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

[Lanefan]

But hasn't the player just made up the Comox? And has said it anchors at this harbour?

How would the player know it anchors here, or have otherwise even heard of it, if their PC has never been here?

My basic assumption is that the PCs background is mostly based around their local area where they grew up, as that's what background represents: what you did before adventuring.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Yes. And now what? What implications does the extra ship have for the campaign? So the extra work might come after that.
Calling it a lie is again dismissive. What is up with you?

 

[Oofta]

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).

Player choices absolutely have major impact on my campaign worlds. Nations have risen or fallen, the arc of history has changed for better and worse, people being groomed to be the mortal embodiment of an evil demigod to my surprise instead became heroes. All based on the decisions and deeds made by my players. Not because they had narrative control over the game world but because of what their PCs said and did. To say they didn't contribute to, that there wouldn't even be a story without them is selling them short. As DM I provide the world, the context, the actors with their motivations and desires. How the players respond to that, primarily as their PCs, is what makes it a story not just a stage.

 

[tetrasodium]

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).

They striped that out or decided prior to publication that the stuff Crawford is referencing did not fit in d&d. Either way, it doesn't work as implimentedin 2014 as a positive & constructive rules element because what remained was a one sided mary sue/gary stu declaration in place of skill checks & actual roleplay without the risk of being compelled by the growing tail of declarations or having to spend any sort of resource in the process.

At about 1:24:24 in five generations of d&d design Mearls "One of the things that I wanted to add to fifth & they wouldn't let me was this idea of trying to pull players into danger. Trying to encourage because you know the numbers. Han solo says never tell me the odds where d&d player says I know the odds always people pay a lot of attention to them. In our first playtest of fifth, very first session I ran of the protosystem. The players met this obviously skeezy merchant who has a map to offer them... It's straight up aladdin. It's obviously a bad idea & when the players were hemming & hawing they said we don't want to go on the adventure I had the rogue make a charisma saving throw. When he failed it I said you can't help your a greedy rogue. It says on your character sheet your flaw is greedy so while they are debating you slip the merchant a few gold coins & get the map .. The idea was in part because my favorite d&d players are the ones who leap into danger -- But I think there us that tension between you wanna be heroic...as long as we have a 70 percent chance or higher of success & if we don't then maybe someone can use the aid another action or someone can throw a bless spell on me I think that's always... [crosstalk]"

 

[Micah Sweet]

They striped that out or decided prior to publication that the stuff Crawford is referencing did not fit in d&d. Either way, it doesn't work as implimentedin 2014 as a positive & constructive rules element because what remained was a one sided mary sue/gary stu declaration in place of skill checks & actual roleplay without the risk of being compelled by the growing tail of declarations or having to spend any sort of resource in the process.

At about 1:24:24 in five generations of d&d design Mearls "One of the things that I wanted to add to fifth & they wouldn't let me was this idea of trying to pull players into danger. Trying to encourage because you know the numbers. Han solo says never tell me the odds where d&d player says I know the odds always people pay a lot of attention to them. In our first playtest of fifth, very first session I ran of the protosystem. The players met this obviously skeezy merchant who has a map to offer them... It's straight up aladdin. It's obviously a bad idea & when the players were hemming & hawing they said we don't want to go on the adventure I had the rogue make a charisma saving throw. When he failed it I said you can't help your a greedy rogue. It says on your character sheet your flaw is greedy so while they are debating you slip the merchant a few gold coins & get the map .. The idea was in part because my favorite d&d players are the ones who leap into danger -- But I think there us that tension between you wanna be heroic...as long as we have a 70 percent chance or higher of success & if we don't then maybe someone can use the aid another action or someone can throw a bless spell on me I think that's always... [crosstalk]"

I think it's pretty clear that many people don't want the game to make them play the way he wants. That doesn't make it bad, of course, but it's a consideration to keep in mind when making a game for sale.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

This is all anyone has been saying. There are fictional reasons background features may not work. I'm glad you are finally in agreement with that premise!

