Fluff vs. Mechanics

[JNAProductions]

It's inconsistent, though. Not even Paladins or Clerics have a "won't do [ACTION]" in their class write-ups, and they're historically much stricter than Druids.

Moreover, you talk about how circumventing it (such as if Druids did not have proficiency with any medium armor besides Hide) as a bad thing. But circumventing it would require mechanical costs-why is paying a mechanical cost for a mechanical benefit so bad? After all, a Wizard who invests resources to get Heavy Armor can wear it just fine. What's so different about Druids?

[eftexar]

* slams head on table *

We aren't saying to "CHANGE the RULE." We are saying "It Wasn't EVER a RULE in the first place." We are not necessarily questioning just the Designers, but also your INTERPRETATION of what "YOU think the RULES mean!"

If you started a Religion in real life and set down the tenant "Pumpkins are Evil, they must be Smashed." That doesn't make it True. You might think it does. You might say it does. Your followers might say it was. That doesn't make it true though. And it's not like you would know they broke the tenant anyway.

Oh, and 5e's creation was partially crowd-sourced, so arguing "the designers are God" or "the DM is God" is inaccurate anyway.

News flash, the world isn't so neat as you are indicating. Sure you can claim that "those who don't smash Pumpkins aren't part of your Religion". But, really, that is just lip-service at this point. Guess what happens now? Either mutiny, and you are no longer their religious leader (so they can change that tenant), or . . . WAR. Yes, on a much more somber note, the kind of ABSOLUTE thinking you imply, has resulted in the rise and fall of nations.

Our world is shades of Grey, not Black and White. Therefore, everything we see, to have any accuracy at all, must be seen in hues of Grey.

And qouting your own words :

The designers (and the DM) are not in my position. They are in God's position. They can make generalized true statements of the way people in the world that is a figment of their imagination act.

The key part? ". . . generalized statements . . ." You just admitted, here, that it isn't ABSOLUTE.

In a game, the Rules are much like the Physics of that world. They explain our "best interpretation" of how that world works, just like Science does for our real world. No, the designers aren't God, so, just, so many no(s).

(in D&D) The Designers are the Scientists, the DM a Tour Guide, and Players the Explorers.

---

Scientists don't just accept that other Scientists are right, just "because they said so." And no (proper) Scientist would (likely) be (anywhere near) okay giving that explanation. And, if they present their theory without explaining, or even indicating, any exceptions? They would lose credibility.

[diplomancer]

-"If there are no mechanical ramifications, that means it's not a rule"
-"well, even granting, for the sake of argument, that your definition is correct, here are 3 different mechanical ramifications of this rule"
-"that's not the sort of mechanical ramification I meant. I meant mechanical drawbacks. It's still not a rule"
-"ok, I guess, if that's how you feel more power to your game"
-"no, I won't be satisfied until you agree with me that it's not a rule. If you don't agree with my interpretation and my view of how the game is supposed to work, that means you are wrong"

Sorry, can't do that. Have fun at your game though.

[eftexar]

Diplomancer, you still haven't shown any example of what happens "if a Druid wears Metal Armor." What happens to the Druid for doing so? What do the Rules state?

Even if the Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor, and we took your interpretation of WON'T "in absolute", that still hasn't answered WHAT happens IF he does. As RAW, I don't see any Rules on "what happens to a Druid if they wear Metal Armor."

And nobody has said, unless I missed it somehow,

"no, I won't be satisfied until you agree with me that it's not a rule. If you don't agree with my interpretation and my view of how the game is supposed to work, that means you are wrong"

except for you. You continue to make this about CONTROL and make it out as Player vs DM. It's NOT and it's NOT. You keep deflecting by associating us with the very responses you yourself are showing (and then ignoring that you are doing so).

This thread isn't supposed to be Us vs You, but you INSIST that anyone who doesn't agree with you is adversarial and that, by disagreeing with you, that automatically makes you right. If disagreeing with you automatically makes me wrong, then I can never disagree with you by that logic! So I'm right if I agree with you, but I'm wrong if I don't? That is not how things work.

