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

[tetrasodium]

OK. I agree that the rules don't say anywhere that this kind of fictional positioning (aka 'roleplaying') is required for background features to work. But I don't think the rules require this stuff for skill use or attack rolls either. So either we are all playing very flat mechanical games where players just say 'I attack the orc', 'I diplomacy the guard', and 'I noble background trait the Duke', or we are accepting there is a need to add more detail and description to those actions beyond what is strictly required by the game text.

Trouble with that underlined bit is that the background features are written in a way that very clearly leads new/inexperienced/unreasonable players to be 100% certain of their push button success ability.

5e is rife with these kinds of things* but background features take the cake by doing it to such an extreme degree...

*Lots of races with a climb speed had similar when they were seen in the past, but instead of a climb speed it was often a +N to climb checks that allowed for situational nuance rather than overriding the GM & frustration if the GM goes vader by saying "I'm altering the ability here"

 

[soviet]

Trouble with that underlined bit is that the background features are written in a way that very clearly leads new/inexperienced/unreasonable players to be 100% certain of their push button success ability.

5e is rife with these kinds of things* but background features take the cake by doing it to such an extreme degree...

*Lots of races with a climb speed had similar when they were seen in the past, but instead of a climb speed it was often a +N to climb checks that allowed for situational nuance rather than overriding the GM & frustration if the GM goes vader by saying "I'm altering the ability here"

I've already agreed that I don't think 5e is very well written.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've already agreed that I don't think 5e is very well written.

Then what were you trying to say in 1590? It seems like you instantly went to practically admitting the RAW supports the player being miffed if their push button solution is altered

 

[soviet]

Then what were you trying to say in 1590? It seems like you instantly went to practically admitting the RAW supports the player being miffed if their push button solution is altered

Eh? I don't follow what you're trying to say

 

[tetrasodium]

Eh? I don't follow what you're trying to say

It's fairly straightforward. You seem to have immediately undercut literally everything you said in that post in the last couple posts, what were you trying to say back then

 

[soviet]

It's fairly straightforward. You seem to have immediately undercut literally everything you said in that post in the last couple posts, what were you trying to say back then

I think you've just misunderstood. A lot of your posts are hard to follow, like you pressed submit too quickly

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely, if you want to put the PC's in a scenario where their Backgrounds are meaningless, you could do so. But the question is, why?

Because campaigns ebb and flow, going places that sometimes nobody including the DM saw coming. Sometimes the backgrounds won't work. Sometimes they will work amazingly well. By and large, though, they will just work as advertised.

When the players made their characters and selected Backgrounds, the DM has a chance. To use these as tools, to ensure that the player's choices are important to the campaign. To arrange for scenarios where one would be recognized as a noble or a sage or a criminal to make the game more interesting and fun.

If you're not planning on doing that, or don't want, you can simply say "hey guys, just make custom Backgrounds to grab proficiencies, features aren't going to come up".

It's not a dichotomy of always useful(interesting and fun) or never useful, though. The DM can arrange for scenarios where the backgrounds are in the forefront, and also have other times where they aren't useful at all. And still more times where backgrounds are somewhat useful, but not in the forefront or useless.

The idea that you would let players choose Backgrounds for their characters and then immediately toss them into an alternate universe where they don't work strikes me as odd- why would you do such a thing?

I think that was just an extreme example intended to show that there will be times that the ability won't work. Once that is established all that's left is where to draw the lines on when it works and when it doesn't, because the ability is no longer universally applicable.

There's this concept that's permeated this thread that there are DM's who allow Backgrounds and are then surprised that players want them to matter. Or that players want to use them to make demands of the DM that they were completely unprepared for. As if a Background is some kind of "DM counterspell" that the DM is forced to accept, and absolutely must allow in their campaign.

My impression is that the pushback is against the idea that the players should have their backgrounds to work every time they want to use them. Many DMs will want the ability use to make sense in the fiction, which means that sometimes it will not work.

And maybe someone here actually thinks that way. I'd like to think not, but maybe so. But in that case, your problem isn't Backgrounds- though it might be the fact that "SUBJECT TO DM APPROVAL" isn't plastered all over the Player's Handbook in large neon letters.

No. It's just placed in the introduction to the PHB and plastered all over the DMG. Not in neon, though.

 

[Lanefan]

Ever watch a show where the main character, no matter where they go, ends up in a situation that suits their skill set? I believe the trope is called a Busman's Holiday. Illogical or not, it's oft the basis for many entertaining plots.

Take the non-canon James Bond film, Never Say Never Again (a remake of Thunderball). Early on, there are concerns about Bond's age and health so he's sent to a spa. While he's there, he just so happens to stumble onto a SPECTRE conspiracy in action! Nobody complains about how illogical this is, because it's entertaining.

Nobody complains?

I do.

There comes a point where plot-assisting contrivance jumps the shark and becomes absurdity. For me, having never watched NSNA, by your description this would far exceed such a point (sadly, other Bond films exceed it on a fairly regular basis).

 

[James Gasik]

Nobody complains?

I do.

There comes a point where plot-assisting contrivance jumps the shark and becomes absurdity. For me, having never watched NSNA, by your description this would far exceed such a point (sadly, other Bond films exceed it on a fairly regular basis).

It's a fairly common trope in "adventure" fiction- it's fairly common in the works of Alexandre Dumas, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and Robert E. Howard, for example.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you're playing a sailor in the desert, it's likely because of party choice to go to the desert. Beyond that you likely have better knowledge of certain aspects related to sailing and shipping, you just don't get any background feature benefits.

Yeah, that sounds fair to me.

I dislike several of the background features as written in the PHB. Therefore I let people know that in a session 0. That doesn't mean backgrounds are useless in my campaign, and I like what I've seen of the new backgrounds. It just means that if you're using an old background we'll work on how to make it useful. I simply care more about in world logic and consistency than I do the letter of the rules.

NOW, you and I are on the same page!