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

[Hriston]

Same. I see why @Hriston feels differently, but I don't imagine any difference between the two in my games, other than perhaps that the 2024 version feels less limited in scope. (To me).

I find it odd that an additional feature that tells a player you can rely on/expect to be able to do X is perceived as limiting on gameplay compared to the absence of such a feature. The playtest/2024 sample backgrounds are pretty much the same as the 2014 backgrounds minus the feature, so any limits on what a player can do with their 2014 background should carry over to 2024. The real point of comparison is the feat vs the feature. Is the feat less limited than the feature?

 

[Oofta]

I find it odd that an additional feature that tells a player you can rely on/expect to be able to do X is perceived as limiting on gameplay compared to the absence of such a feature. The playtest/2024 sample backgrounds are pretty much the same as the 2014 backgrounds minus the feature, so any limits on what a player can do with their 2014 background should carry over to 2024. The real point of comparison is the feat vs the feature. Is the feat less limited than the feature?

A feat is a capability inherent to the character, something they can do. Background features rely on who you know or being recognized. I don't care about "limited", whatever that means, I want backgrounds to give something concrete that doesn't require breaking world lore.

 

[Hriston]

But the reverse is true, it could just as easily be typical of play. And what WotC has produced in products suggests what they are seeing in play and market research.

No, statements a particular person makes about what typically happens at their particular table do not establish what's typical in the hobby in general.

 

[Oofta]

No, statements a particular person makes about what typically happens at their particular table do not establish what's typical in the hobby in general.

Several mods indicate that it is quite common to be very far afield and/or on another plane/demiplane. Your personal experience is no indication of anything. Published mods will at the very least be played by vastly more people than your personal campaign and are an indication of the types of campaigns that have widespread popularity.

 

[Parmandur]

No, statements a particular person makes about what typically happens at their particular table do not establish what's typical in the hobby in general.

No, but the decade long shift by WotC as they tackle to player feedback is a pretty good indicator. Anecdotal experience merely coorbarstes that more solid info. If WotC changes match with my experience, I'm going to tend to believe my experience is not unique.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I find it odd that an additional feature that tells a player you can rely on/expect to be able to do X is perceived as limiting on gameplay compared to the absence of such a feature. The playtest/2024 sample backgrounds are pretty much the same as the 2014 backgrounds minus the feature, so any limits on what a player can do with their 2014 background should carry over to 2024. The real point of comparison is the feat vs the feature. Is the feat less limited than the feature?

I think you're missing my point (and focussing a little too much on my use of a single word). The reason I see the 2014 Feature as "limiting" (though I agree with @Oofta, it's not actually a big point) is that it essentially boils your background down to something like "NPCs who have similar roots will give you free room and board". Whereas I think that it should be a LOT more complicated, broad, and interesting then just "free rooms". I am hoping that the new DMG will have longer, more nuanced advice on how to use alignment, background, class, factions, and other aspects of your character to have NPCs interact with your PC in a dynamic fashion, rather then just give you free rooms (or whatever).

I understand (and agree) with your post about how it's a reminder for the Player, and not the DM, but as others have said, that's not that helpful if the DM is not on board. And I get that the feature's limits should not cause the DM to only have the NPCs offer rooms and nothing else, in practice, if there's a rule that spells out what you get, then a LOT (far too many IMO) of DMs are only going to give you that, and nothing else (and not even that when it doesn't make sense to them).

I don't know if I did a good job of explaining myself there, but the gist is: Often if you have a feature that gives you X, it implies that you can't have Y. I'd like NPCs to react to PCs more dynamically than that. To me, the feature is fine, but unnecessary to achieve that.

 

[Hriston]

Most published modules would disagree with you. The majority of ones I've played in or looked at take you far from home, several of them while you are still level 1 or 2.

How does the majority of modules you've happened to look at or play in have any relevance to what's contained in most modules, and what relevance does that have to what's typical of 5E gameplay in general, including all the tables not using modules?

I never said the PC had a criminal contact in any city they were in, my player did.

But the thing I was talking about being invalidated was the feature, not your player's erroneous interpretation, so it appears your statement was a non sequitur.

But I still disagree that you can always get word to them. You've been in port for half an hour, how does that happen? Go to the local Criminals-R-Us and send a telegram? What if you're playing Tomb of Annihilation where you rarely interact with any humanoids who aren't trying to kill you, I don't see how you're getting a message to anyone. Train a parrot?

