D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

But they are: seeking aid, sending messages, seeking out caravans, seeing if any commoners will provide a place to hide - these are all things a person can do.

Only if you make assumptions about the fiction that contradict the game rules.

I mean, I can imagine that a spell caster might sneeze when trying to speak the words of a spell, but the rules of 5e D&D mean that this never happens. Likewise, I can imagine the commoners refusing to hide someone, but the rules of the Folk Hero background mean that that never happens.
Are we at a geek social fallacy here? 'Successful social interactions must be magic'
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Have you ever had a PC roll to see if they fall when walking down the inn stars out of combat? Or have Parkinson's? People do this all the time. You're already filtering the world through a dramatic and heroic lens. They don't have to roll to see if there are important events taking place near the PC's. The DM is already orchestrating that to ensure important events happen where they are at because otherwise it's a dull game about cobblers and farmers going about their routine lives in a quiet village where the biggest issue is the Lionel Pritcherd and the Wolfington brothers painting a cow, what most NPC's in the game world experience.
Shh, you're saying the soft bit loud!

NPC's largely operate by DM fiat. Unless you're making individual rolls to see if they fall in love, persuade one another offscreen, etc. Possibly JMISBEST does that to determine which of the suiters the 8th step niece of the king prefers, but I hazard a guess most don't.
Aweseome JMISBEST reference!
 


Huh?

Yes, in my view railroading is bad GMing. And players who ignore their PC's fictional positioning are bad players. I don't know where you think the contradiction lies.
If fictional positioning is supposed to matter for the rule, why is the rule not written so that its working requires proper fictional positioning? Oberoni and all that. 🤷
 
Last edited:

Now that you, and @soviet, @prabe, and @hawkeyefan(since they liked your post) have acknowledged that there are circumstances in the fiction which will override mechanical abilities that "always" work, we are all on the same page!
Huh? Here is the ability I'm talking about:

You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you.​

In what way am I "overriding" this ability? It doesn't say anything about the character being able to communicate with others even when asleep or unconscious.
 

Sure. But as @Jefe Bergenstein posted, interesting stuff is taking place in the general vicinity of those nobodies, making them remarkable to that degree.
Well yes. And I personally prefer games where early level PCs are clearly a cut above most commoner. But some people enjoy that. Some people love generating a handful of characters that are 3d6, in order, starting with 1 hp and brooms and chicken bones for starting gear. And enjoy seeing them getting killed by an unlucky saving throw or getting one shot by goblins because the one magic user already used their 1 spell slot for the day (which was Read Magic).

Not saying that’s a bad playstyle, just not for me, which is why I’ve been fine with D&D 5e’s quirky heroic themes.
 



If fictional positioning is supposed to matter for the rule, why is the rule so that its working requires proper fictional positioning? Oberoni and all that. 🤷
But there is a difference between the observable fictional positioning that leads up to the action declaration - am I asleep, can they speak my language, have we already established any other potential barriers - and things that are not visible which either come from the GM's notes or are improvised afterwards.

I accept that sometimes there will legitimately be things the player didn't think of or didn't know. But on the whole if something passes the first test (already visible reasons for rejection) it should be rare that something fails the second (concealed or retrospective reasons for rejection).

Conflating 'no, you're asleep lol' with 'retrospective GM justification' is not helpful. A GM can always always always think of a reason why something might not work.
 

But there is a difference between the observable fictional positioning that leads up to the action declaration - am I asleep, can they speak my language, have we already established any other potential barriers - and things that are not visible which either come from the GM's notes or are improvised afterwards.

I accept that sometimes there will legitimately be things the player didn't think of or didn't know. But on the whole if something passes the first test (already visible reasons for rejection) it should be rare that something fails the second (concealed or retrospective reasons for rejection
“Rare” is fine; it is “never” I’d have an issue with.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top