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

[Oofta]

First, citing extraplanar adventure as an example is a corner case. Second, I have a hard time believing Barovia is completely lacking in either "a library, scriptorium, university, or a sage or other learned person or creature." Finding out what or who and where those things are shouldn't be all that difficult for a sage.


I don't agree the game needs to be protected from bad DMing, especially not with a boring redesign like this.

(edited for spelling)

First, setting a campaign in a pocket dimension like Barovia, the Astral plane like Spelljammer, or a different plane of existence like Avernus are what happens in published mods.

Second if you don't care about the logic of how the world works, more power to you. I couldn't take a game like that seriously and wouldn't want to play in a long term campaign that does not. If I'm in a city my PC has never heard of, why would I have a contact there if I have a criminal background? It would make no sense.

So I think it's bad DMing to twist logic into a pretzel so a PC gets a minor benefit.

 

[Parmandur]

I can't tell if your question is rhetorical, but no, it doesn't. It's missing all kinds of stuff which I mostly explained in the post you quoted and in other posts in this thread. Have you even read the material I'm talking about?

More an indication of bemusement, because while yes, I'm reading what you are saying, I see everything you are talking about as being equally possible and equally encouraged between the 2014 and 2024 presentations.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Right. I may be misremembering, but I don't think they remade everything. That said, by and large it was replaced very quickly.

They didn't remake everything but they DID let everything go out-of-print. But D&D books (aside from Core Books) were rarely kept in print back then, anyhow.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I can't tell if your question is rhetorical, but no, it doesn't. It's missing all kinds of stuff which I mostly explained in the post you quoted and in other posts in this thread. Have you even read the material I'm talking about?

I understand your concerns, but I think we should wait and see what sort of RP advice and tools are put in the DMG and/or the PHB. Maybe they won't be so closely tied to background, but maybe they'll be a slightly different system that does the job.

 

[Hussar]

They didn't remake everything but they DID let everything go out-of-print. But D&D books (aside from Core Books) were rarely kept in print back then, anyhow.

True, they didn't remake everything. But, they did take a pretty decent stab at it. They didn't miss too much.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I haven't read Curse of Strahd, so I can't really comment, but the way you describe it and other published adventures, it sounds like a complete railroad. That isn't a fault of the background feature.

It is the fault of the game designers if they create features that are pointless for a very common style of play that they even promote with their adventure products.

 

[Hriston]

First, setting a campaign in a pocket dimension like Barovia, the Astral plane like Spelljammer, or a different plane of existence like Avernus are what happens in published mods.

Second if you don't care about the logic of how the world works, more power to you. I couldn't take a game like that seriously and wouldn't want to play in a long term campaign that does not. If I'm in a city my PC has never heard of, why would I have a contact there if I have a criminal background? It would make no sense.

So I think it's bad DMing to twist logic into a pretzel so a PC gets a minor benefit.

If a group decides to use a prewritten adventure that renders a player’s choice of background feature useless, then that group probably isn’t very interested in the type of fiction supported by background features. That isn’t a fault of the feature. The group should have a session zero to discuss which background features will be useful in the setting or to decide not to bother with them if they’re not interested.

If, on the other hand, a DM approves a player’s choice of background feature and then proceeds to have the feature invalidated by the setting of the campaign, that’s a fault of the DM, not the feature.

 

[Hriston]

More an indication of bemusement, because while yes, I'm reading what you are saying, I see everything you are talking about as being equally possible and equally encouraged between the 2014 and 2024 presentations.

We don’t have the 2024 presentation, but we do have the playtest documents. The playtest backgrounds are completely lacking in a feature that explicitly gives the player permission to posit connections for their character with the game world related to their background. I’d say that’s not very encouraging of play that’s interested in such things.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If a group decides to use a prewritten adventure that renders a player’s choice of background feature useless, then that group probably isn’t very interested in the type of fiction supported by background features. That isn’t a fault of the feature. The group should have a session zero to discuss which background features will be useful in the setting or to decide not to bother with them if they’re not interested.

I don't think you should count on this level of introspection and preparations from groups running published adventures. These are often new gamers jumping right into it.

 

[Hriston]

I understand your concerns, but I think we should wait and see what sort of RP advice and tools are put in the DMG and/or the PHB. Maybe they won't be so closely tied to background, but maybe they'll be a slightly different system that does the job.

I’m just answering the poll question. Based on what I know now about the 2024 editions, which is based on what’s been revealed through playtesting, I’m not planning to adopt the rules from the new core books. The actual published material could change my mind later.