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

[soviet]

Sounds like you want to play a narrative game. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the default for D&D and I wouldn't want it to be for several reasons. Good news is there's plenty of games out there that do use that concept and if you like the style I'm sure it's great. You're just never going to convince me that it's better, because it's a preference.

?

I'm just explaining how the background abilities work as written. I understand that they are outside the parameters of how some people prefer their D&D. That's fine. But if one wants to use them they are still perfectly workable as is and don't generate any extra work for the DM - in fact, used right, they reduce the workload of the DM because they give the players more creative input.

 

[soviet]

You just admitted that the player is quite literally cheating & cloaking it in "backstory" at a game where nobody wins.

Spoiler: relevant & timestamp'd video

10:54The last step to make sure that your backstory is not just this oh we need somebody has rope use-- well in my backstory that I'm just busy adding in now I could use rope because my family was in a circus and I used to tie the ropes

that to me is not good back storying **that to me is someone who's cheating to try and win in a game that you can't win in.

This is brilliant. Players making up things about their backstory is cheating. OK.

 

[soviet]

probably, I do not see how that makes it any better however

Well it means that 'this creates extra work for the DM because they have to prep for where the ship is' is a lie. The ship didn't even exist ten seconds before.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is brilliant. Players making up things about their backstory is cheating. OK.

No it's cheating because the hypothetical player is making things up mid session to overcome an obstacle and expecting the authority to freeze out the GM from doing the same to that backstory when the GM who has poured work into their setting, says it doesn't fit because it wasn't covered in session zero or because it was unforeseen, then it might require a lot of work. Different tables, different games.

You are trying to use backstory to override roleplay & skill checks then point at the background feature to cry foul in service of preventing the GM from having input.

 

[soviet]

No it's cheating because the hypothetical player is making things up mid session to overcome an obstacle and expecting the authority to freeze out the GM from doing the same to that backstory when the GM who has poured work into their setting, says it doesn't fit because it wasn't covered in session zero or because it was unforeseen, then it might require a lot of work. Different tables, different games.

You are trying to use backstory to override roleplay & skill checks then point at the background feature to cry foul in service of preventing the GM from having input.

I'm not trying to do anything. It was a hypothetical example given by another poster.

Using the background trait as written in the book is not cheating.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not trying to do anything. It was a hypothetical example given by another poster.

Using the background trait as written in the book is not cheating.

It was a hypothetical example in the middle of an ongoing discussion. The post I quoted when I embedded the video explaining why it's cheating years before you made the post was not some isolated disconnected one off

 

[Oofta]

?

I'm just explaining how the background abilities work as written. I understand that they are outside the parameters of how some people prefer their D&D. That's fine. But if one wants to use them they are still perfectly workable as is and don't generate any extra work for the DM - in fact, used right, they reduce the workload of the DM because they give the players more creative input.

I dislike how they work as written. No amount of exposition or explanation of how a DM could make it happen is not going to change that.

They don't reduce workload because I have and continue to have a persistent campaign world. Every campaign, every event, becomes part of that world.

I have two different groups in the same world now. While geographically seperated so that hopefully there's no crossover, I have shared NPCs. Maybe someday I'll even have a crossover event like I've done in the past.

So I want editorial control over what people add. It's not that people can't contribute I just want it to fit. Giving players narrative control doesn't fit.

 

[mamba]

Well it means that 'this creates extra work for the DM because they have to prep for where the ship is' is a lie. The ship didn't even exist ten seconds before.

my objection was not the extra work... apart from that the players just wishing a ship into existence can result in a lot of extra work, depending on what the characters do with it, the extra work for the GM is not limited to coming up with a ship

 

[James Gasik]

Are we sure 5e wasn't intended to be a narrative game? I got this quote from an early interview that makes me wonder what the actual intent was.

L: How important is role-playing in Dungeons & Dragons? It felt to me like 4th Edition was basically a war game. There were so many powers and combat took forever. But now combat is very quick, and I think that feels more like the D&D that I grew up with.

JC: It's vital. D&D is, at its heart, a storytelling game where everyone at the table is a collaborator in the creation of the story. We felt it was important to embrace roleplaying and embrace it in a prominent way—not only on the character sheet, but also in the amount of pages we devoted to it in the Player's Handbook on personalities and backgrounds. Partially to wave the flag of storytelling and roleplaying, but also because if a group isn't into a lot of storytelling and roleplaying, and they really do want a more tactical "fight monsters, get experience," it is much for them to ignore the roleplaying material than it is for us to have a game that's serving just the tactical play and having to try to make it clear that there's still a roleplaying game.

(Of course the last time I brought this up I was told that Crawford is simply wrong about the game he worked on, so YMMV I guess).

 

[Scott Christian]

Sounds like an opportunity to make some interesting new friends, and potentially get embroiled in some lizardmen-related adventures.

OK. So does anyone intend to test this blockade? Or try to sneak round it?

Is there a way to make it profitable? A way to resolve the damage the catastrophe caused?

Ultimately if there are no sailors at all, or the water all dried up, or everyone died, I guess that's a good enough reason to say no sailing trips.

Sounds like a good adventure?

All of these are my point - they can negate a background's feature. They can also lead to new and interesting things. I can assure you, if a DM had a blockade built that negated this feature, they sure as heck had better made plot points, NPCs, and inciting incidents for the blockade as well.