[diplomancer]

Diplomancer, you still haven't shown any example of what happens "if a Druid wears Metal Armor." What happens to the Druid for doing so? What do the Rules state?

Even if the Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor, and we took your interpretation of WON'T "in absolute", that still hasn't answered WHAT happens IF he does. As RAW, I don't see any Rules on "what happens to a Druid if they wear Metal Armor."

And nobody has said, unless I missed it somehow, except for you. You continue to make this about CONTROL and make it out as Player vs DM. It's NOT and it's NOT. You keep deflecting by associating us with the very responses you yourself are showing (and then ignoring that you are doing so).

This thread isn't supposed to be Us vs You, but you INSIST that anyone who doesn't agree with you is adversarial and that, by disagreeing with you, that automatically makes you right. If disagreeing with you automatically makes me wrong, then I can never disagree with you by that logic! So I'm right if I agree with you, but I'm wrong if I don't? That is not how things work.

I have shown what the mechanical ramifications are many times in this thread. Look it up. I will even give you a hint, it's the same mechanical implications of any other class wearing a suit of armor. If druids wore metal armor, they could take advantage of those ramifications. Alas, they won't wear them, so they don't(according to the rulebook).

And no, I am not saying that everyone has to play my way, I have explicitly said many times that the way each DM deals with it is entirely up to him, exactly because I have been many times accused, baselessly, of having this mindset. To the player who says "my Druid puts on the metal armor", a DM can answer "ok, no problem"; A DM can answer "an avatar of nature appears, roll for initiative"; A DM can answer "no you don't. Druids don't wear metal armor"; A DM can answer "the armor seems to be repelled by you; looks like it's not possible to do so"; A DM can answer "you immediately lose all your Druid powers. What other class do you want to play?"; A DM can answer "as you put on the armor, it's nature seems to change. By the time you are finished, you realize now it's a suit of studded leather armor". There are probably dozens of other possible ways of adjudicating the result of that particular PC action.

None of those solutions I mentioned are the ones I think best, but all of those (yes, even the first one) are within the DM's right. If you asked me what is the RAW answer, I will say, as DM, I couldn't care less about it, but it's probably either "no you don't. Druids don't wear metal" or, if that leaves a bad taste in your mouth about player agency "druids will not wear metal armor. You are wearing metal armor. Therefore you are not a Druid" (this one, if spelled out before the player has his druid put on the metal armor, is probably enough to dissuade him. If it isn't, he doesn't want to play a Druid as defined by the rules, and that's also fine, as long as he does not believe that he has the right to force you to accept his interpretation). The designers apparently wanted to leave the ramifications entirely up to the DM, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that

My own preferred solution as DM is obviously not RAW, and I'm fine with that. As player, I accept the natural, colloquial english of the PHB and don't wear metal armor, unless the DM brings up the subject himself and says "you know, I don't like that restriction. Use whatever armor you think best". I would probably still ask him to provide me with alternative material armor instead, but that's probably the old-time player in me speaking. If he answered "no, in my world druids have no restriction at all about it. They all wear metal armor if they can afford it", I'd say "ok" and wear metal armor.

But you seem to be saying that DMs that don't see the way you do are enforcing a rule that does not exist, and that the correct way of playing D&D is the one you prefer (to the point of creating metaphors like "designers are scientists, etc...", and expecting everyone else to accept those metaphors as if they were straight from the rulebook and that's how everyone should see the game).

[eftexar]

I used metaphors because you don't seem to understand anything I, or anyone else, am saying. I, and likely many of us, are not saying what you say we are saying. And we are not saying it for the reasons you are saying that we are saying them. You are applying the reasons you disagree with us in opposite to our reasoning. Not everyone thinks the way that you do. Or any of us for that matter.

