D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[Lanefan]

False. Any edition is only as easy as the DM deigns to make it.

The as-written design is, however, each DM's starting point; and that design has changed for the easier over the editons.

 

[mamba]

You haven’t, for instance, demonstrated how background features as written would cause any problems in such games, if they were included.

you mean apart from being illogical?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

you mean apart from being illogical?

I think we've illustrated how to avoid it being "illogical" - you simply go for the spirit of the rule rather than the letter and change it from "has a contact" to "makes a contact" (after which, "has a contact" works logically once more).

Obviously, if you don't WANT them to have a contact, this becomes a sticking point, but it's pretty easy to avoid problems with logic.

I'm not on @Hriston's side when it comes to thinking that the 2014 Background Features are an important and useful part of the game, but I AM on his side when it comes to thinking that it's entirely easy to make them work if you want them to and they shouldn't be discounted based on "logic".

Preference? Sure, ditch 'em. But "illogic" is just an excuse, as it takes only a little imagination (which we all have, or we wouldn't be playing games of imagination) to fix that issue. IMO, of course.

 

[tetrasodium]

L

I think we've illustrated how to avoid it being "illogical" - you simply go for the spirit of the rule rather than the letter and change it from "has a contact" to "makes a contact" (after which, "has a contact" works logically once more).

Obviously, if you don't WANT them to have a contact, this becomes a sticking point, but it's pretty easy to avoid problems with logic.

I'm not on @Hriston's side when it comes to thinking that the 2014 Background Features are an important and useful part of the game, but I AM on his side when it comes to thinking that it's entirely easy to make them work if you want them to and they shouldn't be discounted based on "logic".

Preference? Sure, ditch 'em. But "illogic" is just an excuse, as it takes only a little imagination (which we all have, or we wouldn't be playing games of imagination) to fix that issue. IMO, of course.

Trouble is that the "spirit" of the mechanics behind background features is still dominate or

Spoiler: this spell

The only difference with that spell is that it was single target rather than planet wide, the target got a save, and it could be broken more easily

. If you are talking about the spirit of a background as a background footnote rather than the foreground mechanical background feature, the sticking point is that you've moved to talking about how backgrounds have been handled for decades and there is often a player (or poster) who feels that the gm must provide them with the mechanical boon that NPCs or the world has no logical reason to provide. If that is what you are talking about then the loss of mechanical background features doesn't seem relevant.

 

[mamba]

I think we've illustrated how to avoid it being "illogical" - you simply go for the spirit of the rule rather than the letter and change it from "has a contact" to "makes a contact" (after which, "has a contact" works logically once more).

I don’t think anyone disagreed with this, we only disagreed with the instantaneous and automatic (and universal) part of the feature

The problem was the feature as written, not its spirit. Since I replied to a post where they specifically said ‘the feature as written’, deviating from what is written in order to make the feature fit in spirit already shows that the ‘as written’ is problematic

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I don’t think anyone disagreed with this, we only disagreed with the instantaneous and automatic (and universal) part of the feature

The problem was the feature as written, not its spirit. Since I replied to a post where they specifically said ‘the feature as written’, deviating from what is written in order to make the feature fit in spirit already shows that the ‘as written’ is problematic

And I agree with that entirely. Though I'd say that I'm not sure that there's much value to analysing any but the most obviously concrete rules (roll d20, add specific bonuses-type stuff) on a purely RAW basis. Certainly not ones that are pretty clearly RP-aids with open-ended "suggestion" style write-ups.

That said, the reason I called them "limited" (commented on above by @Hriston and @Oofta) was because I consider them to be too narrowly-worded. I would much rather they included lines that said things like "or another similar thing" and "work with your DM" or something to that effect (though I mean these to be more specific to each feature). In other words broader across possible NPC-reactions.

