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

[Maxperson]

No. We are discussing a hypothetical GM deciding what is right for the game they want to run and since you tried to claim that I couldn't decide thatI pointed out that I very much can when I am the GM but would be wildly out of bounds when I am a player.

I never claimed you couldn't decide what you want for your game. We are discussing whether or not a DM(any DM) can come to a compromise with a player(any player) about something you consider to be binary. The answer is 100% yes. They can.

Little Timmy has no more engaged in a compromise with santa when he unwraps only an xbox on christmas morning than the player in your example where the GM shifts from not allowing 2014 stuff to onlly allowing half of what was fixed.... Both Timmy & the player had no ability to give themselves the thing they wanted but unlike Timmy the player has the option to say "this is not the game for me I'm going to find a table that allows 2014 stuff mixed wuth 2024 stuff".

Your little Timmy example is apples and oranges to what I am saying. So I'm going to rework it so that it's apples and apples.

Little Timmy writes to Santa that he wants an X-box and an Ipad. Santa wakes little Timmy up when he gets to Timmy's house and says, "I'm sorry Timmy, I wasn't planning on giving you any electronics at all. However, @TwoSix was very naughty to his parents last night and is getting coal, so I have an extra X-box. If you would like, I can give you that, but not the Ipad." Timmy then says, "Okay. I'll take the X-box since I've really been wanting it. Thanks!! Could you bring me an Ipad next year?"

That is compromise. Both sides moved to the middle of their starting positions, just like the DM(Santa) and the player(Timmy) did with the smite example I posted upthread.

 

[TwoSix]

Little Timmy writes to Santa that he wants an X-box and an Ipad. Santa wakes little Timmy up when he gets to Timmy's house and says, "I'm sorry Timmy, I wasn't planning on giving you any electronics at all. However, @TwoSix was very naughty to his parents last night and is getting coal, so I have an extra X-box. If you would like, I can give you that, but not the Ipad." Timmy then says, "Okay. I'll take the X-box since I've really been wanting it. Thanks!! Could you bring me an Ipad next year?"

I'll be honest, I really didn't deserve an XBox anyway.

 

[tetrasodium]

I never claimed you couldn't decide what you want for your game. We are discussing whether or not a DM(any DM) can come to a compromise with a player(any player) about something you consider to be binary. The answer is 100% yes. They can.

Your little Timmy example is apples and oranges to what I am saying. So I'm going to rework it so that it's apples and apples.

Little Timmy writes to Santa that he wants an X-box and an Ipad. Santa wakes little Timmy up when he gets to Timmy's house and says, "I'm sorry Timmy, I wasn't planning on giving you any electronics at all. However, @TwoSix was very naughty to his parents last night and is getting coal, so I have an extra X-box. If you would like, I can give you that, but not the Ipad." Timmy then says, "Okay. I'll take the X-box since I've really been wanting it. Thanks!! Could you bring me an Ipad next year?"

That is compromise. Both sides moved to the middle of their starting positions, just like the DM(Santa) and the player(Timmy) did with the smite example I posted upthread.

At what point did you come to the conclusion that the player is entitled to any 2014 options in a game the GM disallows it? The player would need to be entitled to it in order for getting only half of it to be a compromise. If your boss says no when you ask for an unreasonable raise he or she is not being unreasonable when they say no & you have not compromised at the end of the year when you get the same 3% COLA everyone else at the company got.

 

[Weiley31]

I am taking the 2014 classes, adding the QoL/buff changes from the UA Playtest onto them as a patch, and using EVERYTHING else released from 2014 to 2024+Kobold Press+the usual good 3PP we all know and love.
And yes folks, 2024 Clerics can use the Tasha Twilight Domain.

No nerfs at this table!

 

[Vexorg]

I will check it out the final product and buy it if I see anything compelling or fun. The playtests have not been either.

The update feels like it's being written by editors. Technically concise but lacking creativity. Everything is samey, safe, and bland.

 

[Maxperson]

At what point did you come to the conclusion that the player is entitled to any 2014 options in a game the GM disallows it?

I've never claimed that was true.

This isn't about X specific DM and his personal rules. This is about, "Is it possible for a DM(any DM) and a player(any player) to compromise in this situation."

The player would need to be entitled to it in order for getting only half of it to be a compromise.

And that's just flat out wrong. Entitlement isn't required for there to be a compromise. You only need two sides of a discussion about something. I'm not entitled to any of my friend's money, but if he normally doesn't lend money and I ask to borrow $100, it's a compromise on both sides if he lets me borrow $50.

All you need are multiple people with multiple starting positions that aren't the same, and compromise is possible.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've never claimed that was true.

This isn't about X specific DM and his personal rules. This is about, "Is it possible for a DM(any DM) and a player(any player) to compromise in this situation."

And that's just flat out wrong. Entitlement isn't required for there to be a compromise. You only need two sides of a discussion about something. I'm not entitled to any of my friend's money, but if he normally doesn't lend money and I ask to borrow $100, it's a compromise on both sides if he lets me borrow $50.

All you need are multiple people with multiple starting positions that aren't the same, and compromise is possible.

You are dramatically changing the situation with omissions.

 

[TwoSix]

And that's just flat out wrong. Entitlement isn't required for there to be a compromise. You only need two sides of a discussion about something. I'm not entitled to any of my friend's money, but if he normally doesn't lend money and I ask to borrow $100, it's a compromise on both sides if he lets me borrow $50.

All you need are multiple people with multiple starting positions that aren't the same, and compromise is possible.

And really, at least part of compromise is assessing the relative "deservedness" of what's being asked for. If someone asks me for $1000, I'm a lot more likely to compromise at $500 with a good friend who has helped me a bunch of times, than with a stranger who's done nothing for me.

If you're assuming that the other person is "entitled" or "unreasonable", you've already sabotaged the compromise.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

You are dramatically changing the situation with omissions.

And you sound like you hate compromise. They are not changing the situation?

 

[tetrasodium]

And you sound like you hate compromise. They are not changing the situation?

No I'm fine with compromise, but if the gm says that x y &z is the game they will be running and what is allowed it's on a hypothetical player to admit that it's not the game for them. The toxically extreme entitlement is starkly clear in the fact that this has been going back and forth with two different posters calling for the gm alone to compromise. Despite pointing out that the player getting half of what they were denied but wanted in a game that did not allow it is not the player compromising anything there has been no hint of suggesting that the player should try to find find something that they can do for the gm with their character build/backstory/motivation/etc or whatever with the expectation of being held to it by the gm.