And you have NOT shown any ramifications at all. Not once have you pointed at a Rule within any Book that indicates any Ramifcations "for a Druid who is wearing Metal Armor." You admit that a Druid CAN wear Metal Armor. Then you say the Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor. But, you still haven't said "WHAT HAPPENS IF A DRUID WEARS METAL ARMOR?" I want an answer to that! I am NOT TALKING ABOUT DM ADJUDICATION. I am talking RULES AS RAW. As in, the Rules as they are Written. Not HOW THE DM INTERPERATES THOSE RULES, NOT HOW YOU INTERPERATE THE RULES, but HOW THEY ARE WRITTEN!

Answer this question and only this QUESTION using the RULES AS WRITTEN : The Druid wears Metal Armor. What happens as a result of this choice?

To further clarify if you need it : What happens as a result of this choice (compared to a hypothetical Class that is written exactly as Druid, but says CAN'T use Metal Armor as opposed to WON'T use Metal Armor (this is the difference between the Druid and ALL other Classes after all))? It doesn't matter that they won't. You can't ignore "what happens if" just because "it won't happen." You are ignoring the Question!

And this, you are still pulling this stuff out :

But you seem to be saying that DMs that don't see the way you do are enforcing a rule that does not exist, and that the correct way of playing D&D is the one you prefer (to the point of creating metaphors like "designers are scientists, etc...", and expecting everyone else to accept those metaphors as if they were straight from the rulebook and that's how everyone should see the game).

Again, the Metaphors seem to be only way I can make progress. I'm not using them as Rules, but as EXAMPLES. YOU ARE THE ONE EQUATING THEM TO RULES AND TAKING THEM LITERALLY. They are not literal. They are Metaphors. The DEFINITION OF A METAPHOR, IN ITSELF, PRECLUDES USING THEM AS RULES.

I've not once said anything about DMs "enforcing a Rule a specific way, because I think it should be that way." But you seem to be listening to our point now, if not quite understanding it.

It's not about "the DM enforcing a Rule I don't think exists." It's about "whether or not the Rule exists" or, perhaps more accurately, "whether or not the statement is a Rule or it is Fluff." You are predicating your argument, which nobody is arguing, on another argument that nobody has yet agreed upon, but you seem to think they have. Or you have just assigned the result to that argument itself that you believe. You've put blinders on, because you have assumed something is so inherant that it equates to, "the sky blue, so duh."

[ad_hoc]

Answer this question and only this QUESTION using the RULES AS WRITTEN : The Druid wears Metal Armor. What happens as a result of this choice?

They don't.

(Well, what actually happens is that they player is asked to leave the game because they refuse to play by the rules.)

[MrDrax99]

In the games that I have enjoyed the most, fluff is as important as the mechanics. There are those people that enjoy table top roleplaying games as if they are simply a matter of mechanics and miniatures battles with a story to link the action. Some people prefer more story with less pure combat time. Some people enjoy a healthy mix of the two.

To me even when playing in "Living Games" where everyone else was min/maxing and trying to win...I still had characters with fluff, personality and that were not traditional. That is my preference and sometimes does not go well with others.

Fluff makes the story, combat makes the excitement, and a mix make the game...at least for me.

[diplomancer]

You don't believe it's a rule. I believe it is. If I enforce it, am I playing D&D wrong?

[JNAProductions]

And fluff is why I don't like this. As I said before, the AC bonus is negligible. It's nice to have, but Druids kick butt with AC 16 or AC 19.

But to completely and, it feels to me, artificially restrain character choice for historical reasons (and that really seems to be the main reason it was included) is just not good in my opinion.

You don't believe it's a rule. I believe it is. If I enforce it, am I playing D&D wrong?

Depends how, and if your players are having fun.

If you enforce it by completely and utterly stripping a PC of all Druid abilities because "Druids won't wear metal armor, so if you wear it, you're not a Druid," I'd imagine most players would rightly object to it.

If you enforce it by making a houserule that states Druids have proficiency in only light armor, hide armor, and wooden shields, then that's fine. I don't think any reasonable player would be object to that.

[ezekielraiden]

In the games that I have enjoyed the most, fluff is as important as the mechanics. There are those people that enjoy table top roleplaying games as if they are simply a matter of mechanics and miniatures battles with a story to link the action. Some people prefer more story with less pure combat time. Some people enjoy a healthy mix of the two.

