D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Maxperson]

But it's not control! Glad we cleared that up

I didn't say it wasn't control. The DM has always had control. In ever edition of D&D, plus Basic/BECMI. Now, trying to make DMing about control is disingenuous. Not that I'm saying you are doing that, but some here like to try.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. 5e says in several areas that the DM is in charge, not the rules and he can override them. He'd better have a good reason for overriding something like that, but the player is not within his rights to just insist that it works. If the DM has a good reason why it doesn't, then it doesn't.

Then the rule probably shouldn't have been written the way it was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, there are enough examples in the text (at least the 2014 version) that most DMs would be fine with making exceptions. Clearly plenty of folks here didn’t hesitate to deny usage at times.

But aside from that… why is it a problem? Why is it problematic to give players moves they can make that simply work?

Depends on the move. For my part, such a move would have to make setting sense to apply as written in every circumstance for it to "simply work" with no comment.

 

[soviet]

I didn't say it wasn't control. The DM has always had control. In ever edition of D&D, plus Basic/BECMI. Now, trying to make DMing about control is disingenuous. Not that I'm saying you are doing that, but some here like to try.

Maybe you're not seeing all the posters in the thread, but my post was in response to people who are saying that it's offensive to say a GM veto is about control

 

[Mort]

Then the rule probably shouldn't have been written the way it was.

Since it's stated early. There's really no reason to add "unless the DM says otherwise..." to every possible player rule/ability. It's unnecessary and would take up way too much space.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You really don't see how...

"Honestly, it's not even that hard if one gives it more than the moment's thought that it takes to reflexively yell "NO" and cradle the map of one's homebrew world to their chest like a dying child."

...could be taken negatively?

Sure, it can be. It probably should be.

I was told we were allowed to share our views about other playstyles.

 

[soviet]

Sure, it can be. It probably should be.

I was told we were allowed to share our views about other playstyles.

No, only some of us are

 

[Maxperson]

Then the rule probably shouldn't have been written the way it was.

Why? It would be a waste of time and effort to make every single rule in the game read like it wasn't a hard rule. Better to just make a rule that the DM controls the rules and not the other way around.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, it can be. It probably should be.

I was told we were allowed to share our views about other playstyles.

Not if you are going to insult the style and those who play them. Sharing a view is saying why you like or don't like something. Insults are something else entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

No, only some of us are

Can you point out anyone who isn't allowed to share their opinion of a playstyle, because I haven't seen it. And again, insults against the style and those who play them are not opinions of a playstyle.