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

[mamba]

They are entirely arbitrary. You are looking for "justifications" because it's arbitrary. The only reason to not allow the background bonus to function is because you want to preserve some sense for YOUR believability. Has nothing to do with anything else. YOU don't think it's believable, therefore, it's not possible. What the player or players or the game thinks is immaterial.

no it is not immaterial, but I do notice that you did not even attempt an explanation…

But, if the players use a spell? Poof, it works. Need to climb a wall? Make checks.

that is in the game rules, isn’t it? Are you saying any attempt has to succeed now?

 

[Faolyn]

no it is not immaterial, but I do notice that you did not even attempt an explanation…

Us: Here's 57 different ways you can use this ability under a wide variety of circumstances.

You: Nope. Not reasonable because I said so.

AKA: we've given you explanations. You're choosing to ignore them.

 

[Hussar]

no it is not immaterial, but I do notice that you did not even attempt an explanation…


that is in the game rules, isn’t it? Are you saying any attempt has to succeed now?

The explanation is unimportant since you flat out stated that no explanation is plausible. What's the point?

I'm saying that arbitrarily ruling failure simply because the DM finds something "implausible" is why players will always default to spells. I mean is it really so bad that a background effectively gives you a free casting of Sending? Big freaking deal. Who cares? A spell that has no meaningful component (a spell focus works here) and works across planes 95% of the time.

But, nope. You aren't using spells, so, it's going to fail. Why does it fail? Because I say so. Why do I say so? Because I cannot believe it could succeed.

Oh, you use a spell? Ok, it succeeds.

You don't think that players pick up on things like that?

Oh, and since you ignored the four other examples of using a spell I gave to focus on the climb walls one, I'll presume you agree with the others? So, you agree that most of the time it's simply better for players to default to spells?

 

[mamba]

Us: Here's 57 different ways you can use this ability under a wide variety of circumstances.

You: Nope. Not reasonable because I said so.

AKA: we've given you explanations. You're choosing to ignore them.

your explanation, if you want to call them that, are basically all ‘it is not impossible, therefore it should work’ or ‘the players would enjoy it more if it worked’, these are not really explanations, they are justifications / excuses, not a strong case on the merits.

The closest one was your ‘the Dark Powers mess with the characters, so they believe they managed to reach their contact’, where it falls apart to me is that this was intended to actually work, without the DP interfering. Chances are the DP would interfere rather than just play the mailman

 

[mamba]

The explanation is unimportant since you flat out stated that no explanation is plausible. What's the point?

I have not heard one that is more plausible than ‘it is not impossible’, if you have one that gets it to 50/50 odds rather than 1/1000, let’s hear it…

Oh, and since you ignored the four other examples of using a spell I gave to focus on the climb walls one, I'll presume you agree with the others?

not sure what you mean by agree with the others, I agree with the climbing the wall too, they were just more of the same. Trying something generally requires a check unless it is trivial

 

[Hussar]

your explanation, if you want to call them that, are basically all ‘it is not impossible, therefore it should work’ or ‘the players would enjoy it more if it worked’, these are not really explanations, they are justifications / excuses, not a strong case on the merits.

The closest one was your ‘the Dark Powers mess with the characters, so they believe they managed to reach their contact’, where it falls apart to me is that this was intended to actually work, without the DP interfering. Chances are the DP would interfere rather than just play the mailman

Again, completely immaterial. YOU have decided that no reasons can be plausible, therefore it fails. But, if I use a simple spell, one that's easily available, poof, it works.

It's not really a secret why players ignore their background abilities. Why would they bother? If it's going to be a PITA and they have to "justify" the use every time, well, screw it. Just use a spell and save a whole bunch of table time.

I have not heard one that is more plausible than ‘it is not impossible’, if you have one that gets it to 50/50 odds rather than 1/1000, let’s hear it…

And, again, who cares?

You have decided that it's impossible, therefore it's not possible. Ok. So, I'll default to using spells and not bother with backgrounds in your game because, well, spells will work and I won't have to jump through impossible hoops to convince you to let my background ability work.

And judging from the behavior of the players I see coming from other groups, this is pretty much standard SOP. Everyone ignores their backgrounds because the background abilities are subject to too much DM arbitration. Far better to simply use spells.

 

[mamba]

I mean is it really so bad that a background effectively gives you a free casting of Sending?

fun fact, Sending is also not that reliable

"While in Barovia, characters who receive spells from deities or otherworldly patrons continue to do so. In addition, spells that allow contact with beings from other planes function normally—with one proviso: Strahd can sense when someone in his domain is casting such a spell and can choose to make himself the spell’s recipient, so that he becomes the one who is contacted."

 

[Cadence]

Sorry, what is a "B&C" agreement? And, what cool uses?

Sorry, can you actually quote the posts instead of links because the links you provided simply take me to the first page of the thread.

But, this has nothing to do with bad DMing. This has everything to do with the fact that DM's will very often think that throwing die rolls and checks at the party = challenge. It's pointless challenge for no reason. But, if the players use a spell, poof, it just works.

Ack, sorry. It went direct link for me :-( I in will edit it later when off phone if still useful.

The progenitor of the discussion about spells vs. other things looked to be the conversation about backgrounds and how often it was ok to just say no. There was an example of a statement the two extremes agreed with, and three media inspired examples I don't think anyone would.

Your quote looked to be about how some DMs just liked to say no, and so players picked spells. I missed that it was about throwing dice=challenge (totally didn't see that), and so my remarks probably don't apply.

Sorry!

 

[Oofta]

I don't start out by thinking "Bwa-ha-ha! There's no messengers here, but I'll just pretend to let them try to find one! Little do they know that I'm going to screw them no matter what they do!"

I don't give the players false hope. If they can give me a good reason why an ability should work, or if I can think of a good reason myself, I see no reason why I should either allow it, or allow it with a good die roll or two.

Nor do I say that there's a chance of success under "any and all circumstances." The players can use a bow and arrow whenever they want and would agree that it's unreasonable for them to try to hit the moon. My players can try to find a messenger whenever they want and would agree that there are some circumstances wherein it would simply be impossible for them to find one. Knowing my players, they'd likely be the ones to say it was impossible to begin with.

If I don't disallow the use of standard equipment because it's impossible to use for one specific purpose, why would I disallow a background feature because it's impossible to use for under one specific circumstance?

Sometimes there simply is no reason for a feature to work. Unless there's something theyre remind me about their background, I'd rather not play "Convince the DM."

I put thought into why I say no, but it's also rare that it comes up.

 

[Faolyn]

Sometimes there simply is no reason for a feature to work. Unless there's something theyre remind me about their background, I'd rather not play "Convince the DM."

Those are two very different things, though.

I'm not going to remember every single element that goes into a PC of mine either. I can't; my ADHD won't let me, even if I had the sheet right in front of me. So I'm not going to figure out if a location has people they know ahead of time unless it's actually important to the plot.

If a player says "Hey, I have this feature; can I use it?" that's when I improvise. And more often than not, I can improvise a way for the player to at least try.

If you have a DM whom you feel you have to convince to use the actual abilities you're supposed to have because they're just going to shut you down because your ability doesn't make sense to them--you need a different DM. Or for that DM to run a more narrative game for a while to get away from that sort of viewpoint.