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

[mamba]

I really, really don't want to get involved in this again, but I'll pop in to point it: Is it NOT clear to you that "always" means something very different to @Hriston?

If after explaining repeatedly that 'always' is short hand for 'every time the charactter intends to use the feature', not a synonym for 'constantly', this is still unclear to @Hriston, then this is just yet another perfect example for what I wrote earlier

my problem is that you frequently keep asking for clarification on the most basic things, and no amount of clarification moves the needle forward. You happily ignore it and reiterate the same refuted point another five times.

Hriston is clearly expecting that the player will only use it when it is appropriate to the game

this is only avoiding the discussion we are having, not contributing to it. We are trying to figure out when it is appropriate, and if your answer is 'whenever the player uses it' then that is not helpful, or we simply disagree about it

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I would add that the target was below (odd angle) and into an active fight with Sahaugin.

I think a -2 was fine. Opinions will differ. But my point is that is surely within the purview of the dm.

By all means DON’T apply a penalty. Either way the dm is making a good faith decision and neither should be considered “how it must be.”

I am applying that to backgrounds too.

Seems very sensible to me!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If after explaining repeatedly that 'always' is short hand for 'every time the charactter intends to use the feature', not a synonym for 'constantly', this is still unclear to @Hriston, then this is just yet another perfect example for what I wrote earlier

Sure, but you're doing the EXACT SAME THING to HIM. He's explained at length (at exhaustive length!) What he's talking about, and yet you keep telling HIM that it's "the same" while expecting HIM to agree with that. Why can't you accept that it's not "the same" to him?

this is only avoiding the discussion we are having, not contributing to it. We are trying to figure out when it is appropriate, and if your answer is 'whenever the player uses it' then that is not helpful, or we simply disagree about it

I don't think either of you are trying to "figure out" anything at all, you're just saying how you want it and expecting the other to agree or be the first to let it go. You definitely "simply disagree" about it. That's been established for a long, long time.

I don't speak for him, but it seems to me that his answer very clearly is not exactly (but probably close enough for you to refute it) "Whenever the player uses it" but rather "Whenever the player uses it appropriately" with the expectation that the player WON'T use it in places where it wouldn't make sense, but still that yeah, the player gets to decide.

I'm somewhere between the two of you - in that I would probably allow a player to use it the way @Hriston describes if it made them happy (I am able and willing to play with differing playstyles at the same table) but I'd more often do it differently (like ignore the feature entirely and do it more like what Oofta has described).

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure, but you're doing the EXACT SAME THING to HIM. He's explained at length (at exhaustive length!) What he's talking about, and yet you keep telling HIM that it's "the same" while expecting HIM to agree with that. Why can't you accept that it's not "the same" to him?


I don't think either of you are trying to "figure out" anything at all, you're just saying how you want it and expecting the other to agree or be the first to let it go. You definitely "simply disagree" about it. That's been established for a long, long time.

I don't speak for him, but it seems to me that his answer very clearly is not exactly (but probably close enough for you to refute it) "Whenever the player uses it" but rather "Whenever the player uses it appropriately" with the expectation that the player WON'T use it in places where it wouldn't make sense, but still that yeah, the player gets to decide.

I'm somewhere between the two of you - in that I would probably allow a player to use it the way @Hriston describes if it made them happy (I am able and willing to play with differing playstyles at the same table) but I'd more often do it differently (like ignore the feature entirely and do it more like what Oofta has described).

Drive by compromise seeking on a tangent that has been going on for hundreds of pages is not as reasonable as you are trying to make it seem because you are ignoring the fact that multiple people have explained in detail the deep logic disconnect and how deep many of those explanations have gone. You yourself aren't even trying to describe any form of logic either. instead it's just a twisted both sides disagree so prove it otherwise implication, it's just

Spoiler: this

Instead of elevating a position from r'lyeh, why not try explaining what you find logical about it? After so many pages I'm sure there are plenty of lurkers who will be happy to see the back & forth no longer having the borders of r'lyeh when you take the time to explain in depth why it's reasonable for the background features to work every time a player chooses to use them no matter how illogical it is for the given situation.

 

[mamba]

Sure, but you're doing the EXACT SAME THING to HIM. He's explained at length (at exhaustive length!) What he's talking about, and yet you keep telling HIM that it's "the same" while expecting HIM to agree with that. Why can't you accept that it's not "the same" to him?

I asked him repeatedly what the difference is supposed to be and never heard back... so, no, not doing the same thing, but if you tell me whenever the characters uses the feature it works and that is different from it working everywhere, then I need you to tell me how the former is true without turning into the latter. Where is the distinction...

"Whenever the player uses it" but rather "Whenever the player uses it appropriately" with the expectation that the player WON'T use it in places where it wouldn't make sense, but still that yeah, the player gets to decide.

so what is the criteria that makes it inappropriate? Just the player thinking so themselves?

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, that is my understanding of his position as well, but I want something less vague than that. If it is 'whenever someone thinks it is appropriate', then I can can use the same criteria and decide it is not. If it is 'whenever everyone at the table agrees', then it is at most in cases where I consider it appropriate.... so this is not moving things towards a resolution, it is either a tautology or not helpful, depending on the case

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I think that implies that the person meant to do it is VERY BUSY with the 2024 Core. Why they can't get someone else to do it is anybody's guess, but it seems likely that this is the case.