To me even when playing in "Living Games" where everyone else was min/maxing and trying to win...I still had characters with fluff, personality and that were not traditional. That is my preference and sometimes does not go well with others.

Fluff makes the story, combat makes the excitement, and a mix make the game...at least for me.

I don't think you're using the terms in the way most people would use them.

That is, if someone wants to play a bat-person, but no such race exists, would you tell them they have to play something else because "fluff is as important as mechanics" and therefore aarakocra must be bird-people and not bat-people? Or would you tell them that it's fine, they can use the mechanics for aarakocra but change the fluff (for their character only) to being a bat-person?

[eftexar]

You guys are missing the point. "They don't" doesn't answer my question. I'm not talking about how to resolve it at the table. Or what the DM thinks. Or even what the Player wants. IT IS NOT ABOUT THAT. I am not asking for the "result of this discussion at the Table."

Ad_hoc, you say . . .

They don't.

(Well, what actually happens is that they player is asked to leave the game because they refuse to play by the rules.)

That answers, poorly in my opinion, why "the Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor". That is not what was asked. What was asked, is "What happens if the Druid wears Metal Armor?," because he clearly CAN, even if he WON'T.

MrDrax99, you say . . .

Spoiler: Quote by MrDrax99

Show

In the games that I have enjoyed the most, fluff is as important as the mechanics. There are those people that enjoy table top roleplaying games as if they are simply a matter of mechanics and miniatures battles with a story to link the action. Some people prefer more story with less pure combat time. Some people enjoy a healthy mix of the two.

To me even when playing in "Living Games" where everyone else was min/maxing and trying to win...I still had characters with fluff, personality and that were not traditional. That is my preference and sometimes does not go well with others.

Fluff makes the story, combat makes the excitement, and a mix make the game...at least for me.

Not what this discussion is currently about. But that doesn't make it any less insightful (and more likely what the OP intended to talk about if you are answering the Thread in general, rather than this near-derail). What we want regarding Fluff or Mechanics isn't relevant to the discussion on "Druids wearing Metal Armor."

Diplomancer, you say . . .

You don't believe it's a rule. I believe it is. If I enforce it, am I playing D&D wrong?

We are not talking about how you enforce it or not. Or whether you should or want to. We are asking "What happens if the Druid wears Metal Armor?" What does the PHB indicate as the consequence? FULL STOP.

Why WON'T anyone answer this QUESTION. Either you CAN, but won't, or have no clue what is being discussed in this thread, and CAN'T. Ironies abound . . .

"What Happens if a Druid Wears Metal Armor?" Complete this sentence; : If the Druid wears Metal Armor, the Player's Handbook indicates that _____________ will happen."

The Answer must be True as RAW, must fit the context of the ad-lib, and the Rules must Explicitly state it. The answer to this Question has nothing to do with how you DM or how you interpret the RULE at your Table. Otherwise it is INCORRECT. Not because anyone said so, but because THIS IS HOW LOGIC WORKS. PROPER CAUSATION.

[diplomancer]

And fluff is why I don't like this. As I said before, the AC bonus is negligible. It's nice to have, but Druids kick butt with AC 16 or AC 19.

But to completely and, it feels to me, artificially restrain character choice for historical reasons (and that really seems to be the main reason it was included) is just not good in my opinion.



Depends how, and if your players are having fun.

If you enforce it by completely and utterly stripping a PC of all Druid abilities because "Druids won't wear metal armor, so if you wear it, you're not a Druid," I'd imagine most players would rightly object to it.

If you enforce it by making a houserule that states Druids have proficiency in only light armor, hide armor, and wooden shields, then that's fine. I don't think any reasonable player would be object to that.

What if I enforce it by adjudicating the way I said I would (first time a fluff warning "you seem to sense the nature of your relationship to nature change" with a mechanical explanation, every day (or hour) after that the player loses 1 level in druid and gains 1 level in nature cleric)? Is that a wrong way to play D&D?

What if I follow what I believe to be strict RAW and answer to the player "no you don't. You are a druid, and druids don't do that". Is that playing the game wrong?




