If you're playing a sailor in the desert, it's likely because of party choice to go to the desert. Beyond that you likely have better knowledge of certain aspects related to sailing and shipping, you just don't get any background feature benefits.
D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
If you're playing a sailor in the desert, it's likely because of party choice to go to the desert. Beyond that you likely have better knowledge of certain aspects related to sailing and shipping, you just don't get any background feature benefits.
What's the requisite fictional positioning of making a diplomacy check?
Depends on the group. As fsr as the rules are concerned, the player makes it clear they want to make a diplomacy check.
What would you do if the player doesn't say what their character says, or describe how they approach the NPC?
What would you do if the NPC is unconscious?
A PC can't take action if they are unconscious. How the group decides to handle things like diplomacy checks is up to the group, options are given in the DMG but it is not set in stone.
What would you do if the question is in no way relevant to my opinion of background features?
I said NPC not PC. The NPC is the one that's unconscious.
I am trying to illustrate to you that making skill checks and using background traits both require a certain level of fictional positioning and negotiation by the participants in order for them to make sense.
That's the trouble with coming into the thread late or sporadically, it wasn't one edge case post.
That bold bit is the critical part that the background features, and much of 5e, completely omit. Unfortunately it's incredibly hard for the GM to reverse course once a player starts down the path of expecting the GM to do it for them without painting themselves with negative stereotypes. "Alice let Bob play his own character & stop trying to tell him how to play" is such a well worn flavor of unreasonable behavior that I'm not even sure if it has an accepted name like rules lawyer munchkin wall flower etc & the GM is almost guaranteed to immediately don that particular cap the instant a player starts pushing back against those efforts because the background feature is clear about both success & result
In 1590 you talked about adding rolls & adjusting how some of the most explicitly written abilities in the game can be altered to add what is either pointless fluff or GM oversight to... What specific rules are you resting that case on. Imagine that you are having to use the rules you select to make a case for a player who feels that the default expectation for players is "don't expect anything from me" who believes that you are 100% in the wrong for wanting to do anything other than fast forward to tomorrow when they say "I use rustic hospitality/position of prestige, we are safe for the night".
OK. I agree that the rules don't say anywhere that this kind of fictional positioning (aka 'roleplaying') is required for background features to work. But I don't think the rules require this stuff for skill use or attack rolls either. So either we are all playing very flat mechanical games where players just say 'I attack the orc', 'I diplomacy the guard', and 'I noble background trait the Duke', or we are accepting there is a need to add more detail and description to those actions beyond what is strictly required by the game text.
I dislike several of the background features as written in the PHB. Therefore I let people know that in a session 0. That doesn't mean backgrounds are useless in my campaign, and I like what I've seen of the new backgrounds. It just means that if you're using an old background we'll work on how to make it useful. I simply care more about in world logic and consistency than I do the letter of the rules.
Similar Threads
- Poll
