Gravity also turns out to explain why a planet, like earth, is able to retain an atmosphere.

In any world where someone can fly through a breathable atmosphere from the earth to the moon in but a few days, it is obvious that universal gravitation is not a thing. Whatever principle in that world that explains atmospheres, celestial motion, etc, it is not a principle anything like universal gravitation.

 

[Maxperson]

Universal gravitation is a principle that explains both (i) the tendency of objects to fall to earth, and (ii) the motion of celestial bodies. (ii) encompasses the orbit of the moon around the earth.

Gravity also turns out to explain why a planet, like earth, is able to retain an atmosphere.

In any world where someone can fly through a breathable atmosphere from the earth to the moon in but a few days, it is obvious that universal gravitation is not a thing. Whatever principle in that world that explains atmospheres, celestial motion, etc, it is not a principle anything like universal gravitation.

Sure, but you can't do that unless the DM changes things. Gravitation is the default, but the DM can of course change it as Gary mentions.

 

[mamba]

In any world where someone can fly through a breathable atmosphere from the earth to the moon in but a few days, it is obvious that universal gravitation is not a thing.

I assume the below is a quote from Gary that @Maxperson used

"Furthermore, once beyond the normal limits of earth's atmosphere, gravity and resistance are such that speed increases dramatically, and the whole journey will take but a few days."

it says nothing about remaining within an atmosphere, to me it very much sounds like you are not. That winged flight does not make much sense at that point, I chalk up to Gary not caring more than Gary using a different model. If he did, why did he talk about leaving the atmosphere.

 

[grankless]

We should go back to the much funnier debate over if it's unethical for a player to declare that other people exist, like the "I want to punch the nearest person in the bar" discussion.