Eftexar, your arguments sometimes make it seem that you believe the game is actually something real, and that there is a Druid in an alternative dimension putting on metal armor when a player says "my druid puts on metal armor", and then you want to know if anything else mechanical happens to him apart from the changes in his AC, encumbrance and, possibly, stealth. It's perfectly within the games rules for the DM's answer to that to be "no, he doesn't. Druids don't wear metal armor. If you insist on doing that, I will ask you to change your class or leave the game". If the DM answers that, there is no Druid wearing metal armor, and therefore no need to come up with any consequence.

[JNAProductions]

What if I enforce it by adjudicating the way I said I would (first time a fluff warning "you seem to sense the nature of your relationship to nature change" with a mechanical explanation, every day (or hour) after that the player loses 1 level in druid and gains 1 level in nature cleric)? Is that a wrong way to play D&D?

What if I follow what I believe to be strict RAW and answer to the player "no you don't. You are a druid, and druids don't do that". Is that playing the game wrong?

Yes. You're controlling another player's character without any mechanical enforcement-no Dominate Person, no mind-altering drugs, just stepping in and saying "Your PC doesn't do this."

How is that any different from a PC telling the DM "The enemy surrenders to me."?

[MrDrax99]

I don't think you're using the terms in the way most people would use them.

That is, if someone wants to play a bat-person, but no such race exists, would you tell them they have to play something else because "fluff is as important as mechanics" and therefore aarakocra must be bird-people and not bat-people? Or would you tell them that it's fine, they can use the mechanics for aarakocra but change the fluff (for their character only) to being a bat-person?

We would let them if it fit the tone of the story and was workable for the shared story being told. Suddenly bat people would exist in some corner of the world.

[Tectorman]

Yes. You're controlling another player's character without any mechanical enforcement-no Dominate Person, no mind-altering drugs, just stepping in and saying "Your PC doesn't do this."

How is that any different from a PC telling the DM "The enemy surrenders to me."?

And just to cut in, merely being a Druid and having levels in the Druid class is not acceptable as the equivalent of a game-mechanical effect like Dominate Person. The game may have the text "Druids will not wear metal armor" but that doesn't mean it gets to have that text in that manner ("Monks lose Blah, Blah, and Blah is they wear armor" = yes, "Monks don't wear armor" = no).

[diplomancer]

Yes. You're controlling another player's character without any mechanical enforcement-no Dominate Person, no mind-altering drugs, just stepping in and saying "Your PC doesn't do this."

How is that any different from a PC telling the DM "The enemy surrenders to me."?

Are you telling me that the DM has no say in the way his world works, that players are free to ignore the restrictions the DM sees in the game rules about the way their characters act? Isn't the DM the ultimate adjudicator of the rules?

Going back to another example:
What's the difference between
1- "my druid wears metal armor" "no he doesn't, druids don't do that"
2- "my dwarf is 8 feet tall" "no he isn't, dwarves are not that tall"

[JNAProductions]

Is there a reason you've refused to answer questions asked of you?

But, to answer yours...

1) An action you can choose to take or not take.

2) A fact of biology that is not in your PC's control.

[Tanarii]

Going back to another example:
What's the difference between
1- "my druid wears metal armor" "no he doesn't, druids don't do that"
2- "my dwarf is 8 feet tall" "no he isn't, dwarves are not that tall"

Actually, if you do that, you're letting an adversarial player pull you into the DM vs Player conflict they desire.

What you do is say "I'm not prepared to change that rule at this time." Let them go have a fight with the Devs about it, since they've got a bone to pick with the rules.

Or they can take it online with their claims the rule is not really a rule, because (insert personal definitions not backed up by the books here).

[JNAProductions]

Would you want to play with a DM who had strict rules about what a PC would and would not do?

Not what they can and cannot-the DM does adjudicate the rules-but what they would and would not. Would you want to play in a game where the DM says "You can't keep him prisoner, you're Lawful Good and he had no trial."?

[eftexar]

Finally, Diplomancer, you are beginning to understand.