The feature actually answers these questions for anyone who bothers to read it: "specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you." An experienced criminal has travelled to a distant port city. Because of their extensive familiarity with the criminal underworld, the criminal is aware of and has an "in" with the criminal element among the port's population of sailors, let's say, who can deliver messages to the criminal's contact across the sea. I'm not sure what the problem is.

A noble is just a person with a title, there's nothing special or magical about them. I don't believe in the divine right of rulers. Historically many members of royal families were quite inbred and unhealthy.

You have a player who has chosen the Noble background for their character, which seems to take for granted such a thing as high or noble birth existing in the setting, indicating to you, the DM, they're interested in exploring, through their character, issues related to nobility which may include whether noble families are entitled to the wealth, power, and privilege they enjoy, perhaps because of something "special" about them or a "divine right" they've inherited, and whether they bear some responsibility to those over which they rule in exchange for it. Do you mean to say your response is to tell the player these issues have all been resolved in your mind and that is what will determine how you will make adjudications related to their background? Because, in my opinion, if that's the case, you might as well tell the player not to bother playing a noble in your game. I mean, are you also going to lower their CON score because you assume they're inbred?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was talking about the charlatan fake identity feature being largely pointless in an area where no one would recognize you in the first place.

I was responding to this:

But take criminal. You have a reliable and trustworthy contact. Sure, that's fine and works in your home city; I'll create an NPC and we'll work on a bit of backstory. But what happens if you betray that NPC or they believe you did? They aren't going to be reliable contact any more. Once you aren't on your home turf, you no longer have that contact. You can't just waltz into a city and go down to the "Rogues are Us" depot and send off a telegram whenever you want.

You don't mention Charlatan at all in this post.

In addition almost all the features rely on being easily recognized and associated to some social standing or "knowing someone". That doesn't work if you travel outside of your sphere of influence.

You'll have to explain what you mean. Take the False Identity feature from the Charlatan background. It's in no way dependent on being in a specific area. You can assume your created persona and forge documents no matter where you are.

If some pop singer went to an area dominated by (random genre here) the blues, why do you think they could automatically get a gig?

Okay, so your understanding of reality is in places where the blues is popular pretty much no one is interested in pop music, as least not enough to support a venue featuring pop? I would think this situation would be presented to the pop-music-only entertainer as a challenge of sorts, which, if that's the case, makes me wonder why the player is asserting they've booked a venue catering to pop instead of addressing the challenge in some way. Sounds like dysfunctional play to me.

Is someone who is a concert pianist going to automatically find a job at a place where there are only dive bars?

Again, it seems like you've decided dive bars are exclusive of piano bars. If that's the case, I'm sure the players have been apprised of the situation with a statement like, "You're headed to a town where there are no venues for pianists," which makes me wonder why the piano-only entertainer player is asserting they've booked a gig instead of addressing the challenge the DM is clearly laying down for their character.

If you're playing Descent into Avernus you may be having a devil of a time, but I doubt your performance skills are ever going to get you a night at the local hot spot in Avernus.

Why not? I haven't read Descent into Avernus, but a quick look at wikipedia tells me it's set in an urban environment. Are the denizens of Avernus called out as being particularly averse to performances or something?

Honestly, this all smacks of a DM bending over backwards to come up with reasons to invalidate a player's background feature.

Backgrounds and how important they are, whether they can be a part of the bigger story is something I think should be discussed in the session 0. I just had someone join saying they wanted to play a failed apprentice (had studied under a wizard, became a druid) so we figured out a story that makes sense and may play a bigger part in the ongoing campaign. I say may, because it's up to the group what they pursue.

Is the wizard still alive? What happens if the druid's player asserts the wizard may know some information that's important to the party and attempts to contact them?

Some people care about backgrounds, some don't. Most of the time it's been my experience that it's just a way to get a few extra proficiencies.

I think, as a component of PC-build, players are supposed to care about their backgrounds almost as much as their race and class. If they don't, then I think something has gone wrong.

 

[Faolyn]

I think you're missing my point (and focussing a little too much on my use of a single word). The reason I see the 2014 Feature as "limiting" (though I agree with @Oofta, it's not actually a big point) is that it essentially boils your background down to something like "NPCs who have similar roots will give you free room and board". Whereas I think that it should be a LOT more complicated, broad, and interesting then just "free rooms". I am hoping that the new DMG will have longer, more nuanced advice on how to use alignment, background, class, factions, and other aspects of your character to have NPCs interact with your PC in a dynamic fashion, rather then just give you free rooms (or whatever).

