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

[soviet]

You seem to be ignoring what the rule states. You can talk to the commoners for a bit, but unless the DM is overriding the rules the commoners will find a place to hide amongst commoners. The noble can chat his way up the bureaucracy a bit, but if you follow the letter of the rules it's just inconsequential fluff that will not change the outcome. It doesn't matter if your noble houses are feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys, unless you ignore the rule a noble from the Hatfield noble family could always get an audience with the McCoy family. It doesn't matter if your noble house is completely unknown. There are no exceptions.

I think I answered this in the reply I just posted in post 1590. You're talking about the resolution of the ability. What I'm saying is that the build up to that metaphorical dice roll should still be played out.

 

[soviet]

You seem to be ignoring what the rule states. You can talk to the commoners for a bit, but unless the DM is overriding the rules the commoners will find a place to hide amongst commoners. The noble can chat his way up the bureaucracy a bit, but if you follow the letter of the rules it's just inconsequential fluff that will not change the outcome. It doesn't matter if your noble houses are feuding like the Hatfields and McCoys, unless you ignore the rule a noble from the Hatfield noble family could always get an audience with the McCoy family. It doesn't matter if your noble house is completely unknown. There are no exceptions.

BTW I think both of these situations (feuding houses and an unknown house) should definitely result in an audience.

 

[Oofta]

Sure but what I'm saying is that's how the ability is resolved. It's like automatically getting a success on the metaphorical dice roll. But that doesn't mean you don't still have to earn that metaphorical dice roll in your description and roleplaying. You wouldn't let players just say 'I diplomacy the guard, oh look natural 20', right? You'd want them to describe or act out how they approach the guard, what they're trying to achieve, what they offer them, etc. Then you'd roll the dice.

Nothing states that you have to earn anything. You can add all the fluff you want, whether that's "Hello, hide me from the bad guys" or "I spend the next two weeks helping with the harvest" and role playing it out. It makes no difference according to the rule. There are never dice rolled because there's no uncertainty or chance of failure.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure but what I'm saying is that's how the ability is resolved. It's like automatically getting a success on the metaphorical dice roll. But that doesn't mean you don't still have to earn that metaphorical dice roll in your description and roleplaying. You wouldn't let players just say 'I diplomacy the guard, oh look natural 20', right? You'd want them to describe or act out how they approach the guard, what they're trying to achieve, what they offer them, etc. Then you'd roll the dice.

I would love it if the rules were as clear as you suggest but can't help but notice that you didn't quote any making an ironclad case that would unequivocally end any debate when a player points at a reprehensibly written feature designed to explicitly override the gm's judgement. You didn't even quote rules that would make a weak case.

 

[soviet]

Nothing states that you have to earn anything. You can add all the fluff you want, whether that's "Hello, hide me from the bad guys" or "I spend the next two weeks helping with the harvest" and role playing it out. It makes no difference according to the rule.

I know this. But the same argument applies to all the rest of the 5e rules.

 

[Oofta]

I know this. But the same argument applies to all the rest of the 5e rules.

So you agree that success is guaranteed if you follow the rules?

 

[soviet]

I would love it if the rules were as clear as you suggest but can't help but notice that you didn't quote any making an ironclad case that would unequivocally end any debate when a player points at a reprehensibly written feature designed to explicitly override the gm's judgement. You didn't even quote rules that would make a weak case.

I'm definitely not saying that 5e is well written! I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here, apologies.

 

[soviet]

So you agree that success is guaranteed if you follow the rules?

If the player has filled in the requisite fictional positioning with their description and roleplaying, sure.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Keep in mind that this is a thread where someone literally looked at a comment stating. "There are a great many times when a player's background feature would be absolutely bonkers to apply." responded "why does the gm get to decide if [a background feature] is relevant"

Sure, I mean, the DM gets to decide. But I think that was just them trying to point out that the feature is a PC feature, and therefore the player should be invoking it (to save the DM's headspace, not to usurp their power).

while another complained that they were talking about Barovia not ravenloft when an answer explained how Ravenloft works Barovia is in ravenloft ...

Yeah, that's an odd argument to make.

True but this very much seems like an example of working together that is also within the normal play loop

Spoiler

• Players: I want to reach out to my contact to do x
• Gm: You are hundreds of miles away/on another continent/in ravenloft /did stuff to light that bridge on fire and salt the ashes
  • maybe the player is unaware or had not considered the implications
• Player:well can I... Hmm.... [Alternate idea like finding the seedy tavern]
• Gm:sure but ... Play evolves and the party is untrusted but can be tested with adventure...

That seems like how it ought to go to me.

Trouble is that there is a very loud push to say or imply that the gm saying anything shy of yes done as a failure to "work with" the player

That's simply not how "working WITH" a person... works. There's back-and-forth. Anyone who can't handle that ought to go find something else to do with their time. That's not gatekeeping. If you can't play well with others, you shouldn't play games. Or more correctly: If you can't learn to. Making mistakes is okay. Never fixing them is not.

Bless your sheltered heart I've seen it so often and suffered the frustrated ramping up of adversarial play so often that it's often rarely worth asking heretical questions like "how" or "well you know that x is a problem?"

I mean, I won't say that I've never seen it happen. I've played with about a thousand people all told, over ~37 years. But I've never seen them 1) Refuse to learn to play nice with others OR 2) Not figure out that sort of spit is not going to fly.

They'll learn, or quit playing (with me, at least!)

I've never even needed to kick anyone out. They learn to play nice with others, or they leave.

Most of them started prior to 5e? Ime that tends to be limited to players who started long ago and players who also try to author how the targets react.

My quibble is that there is an awful lot of focus on what the gm needs to do and even the very idea that the player might need to take a step is frequently swatted down suggesting that the GM should describe and point out the step available to the quantum action granted by background

This is where you and I differ. I never think of a suggestion of "A DM ought to do X" as meaning "And players don't have to do anything!". Players ALSO have things that they ought to do too. The #2 thing (after "play nice with others" would be "Ultimately accept whatever the DM decides. You can make your case, but it is YOUR job to back down.".

If I was playing, say Oofta's game, and I was zapped off to some other world or time, while playing my Sailor, and I said, "Can I find any sailors to carouse with and make a contact" and he responded with "No, that's silly. This is a desert world". And I couldn't get anywhere with, "Howabout a lesser connection with that guy that ships freight on Mastodon-back? That's similar to a sailor, but without the ocean." And he said, "Nope. They think your sailor-ways are weird and standoffish. No contacts for you!" Well, I'd simply have to suck it up.

That's playing nice with others.

 

[Oofta]

If the player has filled in the requisite fictional positioning with their description and roleplaying, sure.

There is no requisite fictional positioning other than putting the background on your character sheet. You as a DM can always require something the rules do not state.