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it's pretty clear that many people don't want the game to make them play the way he wants. That doesn't make it bad, of course, but it's a consideration to keep in mind when making a game for sale.

I partially agree and say that having run fate a lot in the past where declaration compel and invoke are commonplace. Where I don't quite agree is the bigger issue spotlighted by the unsourced(?*) Crawford and linked Mearls quotes stacked side by side is that someone at wotc took your advice then said "I don't care, give me that power anyways as long as it can't be directed at me" halfway through or instead said "this is cool because players are always going to be responsible and trustworthy with it but that guy over on the other side of the GM screen can't be trusted".

* I dunno. Maybe I overlooked it getting linked in an earlier post

 

[James Gasik]

I partially agree and say that having run fate a lot in the past where declaration compel and invoke are commonplace. Where I don't quite agree is the bigger issue spotlighted by the unsourced(?*) Crawford and linked Mearls quotes stacked side by side is that someone at wotc took your advice then said "I don't care, give me that power anyways as long as it can't be directed at me" halfway through or instead said "this is cool because players are always going to be responsible and trustworthy with it but that guy over on the other side of the GM screen can't be trusted".

* I dunno. Maybe I overlooked it getting linked in an earlier post

Oh, right, forgot to source it, sorry.

RPGamer > Feature > Jeremy Crawford Interview

 

[Hriston]

The background feature for folk hero states that you automatically find shelter, etc.. Why? You ride into town with 3-5 other individuals, no one knows you, you just walk up to the door of the nearest commoner and say "Hello fellow commoner, we are being hunted by the sheriff, please hide us"? That's ludicrous.

Whether it's ludicrous or not depends on what happens next. There's nothing inherently ludicrous about travelers seeking shelter at a nearby dwelling or common folk protecting one another from an unjust authority. Rustic Hospitality says, "You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners," so I assume in your example "the door of the nearest commoner" has been identified by the folk hero as a good place to hide after looking around for such a place. Now, whether the person who comes to the door agrees to hide the folk hero depends on whether the folk hero can overcome any natural suspicion of strangers they might have. Luckily, their feature states, "you fit in among them with ease", so it can be assumed the folk hero's mannerisms, way of speaking, and general demeanor transmits to other commoners a sense of trustworthiness and belonging, so the person at the door agrees to hide the folk hero. Whether they agree to hide the rest of the party is another matter because the feature doesn't cover that. I think it's a good beginning to a social encounter. The commoner agrees to hide the folk hero but isn't sure about the other party members, and it's up to the party to convince them to take the risk to help.

There is no reason to have any kind of instant connection unless you spend time with the people and live with them for a while.

Who's to say time isn't spent at the door establishing such a (non-instant) connection. It isn't ludicrous unless you make it ludicrous.

The sailor background feature states "You might sail on the ship you served on, or another ship you have good relations with (perhaps one captained by a former crewmate)." It literally states in the background feature that you know someone. Which does not always make sense.

I mean, sure, it states that perhaps a former crew mate captains the ship on which you secure passage. So you might know someone, but if for some reason it doesn't make sense for you to know anyone, there are other options, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on knowing someone. More important to the feature is your connection to the ship on which you gain passage. It could be someone you know, or it could be something else that makes sense in the established fiction.

Again, the background feature states that wherever you are you can find someone to send a message. How is that supposed to work? Find someone with gang tattoos and say "Hello fellow gang member, please pass this message." Why would they? What possible motivation would they have, much less why would they have any contact outside of their local city or even district?

It would be like me going up to a fellow gamer at a convention and since we're both gamers asking them to pass on a message to someone I know that lives halfway around the world and expecting the message to magically get there. It's like playing six degrees to Kevin Bacon and expecting to be able to get a message to Mr Bacon by telling someone you know who might know someone who might know someone [repeat to get to 6 times].