In the end, I personally would rather not have the 2014 Background Features, as I can create much more nuanced NPC-interactions to my liking, based not just on Background, but also on Class, Species, Personality/Alignment, Achievements (this is where the "Hero" part comes in, like @Oofta prefers - it would be relative to the heroism that the specific NPC is aware of and approves of) and that sort of thing. I prefer NPC-interactions to be far more dynamic than the Background Feature implies.

But in the very least if I had a player who cared about their background feature (I only rarely ever have) then I'd make it work for them, and for myself - and I can easily do that without forcing a square peg into a round hole. I find it easy enough.

 

[Oofta]

Is your argument, then, that because some number of published 5E adventure modules present situations where the PCs are far from home, that it’s thus popular among 5E groups in general to play games in which such situations figure prominently? I’m not sure how such an argument follows logically, nor what relevance it would have to the discussion of the absence of background features in the UA sample backgrounds. You haven’t, for instance, demonstrated how background features as written would cause any problems in such games, if they were included.

I've answered this question multiple times now and my answer isn't changing. Do what you want. Stop asking questions you already know the answer to.

 

[Hriston]

I think you're missing my point (and focussing a little too much on my use of a single word). The reason I see the 2014 Feature as "limiting" (though I agree with @Oofta, it's not actually a big point) is that it essentially boils your background down to something like "NPCs who have similar roots will give you free room and board". Whereas I think that it should be a LOT more complicated, broad, and interesting then just "free rooms". I am hoping that the new DMG will have longer, more nuanced advice on how to use alignment, background, class, factions, and other aspects of your character to have NPCs interact with your PC in a dynamic fashion, rather then just give you free rooms (or whatever).

I understand (and agree) with your post about how it's a reminder for the Player, and not the DM, but as others have said, that's not that helpful if the DM is not on board. And I get that the feature's limits should not cause the DM to only have the NPCs offer rooms and nothing else, in practice, if there's a rule that spells out what you get, then a LOT (far too many IMO) of DMs are only going to give you that, and nothing else (and not even that when it doesn't make sense to them).

I don't know if I did a good job of explaining myself there, but the gist is: Often if you have a feature that gives you X, it implies that you can't have Y. I'd like NPCs to react to PCs more dynamically than that. To me, the feature is fine, but unnecessary to achieve that.

I think we're mostly on the same page, but I think what you're expressing here is from a DM's point of view, whereas the features are written for the player. I know you DM, but I don't know how often you're a player. You're concerned with how you want NPCs to react, which is normally in your wheelhouse as DM, and you want those reactions to be dynamic, making for interesting, entertaining, and, dare I say, verisimilitudinous gameplay, which is great. But what the features do is hand over to the player a small, mundane, limited portion of that wheelhouse and make it something that's a predictable and reliable part of the build of the PC because it's part of their past and who they are. To me, that's wonderful, and it's why I'm disappointed that the designers of the playtest decided not to include them.

 

[Hriston]

I'm not going to argue about how someone from nowhere-valley who's gone exploring the world suddenly has notoriety and friends no matter where they travel or even if it's on other planes of existence. Maybe your adventures never take the PCs more than 30 miles from home, mine do and pretty much every game I've ever played has. Several of the best selling popular modules do as well. IMHO it world-lore breaking to have background features that rely on being known or who you know no matter where you go.

You do you, I don't want to play in a game where logic has to be stretched to the breaking point to make background features work whether I'm player or DM and we're just having this argument on spin cycle.

What you're describing doesn't resemble the 2014 background features. What background feature grants you notoriety and friends or relies on someone knowing you or on you knowing someone else? Have you read the background features or are you just posting unconsidered opinions?

 

[Parmandur]

What you're describing doesn't resemble the 2014 background features. What background feature grants you notoriety and friends or relies on someone knowing you or on you knowing someone else? Have you read the background features or are you just posting unconsidered opinions?

...the features yoy have been discussing...? If they are interpreted as hard moves that automatically work, irregardless of circumstances, thst creates weird and inexplicable situations. Hence why WotC has moved away from that language. Doesn't really change how they should play, though, from what was being done previously.