What if I enforce it by adjudicating the way I said I would (first time a fluff warning "you seem to sense the nature of your relationship to nature change" with a mechanical explanation, every day (or hour) after that the player loses 1 level in druid and gains 1 level in nature cleric)? Is that a wrong way to play D&D?

What if I follow what I believe to be strict RAW and answer to the player "no you don't. You are a druid, and druids don't do that". Is that playing the game wrong?

Spoiler: Unneccessary Agreement regarding first scenario

Show

Your first example both gives forewarning and fits well within DM Adjudication. Whether it is fair or not, isn't within the bounds of this discussion. It could be fair. I'm not playing at your Table, so I don't know what the result would be. That and, it's not what we're discussing in the first place.

As JNAProductions points out. YES. YES. YES. You are playing the game wrong.

You are telling a Player that they didn't do something they said they did. You are not telling them that it isn't possible. You are telling them they can't "because I don't want them to." And that "I dont want them to," "because I said so."

In Basketball, you CAN tell me I CAN'T Tackle people and that the Rules say "Don't Tackle People, it's NOT Football," But, I decide to still Tackle another Player. I get punished, or booted from the team, and justly so.

In Basketball, you CAN'T tell my friend that I WON'T Tackle people, because the Rules IMPLY "Don't Tackle People, it's NOT Football," But, I decide to still Tackle another Player. You didn't tell me I CAN'T Tackle the other Player's. Not once. By the Rules of the Game I am not forbidden from doing so. Now you've lied to my friend (because you assumed he knew the Rules), because you wouldn't look at "Consequences that would 'NEVER HAPPEN'."

Eftexar, your arguments sometimes make it seem that you believe the game is actually something real, and that there is a Druid in an alternative dimension putting on metal armor when a player says "my druid puts on metal armor", and then you want to know if anything else mechanical happens to him apart from the changes in his AC, encumbrance and, possibly, stealth. It's perfectly within the games rules for the DM's answer to that to be "no, he doesn't. Druids don't wear metal armor. If you insist on doing that, I will ask you to change your class or leave the game". If the DM answers that, there is no Druid wearing metal armor, and therefore no need to come up with any consequence.

Finally, we get to this point. Not quite what I'm getting at, but it'll do as a building point. D&D is a SIMULATIONIST game. It is meant to SIMULATE things "as if they were real" or maybe, before you get pedantic, "as if they were as real as possible." That is what a simulation is. So, YES, let's ASSUME, not actually believe (mind you), there is an alternate dimension where a Druid dons Metal Armor. WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT DRUID?!

Besides, see the response the above (regarding controlling another Player's actions).

Telling somebody, "there is no need to answer, because it won't happen" is never a proper answer. It holds no LOGIC and comes across as arrogant and condescending, like when teachers would smack kids' hands with a ruler for writing left handed (because being left handed was (considered) EVIL) (in the past). That answer is a slippery slope that allows people to justify things they shouldn't, because "It doesn't allow for the possibility of being wrong." It isn't "that you are wrong," but, rather, "that you could be wrong" and you should acknowledge that possibility.

The Designers could, in theory (unlikely as it is), assign Errata tommorow that says you were wrong. But you have determined you are right and refuse to even look at the consequences of "a Druid wearing Metal Armor". So if somebody comes here, to look for an answer, your statement has become completely misleading. If we assumed your were right before this happened; you have still ignored a premise, because you couldn't contemplate the idea of you being wrong.

In Real Life, this is call "Poor Decision Making."

A bit of Old Posts and some new stuff (needed for Context):

Spoiler: Logic

Show

We are not talking about how you enforce it or not. Or whether you should or want to. We are asking "What happens if the Druid wears Metal Armor?" What does the PHB indicate as the consequence? FULL STOP.

Why WON'T anyone answer this QUESTION. Either you CAN, but won't, or have no clue what is being discussed in this thread, and CAN'T. Ironies abound . . .

"What Happens if a Druid Wears Metal Armor?" Complete this sentence; : If the Druid wears Metal Armor, the Player's Handbook indicates that _____________ will happen."

