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

[Micah Sweet]

Being "in a discussion" with the players is a far cry from "no more authority than any other player".

Ok. What happens in your view when the DM and players disagree about the inclusion of a game element?

 

[James Gasik]

Ok. What happens in your view when the DM and players disagree about the inclusion of a game element?

The game dies?

 

[TwoSix]

Ok. What happens in your view when the DM and players disagree about the inclusion of a game element?

They compromise, although the default approach should be acceptance, not rejection.

No one should feel so strongly over a game element that they bail on a game or force someone out of the group over it. It simply doesn’t matter that much.

 

[FrogReaver]

They compromise, although the default approach should be acceptance, not rejection.

No one should feel so strongly over a game element that they bail on a game or force someone out of the group over it. It simply doesn’t matter that much.

Then apply that to the player?

Don’t reject but accept what the DMs decides.

Don’t feel so strongly that you the player leave the game over a game element. It really doesn’t matter much.

The principles you cite here are ultimately double edged swords for your point I think.

 

[tetrasodium]

The DM should always be in a discussion with their players as to what rules are going to be allowed at a table. That's just social contract 101.

Weird... there was no "discussion" whatsoever when you started this in 506 by trying to claim that cross edition unless should be allowed cross edition stuff at their table by default because "it's entirely on the DM to present a rationale why they're excluding either book". Funny how you jump to using the social contract as a club when it is suggested that the GM should be free to simply decide something without being maligned as "authoritarian"

Your presentation of players as "wolves" is offensive.

You miss the reference. Franklin once said that democracy is two wolves & a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, the scenario described 697 that continuesbuilding off the high bar of expectations you've been trying topush as thre gold standard default embodies that very quote to a T.

The game dies?

This is a bizarre 5e'ism, no not really. It's on player-Bob to admit "this is not the game for me" and find a different table rather than playing along trying to force the issue or being prickly over it through the campaign. It's weird how the GM has been simultaneously demoted to a position lacking in authority to set the terms while being expected to mediate any disparate (un)reasonable player expectations or be the one responsible for killing the game.

 

[TwoSix]

Then apply that to the player?

Don’t reject but accept what the DMs decides.

Don’t feel so strongly that you the player leave the game over a game element. It really doesn’t matter much.

The principles you cite here are ultimately double edged swords for your point I think.

I really don’t think you actually understand my point.

It’s obviously impossible to compromise on a “include/don’t include” binary. That’s why the best position is to simply not care either way. That’s why the “who cares” position is to simply include whatever people want to use, because rejection requires a certain level of curation and concern.

Now, obviously, you have to care that at least the game is somewhat functional. You shouldn’t allow (or propose) some monstrosity that can do 5 attacks at level 1 and has full spellcasting. But the difference between a 2014 option and a 2024 option is barely noticeable.

 

[TwoSix]

Weird... there was no "discussion" whatsoever when you started this in 506 by trying to claim that cross edition unless should be allowed cross edition stuff at their table by default because "it's entirely on the DM to present a rationale why they're excluding either book". Funny how you jump to using the social contract as a club when it is suggested that the GM should be free to simply decide something without being maligned as "authoritarian"

“By default” does not imply “without discussion”. If there’s a certain campaign idea that requires some higher level of consistency, then a table can adopt that.

And I will point out that you invented the “authoritarian” designation, not me.

I don’t apologize for my belief that the DM should be, at best, a first among equals.

You miss the reference. Franklin once said that democracy is two wolves & a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, the scenario described 697 that continuesbuilding off the high bar of expectations you've been trying topush as thre gold standard default embodies that very quote to a T.

That might make sense if the DM player relationship was adversarial, not cooperative. I work under the assumption that everyone gets along, because if they don’t, I’m not in that group.

This is a bizarre 5e'ism, no not really. It's on player-Bob to admit "this is not the game for me" and find a different table rather than playing along trying to force the issue or being prickly over it through the campaign. It's weird how the GM has been simultaneously demoted to a position lacking in authority to set the terms while being expected to mediate any disparate (un)reasonable player expectations or be the one responsible for killing the game.

So much game tension can be alleviated by simply not playing with jerks and also not being a jerk.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's pretty clear that the edition mixing as chosen by players thing being discussed is so far beyond made by tinkerer gnome standards when its defense needs to tip toe around it by using more reasonable looking abstract descriptions like "great in combat" or that bolded bit of the quote.

I am not tip-toeing around anything. The thread asked if you will adopt the new edition. I said yes, and then expanded the discussion by stating that most will adopt - even if they think they won't. And the reasons for that are...

That's still not quite what we've been discussing though and it's still dancing around it. I'll quote the meat & potatoes of 506 to brush away the flowery wording and efforts to villainize the dm not allowing literally anything as some sort of "authoritarian table" though "Metaphors aside, it's entirely on the DM to present a rationale why they're excluding either book". Calling a refusal to allow edition mixing without a vote between 3-5 wolves and a sheep an "authoritarian table" is quite an example of the sort of toxic entitlement I described in 514.

this. Thank you for proving my point. The DM really is the sheep. If everyone gets along, it is still the majority rule. And in a game like D&D, the players almost always outnumber the DM.

And for the record, my response to the authoritarian table was a reply to someone saying they're the DM, and then saying, they won't allow the new material. That is why I said, for most DMs, it is not an authoritarian table. They are not the sole deciders.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They compromise, although the default approach should be acceptance, not rejection.

No one should feel so strongly over a game element that they bail on a game or force someone out of the group over it. It simply doesn’t matter that much.

So no one should get what they want out of a game unless everyone else wants that same thing? What if people want mutually exclusive things? Sometimes a decision has to be made.

 

[hedgeknight]

Late to the vote, but NO. In fact, I'm going backwards by returning to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D.