They laid off all the someone-elses last Christmas.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Drive by compromise seeking on a tangent that has been going on for hundreds of pages is not as reasonable as you are trying to make it seem

Man, you sometimes can be very uncharitable with your assessments. That's not what I was trying to do AT ALL.

because you are ignoring the fact that multiple people have explained in detail the deep logic disconnect and how deep many of those explanations have gone.

I'm not ignoring them, I think that they're well established!

You yourself aren't even trying to describe any form of logic either. instead it's just a twisted both sides disagree so prove it otherwise implication, it's just

No, I'm just saying "you two are never going to agree. Why are you bothering?"

Instead of elevating a position from r'lyeh, why not try explaining what you find logical about it?

I did so like 400 pages ago, there's no reason to bring it up again.

After so many pages I'm sure there are plenty of lurkers who will be happy to see the back & forth no longer having the borders of r'lyeh when you take the time to explain in depth why it's reasonable for the background features to work every time a player chooses to use them no matter how illogical it is for the given situation.

But... I don't hold that position? So why would I do that?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I asked him repeatedly what the difference is supposed to be and never heard back... so, no, not doing the same thing, but if you tell me whenever the characters uses the feature it works and that is different from it working everywhere, then I need you to tell me how the former is true without turning into the latter. Where is the distinction...

He's explained how he sees it AD NAUSEA. You and he disagree. What more do you need? The distinction, AFAICT is that the player using it "only when it's appropriate" and not "all the time" is what makes it work for him. Whether I agree or not, it seems fair enough for him.

so what is the criteria that makes it inappropriate? Just the player thinking so themselves?

Yeah, I would think so. There is an implication of "good faith" and "general understanding" of both the table's preferences and the game's internal logic.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, that is my understanding of his position as well, but I want something less vague than that.

It's probably pretty hard to give you anything "less vague" when the details of the specific Background feature, the specific instance of use, the specific campaign, and the table's preferences, are SO IMPORTANT to it working the way he's discussing, that it's IMPOSSIBLE to give you "less vague" answer that would satisfy - and it probably wouldn't satisfy, so what's the point?

If it is 'whenever someone thinks it is appropriate', then I can can use the same criteria and decide it is not. If it is 'whenever everyone at the table agrees', then it is at most in cases where I consider it appropriate.... so this is not moving things towards a resolution, it is either a tautology or not helpful, depending on the case.

That's my point: There IS NO RESOLUTION. It's been all tautology and not helpful. I'm sympathetic to both of you - I'm not on any side here (and no, @tetrasodium, I am not trying to lecture or prove anything, or be superior, or wag a finger, or whatever, I'm just part of a group that's discussing it, no better or worse than anyone else). There is no finding out who's "right".

And I don't mean to be singling you out over @Hriston, either. It should be clear to both of you that this hasn't gone anywhere for many hundreds of pages.

I'm fond of both of you, but you are both ssttuubboorrnn.

 

[tetrasodium]

He's explained how he sees it AD NAUSEA. You and he disagree. What more do you need? The distinction, AFAICT is that the player using it "only when it's appropriate" and not "all the time" is what makes it work for him. Whether I agree or not, it seems fair enough for him.



Yeah, I would think so. There is an implication of "good faith" and "general understanding" of both the table's preferences and the game's internal logic.


It's probably pretty hard to give you anything "less vague" when the details of the specific Background feature, the specific instance of use, the specific campaign, and the table's preferences, are SO IMPORTANT to it working the way he's discussing, that it's IMPOSSIBLE to give you "less vague" answer that would satisfy - and it probably wouldn't satisfy, so what's the point?


That's my point: There IS NO RESOLUTION. It's been all tautology and not helpful. I'm sympathetic to both of you - I'm not on any side here (and no, @tetrasodium, I am not trying to lecture or prove anything, or be superior, or wag a finger, or whatever, I'm just part of a group that's discussing it, no better or worse than anyone else). There is no finding out who's "right".

And I don't mean to be singling you out over @Hriston, either. It should be clear to both of you that this hasn't gone anywhere for many hundreds of pages.

I'm fond of both of you, but you are both ssttuubboorrnn.

The fact that you are on page 377 calling for someone with a position you seem to have claimed to be one that you agree agree with to accept a position that you seem to have stated you disagree with makes for pretty clear evidence that there absolutely is not any form of "an implication of "good faith" and "general understanding" of both the table's preferences and the game's internal logic."

 

[Umbran]

The fact that you are on page 377 calling for someone with a position you seem to have claimed to be one that you agree agree with to accept a position that you seem to have stated you disagree with makes for pretty clear evidence that there absolutely is not any form of "an implication of "good faith" and "general understanding" of both the table's preferences and the game's internal logic."

Mod Note:
Hey. After 377 pages, realizing that both sides can be right, at least for their own purposes, is not "bad faith". It is wisdom.

I don't know what's actually in your head. But, the accusation at this point reads less like a solid discussion point, and more like being unable to concede, but having nothing more material to add. Don't worry about needing to add more - for you, this discussion is done.