The Answer must be True as RAW, must fit the context of the ad-lib, and the Rules must Explicitly state it. The answer to this Question has nothing to do with how you DM or how you interpret the RULE at your Table. Otherwise it is INCORRECT. Not because anyone said so, but because THIS IS HOW LOGIC WORKS. PROPER CAUSATION.

You can even base your answer of "this is how I would handle it as a DM" upon the "answer to that question". But you can't base your "answer to that question" upon "this is how I would handle it as a DM." The Logic here is not recursive. Just because it got you the same result, doesn't mean it is Logical and can be applied elsewhere. Follow the order with me :

PROPER LOGIC (OPTIMAL, CONSTRUCTIVE) : If the Druid wears Metal Armor, the Player's Handbook indicates that . . . will happen. > Because of this, I, as the DM, have no reason to make a ruling (unless my Campaign has reasons otherwise). = ergo. I, as the DM, will enforce this Penalty if the Druid wears Metal Armor.

PROPER LOGIC (EASILY ACCEPTABLE) : The Druid CAN'T wear Metal Armor > Because of this, I, as the DM, have decided to not allow Metal Armor for Druids (as per the RULES). = ergo. I, as the DM, will enforce this Rule as indicated within the Player's Handbook.

PROPER LOGIC (SUB-OPTIMAL, DECONSTRUCTIVE) : The Druid CAN'T wear Metal Armor, because the Player's Handbook indicates that . . . will happen > Because of this, I, as the DM, have decided not to allow Metal Armor for Druids (as per the FLUFF + RAW interaction).

NOT LOGICAL : The Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor > Therefore, I, as the DM, have decided to not allow Metal Armor for Druids. = ergo. The Druid CAN'T wear Metal Armor.
What you are really saying : The Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor. Because of this, the Druid CAN'T wear Metal Armor. Therefore, I won't answer why the Druid WON'T wear Metal Armor. Nor will I answer "What happens if a Druid wears Metal Armor anyways?"
Why that isn't logical : It uses a leap in logic that isn't gauranteed to be true. I cringe everytime I see this, especially with how much politics have abused this kind of thinking recently and get away with it (because people can't understand why it's wrong).

Diplomancer, here's your CONTROL thing again :

Are you telling me that the DM has no say in the way his world works, that players are free to ignore the restrictions the DM sees in the game rules about the way their characters act? Isn't the DM the ultimate adjudicator of the rules?

Still missing the point. This isn't about you or the DM. I'm not asking that. "What Happens if a Druid Wears Metal Armor?" What does the PH say? That is it. Not how you use the Rule at the table. And, even if it was, it isn't about ignoring DM restrictions. It's about the DM understanding personal boundries and respecting them. 'nother Example :

If I say you WON'T wear shoes inside my house, you CAN wear shoes in my house. You SHOULDN'T, but you CAN. And I haven't established a Rule here.
If I say you CAN'T wear shoes inside my house, is that really true? I suppose if I hid your shoes, or they spontaneously exploded before they could pass the door, we could say this is True. Still no Rule established here.
If I say you AREN'T ALLOWED to wear shoes inside my house. That is a Rule. And I would expect it to be respected.

Tanarii, you are misrepresenting here :

Spoiler: Tanarii Comments

Show

Actually, if you do that, you're letting an adversarial player pull you into the DM vs Player conflict they desire.

What you do is say "I'm not prepared to change that rule at this time." Let them go have a fight with the Devs about it, since they've got a bone to pick with the rules.

Or they can take it online with their claims the rule is not really a rule, because (insert personal definitions not backed up by the books here).

That first line, that specific line of thinking, is adversarial in of itself. You are assuming "a Player desires conflict with the DM," anytime they disagree. Worse, you are implying that "Any disagreement a Player has is Wrong," "Because I am the DM," and that "Because I am the DM," "I am always right."

For the second line; once again, you are COMPLETELY missing the point. We are asking, if it was actually meant as a Rule or not? and, can it actually be considered a Rule as written? etc.? There is nothing to argue with the DEVs about, since there is not yet a bone to pick with a Rule (as we haven't established it was meant as, or can be considered, a Rule).

