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

[mamba]

It should be clear to both of you that this hasn't gone anywhere for many hundreds of pages.

yep, pretty clear...

 

[FitzTheRuke]

yep, pretty clear...

I mean, I don't know about Hriston, but I would be happy to concede that it would be easy for a player, whether meaning to or not, to abuse a situation in which they were given carte blanche to make up their own contact, ship, or whatever (depending on background, I would hope) and insert it into the adventure's narrative wherever they please, whenever they please. That absolutely would be a bad thing, and the way the 2014 Background Features are written, that they could be read that way.

I have a "however", but I think that I will save it for later, because I don't want to "sound" like I'm insincere with the above. I mean it - if the above is (at least part of) your point, then I think that you're right about it.

 

[mamba]

if the above is (at least part of) your point, then I think that you're right about it.

it is part of my point, probably even the main part. For a feature to work, there must be a reasonable, feasible in world explanation how it does so. If all it takes is the player saying so, that is not enough and invites abuse.

Also, it definitely breaks believability, and that negatively affects my enjoyment of the game. I want the game world to be believable (within the confines of it already being a fantasy setting)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, it definitely breaks believability, and that negatively affects my enjoyment of the game. I want the game world to be believable (within the confines of it already being a fantasy setting)

Honestly, this point is to me probably the most important factor in my enjoyment of the game. It has to make sense within the context of the setting (the setting, mind you, not the story).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Honestly, this point is to me probably the most important factor in my enjoyment of the game. It has to make sense within the context of the setting (the setting, mind you, not the story).

I don't see those two as different things. The story is simply the setting when it's breathing - coming to life - but I think I get your distinction.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see those two as different things. The story is simply the setting when it's breathing - coming to life - but I think I get your distinction.

Yeah, I just don't accept "it makes a better story" as an acceptable reason for going around the rules on its own.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Yeah, I just don't accept "it makes a better story" as an acceptable reason for going around the rules on its own.

Isn't this just "rule of cool?" I mean you are free to not like that, but that's how I took this statement.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

it would be easy for a player, whether meaning to or not, to abuse a situation in which they were given carte blanche to make up their own contact, ship, or whatever (depending on background, I would hope) and insert it into the adventure's narrative wherever they please, whenever they please. That absolutely would be a bad thing, and the way the 2014 Background Features are written, that they could be read that way.

I feel like I'm a broken record tonight. But isn't this a player problem?

To me, any time someone says what amounts to "this could be abused if someone read it a certain way," I default to player problem.

5e is built in such a way that vague rules are purposeful and common. So I feel like trying to stomp out rules, because they are vague enough that someone could read them in a way as to make them abusive is a battle that can't be won.

So we could rewrite the background features to close this. But at what cost of creativity? And we can solve the problem, largely, by choosing who we play with. Any player worth having is going to work out something reasonable, and any that refuse aren't worth having.

Maybe it's me, but sometimes I feel like people want the rules to handle the social aspect. I think sometimes it would be detrimental to the game. But that's just me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Isn't this just "rule of cool?" I mean you are free to not like that, but that's how I took this statement.

Yeah it is. Rule of cool is great, but by itself it's just not enough to allow something otherwise nonsensical. Unlikely, sure.

 

[GrimCo]

Wait, you have players actually use background features? Wow.

In 10 years of playing 5e, i can count on my fingers and have spare for the number of times someone used those in any game i played or ran. Same with traits, bonds, flaws, ideals.