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

To me this thread highlights an issue that I see as independent of either (or any) D&D ruleset, which is such adherence to a notion of rules as written that some folks think it must be allowed to do what it describes no matter what the specific situation or that it is so specifically written as to be useless and best off ignored for the most part - when in what I would call a healthy game, the GM and the players would collaborate to figure out how the spirit of the background would or wouldn't function in the given situation.

Some folks have made some suggestions along these lines when, for example, discussing how a criminal might develop new contacts if brought to a different land or different world unexpectedly.

Parmandur said:

Certainly thr original assertion of Backgrounds being removed from the game is simply bizarre.

Click to expand...

Did anyone say that Backgrounds were being removed from the game? And if they did, isn't it obvious that they meant to say "Background Features"?

But to your point, yeah, I personally won't miss 'em, and the feat means as much to me when it comes to "where you come from and what you trained to do". I can have NPCs react to PCs all on my own.

Still, I sympathise with @Hriston if they got a lot out of them. I'd say "so keep them in" but I know that people like to have the game reflect their preferences. I'm not immune to that desire, myself.

FitzTheRuke said:

I tend to try to understand how the speaker means the term, rather than wishing that they would use the term the way I'd prefer it.

Click to expand...

I may have left academia, but I guess the academic part of me dies hard

FitzTheRuke said:

Because it's a game. And one where one person has a LOT more control over how it pans out than the other players do. I know you think that all players are entitled whiners and all DMs have to desperately cling to all vestiges of power (lest they lose an inch), but I find it a breezy back-and-forth with both sides making easy (and fun!) compromises to work together.

Click to expand...

That's a different thing entirely from "Just because you can't figure out how to make it work" however. I think that the question still stands unanswered and I'll elaborate why.

Many of the posts defending background features in this thread seem to set the bar for players at "I'm a criminal/noble/sailor/soldier/etc and use my contact to do x" with the responsibility for doing whatever is needed to "make it work" falling on the gm. Your post 1534 does not appear to suggest otherwise and the response I'm quoting here seems to be pretty clear about the gm being responsible even when the player makes zero effort beyond declaring the feature for an expected solution. If that is what you are suggesting, why is the player not at all responsible for taking the first step by looking at the current state of things and thinking or working out some beginning to making it work through playing their character?


This is especially noteworthy because 1534 was quoting someone has literally commented about how he would allow a player with a relevant background to have an easier time taking that step like finding the right sort of seedy tavern or whatever* earlier in the thread. Why is the player even there if their only responsibility can be replaced by a series of random action tables? You mentioned compromise and working together while others speak of collaboration, but it seems like only one side of the gm screen is doing any work whatsoever.

*I'm not going to find the post as multiple people have said similar things more than once

Not a Decepticon said:

After the OGL? No, I'm switching to Tales of the Valiant, I will allow my players to bring some things to the table if they want, as an experiment, but not the whole game.

Click to expand...

As is your right!

Not a Decepticon said:

Also the fact that WotC failed to address any problem with the Monk and also gave Bard subclass solely to make Monk redundant and useless rubs me the wrong way.

Click to expand...

... But your reasons make little sense. For One, we don't really know for sure how the Monk or the Bard (and its subclasses) are going to look. The playtest is a playtest. Nothing we've seen is 100% set in stone.

AND from what you've wrote, I'm not sure that you read all the playtests? I mean, have you SEEN the latest Monk? If it goes in the 2024 PHB with no changes (which I doubt) it will be overpowered (though not as much, IMO, as some people think). And I have no idea what Bard Subclass you're talking about. There was a Fighter subclass that was unarmed (the Brawler) which has already been said to be out.

Care to expand on your thoughts? I might sound like I want to argue with you (and I suppose that I might) but I'm curious as to where you get those ideas from.

Not a Decepticon said:

Also the fact that WotC failed to address any problem with the Monk

Click to expand...