For the third, really . . .
Implied ad-hom aside . . .
You are arguing what's been said is "only our Personal Definitions" and "is not backed up by the books." I think it has (a lack of evidence in this case, is evidence itself; this is what court rooms call circumstantial evidence). Neither has anything you have said been backed up by the books, like you claim. You took one statement, to give the DMs power to arbitrate, to turn the game into a dictatorialship where only your opinion matters.

You still haven't answered, WHAT DOES THE PLAYER'S HANDBOOK INDICATE HAPPENS IF THE DRUID WEARS METAL ARMOR?

[Daphne]

D&D is a SIMULATIONIST game.

It isn't, that's why you are having a problem with the game.

[JNAProductions]

It isn't, that's why you are having a problem with the game.

What would you consider D&D? It sure as hell ain't a narrative game.

[Daphne]

What would you consider D&D? It sure as hell ain't a narrative game.

What's your definition of narrative game?

[JNAProductions]

A game designed with narrative first-like Misery.

Something with mechanics based on narrative, and an overriding goal of story.

The only narrative mechanic in 5E is inspiration, really.

What do you consider 5E?

[Daphne]

5e is designed with narrative first. The game is about storytelling in worlds of sword & sorcery.

The rules of the PHB don't try to create a cohesive world, the rules are specific for the type of adventurers D&D is about.

That's also why the skill rules are the way they are, they exist only to create interesting outcomes for adventurers.

[NOMster]

[Kane0]

The fluff informs the mechanics. Having one without the other is a great way to create confusion

[eftexar]

Daphne :

It isn't (a Simulationist Game), that's why you are having a problem with the game.

How so? How is it not Simulationist? Is it because you think that precludes it from also being somethings else ? Because I personally think that D&D is both Simulationist and Narrative :

It tends more towards Simulation during Combat. Where we can see comprehenseive Rules on Attacks, Initiative, Turns, Reactions, etc. These are meant to Simulate Combat and the game can sometimes get bogged down in math (more of a problem with 3e, but it's still there). Simulations use extensive Math to explain things.

It tends more towards Narrative outside of combat. The books suggest plenty of fluff and give Rules for Social Interaction. It even has rules for playing games within the game! Along with guidelines / suggestions about how to play Characters and make a backstory for them. But, here, you have to both make a Check, or Save, and actually say something for your character. Bioware games are often appluaded for their Narrative, because they give choices on what to say.

It lies somewhere in the middle with Exploration. Depending on what you want to do, sometimes the Rules tend towards Simulation. And sometimes towards Narrative.

---

All that said, a previous poster was right about one thing. It doesn't have Narrative Mechanics. Games with Narrative Mechanics tend more towards Narrative than Simulation, since they allow you to break the Rules of Simulation for some Narrative abstract.
D&D 5e really doesn't reward you for doing something outside it's Mechanical Rules. The only two times you could argue it has, I reckon, is when interacting with NPCs or finding a clever manner of dealing with a situation. In fact, when it comes to the more game-related parts, especially Combat, it actually punishes you more often than not.

I'm not sure Narrative Mechanics, however, are Required for a game to be considered Narrative. They would certainly lend more credence to the claim though. I mean, you can't really argue a game with Narrative Mechanics isn't a Narrative game. Whereas, here, we can debate for days and everyone will have a different answer. I think it is more accurate to say that D&D covers multiple types of story telling, so different kinds of Players and DMs can play different kinds of games.

[NichG]

Finally, we get to this point. Not quite what I'm getting at, but it'll do as a building point. D&D is a SIMULATIONIST game. It is meant to SIMULATE things "as if they were real" or maybe, before you get pedantic, "as if they were as real as possible." That is what a simulation is. So, YES, let's ASSUME, not actually believe (mind you), there is an alternate dimension where a Druid dons Metal Armor. WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT DRUID?!

What happens to a doctor who has sworn a Hippocratic oath and then, for example, fails to adequately "prevent disease wherever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure."?