Well, no, it wouldn't because you and your fellow gamer (afaik) are not part of an underground criminal network. The "local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you" are part of such a network. They might be identifiable to the criminal because of the tattoos they wear or any number of such things. They're motivated by their involvement in organized crime. It's their job. The network extends beyond their local city or district.

We take different approaches to the game. In world logic and cohesiveness matters to me more than it does to you.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Players being able to make stipulations about the fiction as part of the action declarations they make for their characters doesn't make a game any less logical or cohesive than yours.

Because you don't accept that the logical inconsistencies required matter to anyone else because it doesn't matter to you. I have no issue with you running your game differently, it's your insistence that anyone who doesn't agree with you is playing the game wrong.

I don't accept logical inconsistencies are required because I do this without logical inconsistencies. The only people who keep saying they're required don't seem to have much experience using background features to begin with.

 

[Oofta]

Whether it's ludicrous or not depends on what happens next. There's nothing inherently ludicrous about travelers seeking shelter at a nearby dwelling or common folk protecting one another from an unjust authority. Rustic Hospitality says, "You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners," so I assume in your example "the door of the nearest commoner" has been identified by the folk hero as a good place to hide after looking around for such a place. Now, whether the person who comes to the door agrees to hide the folk hero depends on whether the folk hero can overcome any natural suspicion of strangers they might have. Luckily, their feature states, "you fit in among them with ease", so it can be assumed the folk hero's mannerisms, way of speaking, and general demeanor transmits to other commoners a sense of trustworthiness and belonging, so the person at the door agrees to hide the folk hero. Whether they agree to hide the rest of the party is another matter because the feature doesn't cover that. I think it's a good beginning to a social encounter. The commoner agrees to hide the folk hero but isn't sure about the other party members, and it's up to the party to convince them to take the risk to help.


Who's to say time isn't spent at the door establishing such a (non-instant) connection. It isn't ludicrous unless you make it ludicrous.

If the PC needs to talk to and convince someone they need shelter, then any PC can do it. In my campaign they may get advantage and, depending on situation, may not even require a roll.

But the rules don't require anything other than the background and a handy commoner.

I mean, sure, it states that perhaps a former crew mate captains the ship on which you secure passage. So you might know someone, but if for some reason it doesn't make sense for you to know anyone, there are other options, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on knowing someone. More important to the feature is your connection to the ship on which you gain passage. It could be someone you know, or it could be something else that makes sense in the established fiction.

Again, if you have to convince someone, any PC can do it.

Well, no, it wouldn't because you and your fellow gamer (afaik) are not part of an underground criminal network. The "local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you" are part of such a network. They might be identifiable to the criminal because of the tattoos they wear or any number of such things. They're motivated by their involvement in organized crime. It's their job. The network extends beyond their local city or district.

One of the weird conceits is that there is a global crime network. There's no reason for that to be so. Walking up to just any criminal obviously isn't going to work. I can't imagine a Crip walking up to a Blood and asking them to pass a message (they are famously in a long running war). But somehow no matter where they are they just "know" a contact with no explanation. Maybe if you're in the Forgotten Realms and you were a Zhentarim, but other campaign worlds don't necessarily have that.

Nothing states that your criminal background was with a global organization. You could have been Oliver Twist working for Fagin.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Players being able to make stipulations about the fiction as part of the action declarations they make for their characters doesn't make a game any less logical or cohesive than yours.

Different strokes for different folks. Players don't have extemporaneous narrative control in my game. They can make suggestions, we can have discussions, perhaps they add to the world. But it will be offline.

I don't deride your choices, I just disagree. You can do better.

I don't accept logical inconsistencies are required because I do this without logical inconsistencies. The only people who keep saying they're required don't seem to have much experience using background features to begin with.

Good for you. I don't care, I don't want to run or play in a game with player narrative control of the external world. My players are happy with my games and I see no reason to change.