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

[UngeheuerLich]

No, it does not. Maybe I should explain what I mean by “connects your character to the world.” I mean it explicitly grants you, the player, the right to posit established relationships with people and institutions and knowledge gained from your character’s years of past experience. The 2014 background features are full of phrases like “you can [expect to receive, call upon, find, secure, invoke, gain access]”, “you have [ties to, a residence, a contact, a rank]”, “you know”, “they will”, “people assume”, and “they defer”. The text of the UA sample backgrounds, in stark contrast, are past-tense accounts of suggested backstory with any indication of how past events might connect with the character's present place in the world left to be implied at best. The idea that it does the same thing because a DM, without any prompting from the rulebook, might grant a player the same rights and privileges is like saying a blank page supports building airplanes just as much as a set of airplane building instructions.

That comparison is quite interesting. Since you can easily build a functioning airplane (albeit a small one) out of a blank sheet of paper.

 

[pablomaz]

Probably not. I'm definitely not buying the PHB right away. I will wait, at least, until I see the new stuff and what's different. I would be more inclined to embark on a proper new edition than to incorporate all these other things.

 

[Maxperson]

So then background features don't automatically apply? Because that's not what I remember.

Take the scenario: you have the criminal background but find yourself in Barovia. You know no one, no one knows you. The demiplane is cut off, there's no communication back home even with magic because it's a cursed land. What does your background buy you?

Experience in finding a contact and establishing the same sort of contact network you had.

 

[Maxperson]

That will obviously not be workable for those who lean towards the "PCs are just striving members of the hoi polloi" camp.

I strive to be a member of the hokey pokey camp. It gives me a higher chance of success when I attempt to turn it all about.

 

[Hriston]

A feat is a capability inherent to the character, something they can do. Background features rely on who you know or being recognized. I don't care about "limited", whatever that means, I want backgrounds to give something concrete that doesn't require breaking world lore.

Background features (2014) are also inherent to the character and entail things they can do. I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make or what you mean by “rely on who you know or being recognized.” Background features often assert you do know certain people or things. That doesn’t make them reliant on that having already been established some other way. It’s assumed the the character possesses the described knowledge, and the onus is on the group to establish the required fiction. On the other hand, I don’t recall any background feature saying anything about being recognized. And you’d have to ask @FitzTheRuke what he meant by “limited”. I wasn’t trying to pick on his word choice, just expressing my own perception that sometimes an absence of rules is seen as allowing more free-form roleplay whereas I tend to see the presence of rules as supportive of certain types of play. No “breaking” of “world lore”, meaning established fiction, is required because that’s a matter of table consensus, so a player who’s on the same page as everyone else isn’t going to contradict/break it, just like they aren’t going to describe their character attacking with a longsword if it has been established their character doesn’t possess a longsword. That’d be time for an out-of-game discussion.

 

[Oofta]

Background features (2014) are also inherent to the character and entail things they can do. I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to make or what you mean by “rely on who you know or being recognized.” Background features often assert you do know certain people or things. That doesn’t make them reliant on that having already been established some other way. It’s assumed the the character possesses the described knowledge, and the onus is on the group to establish the required fiction. On the other hand, I don’t recall any background feature saying anything about being recognized. And you’d have to ask @FitzTheRuke what he meant by “limited”. I wasn’t trying to pick on his word choice, just expressing my own perception that sometimes an absence of rules is seen as allowing more free-form roleplay whereas I tend to see the presence of rules as supportive of certain types of play. No “breaking” of “world lore”, meaning established fiction, is required because that’s a matter of table consensus, so a player who’s on the same page as everyone else isn’t going to contradict/break it.

I prefer a world that works like the real one with the addition of supernatural and magic. So gravity still works like normal until magic modifies it, people are still people unless they have supernatural oomph.

Without being recognized or knowing someone there's no reason for most background features (e.g. folk hero) to automatically do anything unless they have supernatural backing. Why would a sailor just happen to know someone in a port thousands of miles away from home that's not on normal trade routes? Why would someone with a criminal background that was just a low level runner suddenly have connections worldwide? They may know things others don't. They may know how to better relate or find information. They'll get some general knowledge or advantage on checks. Nothing will be automatic. Because the abilities are not supernatural.

Nothing new here, I don't know why you keep asking the same question over and over. There's nothing wrong with always having backgrounds work as written, it's just not how I run my game for the reasons given at least a dozen times now. Unless there's a different question, please stop. It's getting old.

 

[Hriston]

Several mods indicate that it is quite common to be very far afield and/or on another plane/demiplane. Your personal experience is no indication of anything. Published mods will at the very least be played by vastly more people than your personal campaign and are an indication of the types of campaigns that have widespread popularity.

Is your argument, then, that because some number of published 5E adventure modules present situations where the PCs are far from home, that it’s thus popular among 5E groups in general to play games in which such situations figure prominently? I’m not sure how such an argument follows logically, nor what relevance it would have to the discussion of the absence of background features in the UA sample backgrounds. You haven’t, for instance, demonstrated how background features as written would cause any problems in such games, if they were included.

 

[Hriston]

No, but the decade long shift by WotC as they tackle to player feedback is a pretty good indicator. Anecdotal experience merely coorbarstes that more solid info. If WotC changes match with my experience, I'm going to tend to believe my experience is not unique.

There's a lot of daylight between "typical" and "not unique". Also, you're assuming playtest design reflects what WotC thinks of as typical gameplay (as revealed through feedback surveys?) rather than what they think will sell. Those needn't be the same thing, and I'm doubtful the feedback reflects any sort of reality as far as how actual groups actually play. It's market research, not sociology!

 

[Lanefan]

Is your argument, then, that because some number of published 5E adventure modules present situations where the PCs are far from home, that it’s thus popular among 5E groups in general to play games in which such situations figure prominently?

Regardless of edition, unless the campaign is very short it'd be a pretty rare sight to see the PCs spend their entire adventurng careers close to home.

I’m not sure how such an argument follows logically, nor what relevance it would have to the discussion of the absence of background features in the UA sample backgrounds. You haven’t, for instance, demonstrated how background features as written would cause any problems in such games, if they were included.

Some of the backgrounds noted thus far (sailor, folk hero, etc.) seem intentionally designed to play against the trope of the PCs being strangers in a strange land if-when they travel far afield (e.g. sail across the Great West Ocean as explorers) or off-world, in that with connections like these the game makes sure they can always find friends or allies.

Just one more subtle way in which 5e makes the game easier on its PCs.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Regardless of edition, unless the campaign is very short it'd be a pretty rare sight to see the PCs spend their entire adventurng careers close to home.

Some of the backgrounds noted thus far (sailor, folk hero, etc.) seem intentionally designed to play against the trope of the PCs being strangers in a strange land if-when they travel far afield (e.g. sail across the Great West Ocean as explorers) or off-world, in that with connections like these the game makes sure they can always find friends or allies.

Just one more subtle way in which 5e makes the game easier on its PCs.

False. Any edition is only as easy as the DM deigns to make it.