Background should be more nuanced, but at that time 5e seemed to be oversimplifying things and making them "rules lite," for a given definition of the term (rulings, not rules). For example, look at how simple monster statblocks were in comparison to how they are now, especially in 3pp books.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Background should be more nuanced, but at that time 5e seemed to be oversimplifying things and making them "rules lite," for a given definition of the term (rulings, not rules). For example, look at how simple monster statblocks were in comparison to how they are now, especially in 3pp books.

Oh, I agree entirely. I don't personally feel that the background feature means to limit the NPCs interaction with the PC down to just room and board. I think that it means to be an example of the kind of interaction that the Player should be able to expect. But once I've added the sort of complexity that I personally feel is needed, I have no use for the background feature. It becomes a "yeah, yeah, the NPCs will treat the PCs like they are who they are". Their background is ONE of the things that makes them "who they are" but it's not the only one.

But I'm more likely to have the NPCs do MORE for the players and interact with them in MORE ways based on who they are, not less.

 

[Oofta]

How does the majority of modules you've happened to look at or play in have any relevance to what's contained in most modules, and what relevance does that have to what's typical of 5E gameplay in general, including all the tables not using modules?



But the thing I was talking about being invalidated was the feature, not your player's erroneous interpretation, so it appears your statement was a non sequitur.


The feature actually answers these questions for anyone who bothers to read it: "specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you." An experienced criminal has travelled to a distant port city. Because of their extensive familiarity with the criminal underworld, the criminal is aware of and has an "in" with the criminal element among the port's population of sailors, let's say, who can deliver messages to the criminal's contact across the sea. I'm not sure what the problem is.



You have a player who has chosen the Noble background for their character, which seems to take for granted such a thing as high or noble birth existing in the setting, indicating to you, the DM, they're interested in exploring, through their character, issues related to nobility which may include whether noble families are entitled to the wealth, power, and privilege they enjoy, perhaps because of something "special" about them or a "divine right" they've inherited, and whether they bear some responsibility to those over which they rule in exchange for it. Do you mean to say your response is to tell the player these issues have all been resolved in your mind and that is what will determine how you will make adjudications related to their background? Because, in my opinion, if that's the case, you might as well tell the player not to bother playing a noble in your game. I mean, are you also going to lower their CON score because you assume they're inbred?



I was responding to this:

You don't mention Charlatan at all in this post.


You'll have to explain what you mean. Take the False Identity feature from the Charlatan background. It's in no way dependent on being in a specific area. You can assume your created persona and forge documents no matter where you are.



Okay, so your understanding of reality is in places where the blues is popular pretty much no one is interested in pop music, as least not enough to support a venue featuring pop? I would think this situation would be presented to the pop-music-only entertainer as a challenge of sorts, which, if that's the case, makes me wonder why the player is asserting they've booked a venue catering to pop instead of addressing the challenge in some way. Sounds like dysfunctional play to me.


Again, it seems like you've decided dive bars are exclusive of piano bars. If that's the case, I'm sure the players have been apprised of the situation with a statement like, "You're headed to a town where there are no venues for pianists," which makes me wonder why the piano-only entertainer player is asserting they've booked a gig instead of addressing the challenge the DM is clearly laying down for their character.


Why not? I haven't read Descent into Avernus, but a quick look at wikipedia tells me it's set in an urban environment. Are the denizens of Avernus called out as being particularly averse to performances or something?

Honestly, this all smacks of a DM bending over backwards to come up with reasons to invalidate a player's background feature.



Is the wizard still alive? What happens if the druid's player asserts the wizard may know some information that's important to the party and attempts to contact them?


I think, as a component of PC-build, players are supposed to care about their backgrounds almost as much as their race and class. If they don't, then I think something has gone wrong.

I'm not going to argue about how someone from nowhere-valley who's gone exploring the world suddenly has notoriety and friends no matter where they travel or even if it's on other planes of existence. Maybe your adventures never take the PCs more than 30 miles from home, mine do and pretty much every game I've ever played has. Several of the best selling popular modules do as well. IMHO it world-lore breaking to have background features that rely on being known or who you know no matter where you go.

You do you, I don't want to play in a game where logic has to be stretched to the breaking point to make background features work whether I'm player or DM and we're just having this argument on spin cycle.