D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

With regards to backgrounds, I think it behooves the DM to give some guidance as to what is likely to be relevant, but I also don’t think it matters if a background feature is never used.

A situation where backgrounds were used arose during my last game. We established that one PC could enlist the aid of the rebels using their underworld contacts, or another could procure passes as a House Agent. However, the sage’s research ability was of no use in the situation.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That is an interesting point.

A lot of people seem to assume that magic is basically “easy” mode to accomplish mundane tasks. In many D&D based systems, anyway. Complete any task without spending a spell slot? You gotta explain how it is done.

What’s weird is how effortless magic has become. I remember game systems where spells also took effort and risk. Sure you could save some time and physical / social effort, but the magic had other costs that were not trivial. Some spells in WFRP required ingredients that were rare or blatantly illegal.

Especially weird in games that seem to express the idea that all the PCs, spellcasters and non-spellcasters, have unique, nearly mythical abilities but some DMs only give magic spells a free pass but “mundane” abilities more scrutiny and required fictional buy-in.

I need to think about this some more.


Magic can sometimes overcome obstacles. Just as often so can clever play or using appropriate skills. In the same vein, magic doesn't solve all problems because it's a limited resource and you can only have so many spells prepared and only so many spell slots. Sometimes there are other reasons magic doesn't work, for example you can't teleport into a place if the location is under the effect of a Hallowed spell. In the same way, sometimes a skill or background feature is not applicable.

Sometimes magic, and figuring out how to use it is just a fun exercise. I played in a game yesterday where the wizard conjured giant eagles (they have an item that lets them use it 3 times ever). We got to planning and instead of the eagles being scouts/extra combat support like she was thinking we rode the eagles far above the enemy camp. We then jumped and the wizard cast feather fall so we could parachute into the middle of camp to surprise the enemy.

Yes, we apparently bypassed a dangerous encounter. But it was also an incredibly fun scenario to plan and participate in. Meanwhile other scenarios have come up where my PC was able to talk to a potential enemy and gained an ally instead. There are many tools available to D&D characters, one specific tool doesn't negate the other tools in the box.
 

There are many tools available to D&D characters, one specific tool doesn't negate the other tools in the box.
Agreed, I just hope that all DMs keep this in mind when making calls. We've read about a few hypothetical situations in this thread that implies that there are DMs out there who seem to do that.

I have only encountered one DM like that in my life, and they were kind of a douche so it wasn't really a rules problem.
 


Except the mechanics for those things are not within the grasp of the PC, and in the fiction would not be guarenteed, so IMO the mechanic shouldn't be guaranteed either.
That also true for the magic mechanics. The description of fireball says you cast fireball. It doesn’t say that you cast fireball unless you are in an anti-magic zone, or you are counterspelled.

You are applying a different standard to spells than to background features.
 

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.
Which is why I don't use those rules, because it makes more sense to me that there would be a chance of failure. The same logic holds for magic, but the mechanical consequences of spell failure would both need to be designed, and would have a much harder time acquiring player buy-in, since spells come into play far more often than having commoners hide you.
 

Why is ignoring the background rules sensible, but ignoring the combat rules silly? I'm missing the logic here.
For one thing, the combat rules are a much bigger part of the ruleset in most traditional RPGs. If you don't want to use them you might be better off with a different game.
 


Yeah, I don't know why so many people seem to be RPGing with people who aren't very interested in RPGing.
In earlier editions of the game, as well as in official play and tournament formats, the players are encouraged or even incentivized to use what ever means at their PCs disposal, plus their own ingenuity and cleverness, to accomplish their goals. Are you saying those aren't RPGs?
 


Remove ads

Top