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

[FrogReaver]

Who said anything about pocket dimensions, planes of existence, or alternate universes?

I think we've pinpointed the source of your problem. You simply aren't reading the same thing everyone else is reading.

Everyone that says it works regardless of location and circumstance.

 

[Maxperson]

If you already have a set idea as GM of how the adventure should go, I can see how anything that diverts from that might seem implausible. But that assessment would be wrong.

No it isn't. Not everyone is playing or even wants to play a No Myth style game where everything works or has a possibility of working. You're also presenting a False Dichotomy there as there are wide swaths of middle ground in-between the DM having an idea of how the adventure should go and No Myth, much of that ground involves things needing to make sense.

 

[Faolyn]

It is true, if you are the type of DM that writes, works, and tries to keep a consistent world for your players; yet, at the same time, a player can ad-whim anything they want and you accept it - then it doesn't matter. If you feel your consistency matters to you and the players that care about it... Well then, it matters.

There's a middle ground you're missing here, though.

The DM tries to keep a consistent world. The players want to add things that fit within the world's consistency.

You seem to be assuming that players are just going to be adding anything, like the DM wants a gritty dark ages setting and player insists on magical monster trucks and the DM gives in.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's a middle ground you're missing here, though.

The DM tries to keep a consistent world. The players want to add things that fit within the world's consistency.

You seem to be assuming that players are just going to be adding anything, like the DM wants a gritty dark ages setting and player insists on magical monster trucks and the DM gives in.

I have much less issue with player additions that fit into the worlds consistency provided there’s a high level of plausibility. When framed that way I don’t think you’ll find many if any people that take issue.

So can we talk about potential player additions that do not fit into the world’s consistency? That seems to be the sticking point IMO.

 

[mamba]

So no need to ditch it just because they're on another plane, then. Just shape it towards your games purpose.

I do not consider that the feature working however.

You are basically saying that the Dark Powers know of the contact (the feature says exists), lure the character into thinking they can get a message to that contact (even though that is a ruse) and then use that to trick the character into something.

How is that at all what the feature says the character can do because of it?

 

[Maxperson]

It feels like the above post is pivoting to accuse DMs of railroading. So I am assuming that is not the intent and so I am focusing on visualizing world building.

In that case, "would be wrong" or "could be wrong"?

It's great if someone literally wants the printed rules to trump everything 100% of the time. (I fireball the blackmail letter to destroy it! Sorry, bad guy is holding it so it isn't hurt at all). If someone repeatedly implies anyone who ever says no and overrules the printed rules is always wrong to do so, then that feels like one true wayism.

Especially in a system that explicitly tells the players that the DM can change the rules and tells the DM over and over and over that the rules aren't in charge, the DM is in charge. 5e(and every other edition of D&D) assumes that the DM can override the rules when he feels it is appropriate.

 

[mamba]

There's a middle ground you're missing here, though.

The DM tries to keep a consistent world. The players want to add things that fit within the world's consistency.

You seem to be assuming that players are just going to be adding anything, like the DM wants a gritty dark ages setting and player insists on magical monster trucks and the DM gives in.

not really, that middle ground just means there is no problem and no further need to discuss it, the thing the player suggested then (probably) simply happens

If we say the Criminal feature does not work in Ravenloft that is not the same as us saying it never works

 

[Oofta]

I have much less issue with player additions that fit into the worlds consistency provided there’s a high level of plausibility. When framed that way I don’t think you’ll find many if any people that take issue.

So can we talk about potential player additions that do not fit into the world’s consistency? That seems to be the sticking point IMO.

If a player wants to add to the world we discuss it offline. I'm OK with a lot, but I want editorial control and i can helpfill in blanks. Every once in a while I'll ask for details on something that's just been established in play. That's rare though because making things up on the spot makes some people nervous.

 

[Oofta]

Who said anything about pocket dimensions, planes of existence, or alternate universes?

I think we've pinpointed the source of your problem. You simply aren't reading the same thing everyone else is reading.

All of those things have happened in games I've run or played. But it also doesn't make sense that a sailor knows someone in every port in the world.

 

[soviet]

All of those things have happened in games I've run or played. But it also doesn't make sense that a sailor knows someone in every port in the world.

That also isn't what the ability says!