Given how extensively the monk was reworked in the 8th PHB playtest packet, you might want to make some specific claims about what the unaddressed problems were.

FitzTheRuke said:

And I have no idea what Bard Subclass you're talking about

Click to expand...

I'm assuming he means the College of Dance from playtest packet #6.

Maxperson said:

For the most part I agree with you about backgrounds not always working. However, that there is one of the few times where folk hero would still work! You'd just be a "folk" villain where bad guys give you a place to rest refuge from authorities, unless it's too dangerous.

Click to expand...

I agree that there are many ways to be a folk hero such as Robin Hood. Except in the scenario I mentioned the PC had counterparts that were opposite in every way. While it wasn't 5E, the folk hero opposite would have been the folk nemesis, someone who supported the corrupt kingdom as an enforcer.

FitzTheRuke said:

....

Sure. But there's about a billion other ways to do it than to have the NPCs simply recognize the PC from the future as a folk hero. I can't even begin to describe all the ways because it would depend on the PC, the NPC in question, the town, the scenario, the story, all of which would change game-to-game, but I wouldn't have any trouble coming up with something that works with the whole thing holistically. I wouldn't wind up with something illogical - this is my point. You think that a DM who allows it is less logical-minded than you. That's simply not true.
...

Click to expand...

Okay. Stranger in a strange land scenario like I asked about above. The group is transported to a different timeline, one where they never existed like It's a Wonderful Life. Nobody knows the folk hero, the noble's house doesn't exist or if it does there's no proof the PC is part of it, the sailor has never sailed with anyone.

How would those backgrounds work without changing the basic premise of the fiction? I just don't see it.

tetrasodium said:

That's a different thing entirely from "Just because you can't figure out how to make it work"

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a counter to the idea that one had to be okay with illogical scenarios to find a way to make them work. I take issue with that idea. Might have gotten a bit testy, though not as much as it sounds. As usual, I meant it as a friendly barb at worst.

tetrasodium said:

however. I think that the question still stands unanswered and I'll elaborate why.

Many of the posts defending background features in this thread seem to set the bar for players at "I'm a criminal/noble/sailor/soldier/etc and use my contact to do x" with the responsibility for doing whatever is needed to "make it work" falling on the gm. Your post 1534 does not appear to suggest otherwise and the response I'm quoting here seems to be pretty clear about the gm being responsible even when the player makes zero effort beyond declaring the feature for an expected solution. If that is what you are suggesting, why is the player not at all responsible for taking the first step by looking at the current state of things and thinking or working out some beginning to making it work through playing their character?

Click to expand...

It's both. Both player and DM work together. Sometimes you might have a player try it like you describe it, I guess. "I'm a (background) so I get my contact to do X". But then, I would think that the DM would have an actual NPC who IS that contact, a method by which they contact each other, and go over that scene with the player?

Is there anyone who uses any feature in the game as simply "I use feature X" without it then being reflected in the greater narrative?

I don't even have players say "I cast Fireball" without one or the other of us then describing more about what that looks like and what happens afterward!

tetrasodium said:

This is especially noteworthy because 1534 was quoting someone has literally commented about how he would allow a player with a relevant background to have an easier time taking that step like finding the right sort of seedy tavern or whatever* earlier in the thread. Why is the player even there if their only responsibility can be replaced by a series of random action tables? You mentioned compromise and working together while others speak of collaboration, but it seems like only one side of the gm screen is doing any work whatsoever.

Click to expand...

It's a back-and-forth that requires effort from both. The Players say they want to do something. The DM provides the tools and story framework. The Players interact with those tools and story framework. The DM reacts to their interactions.

I guarantee you that while it's likely that you and I (and Oofta) have slightly different playstyles, that it's not a night-and-day thing. Our games probably look very similar, they just get there jumping through different hoops.

tetrasodium said:

*I'm not going to find the post as multiple people have said similar things more than once

Click to expand...

That's fine. It would be unnecessary.