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

[soviet]

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.

5e doesn't say what you describe. There's a small section in the DMG that vaguely says the DM might ignore the dice sometimes, but hardly a full-throated embrace of fudging or DM supremacy.

There's nothing 'telling the players' this and there's no 'over and over and over'.

 

[soviet]

you don’t even need to consider anyone else. Just consider how those conversations are actually going to go.

DM - that ability doesn’t work under these circumstances
Player - but the ability doesn’t list those restrictions
DM - fictional position is always a valid reason to deny ability use, and besides you agreed that I would be dm and thus make such decisions

Option 1) Player - I disagree with this one but let’s continue playing.
Option 2) Player - I disagree with this one and refuse to continue playing.

What else do you do to an option 2 player?

Note that the topic was actually a player who gives a plausible (at least to them) explanation of why it should work. Not just 'but the rules say' like you frame it.

The 'I refuse to continue playing' stuff is entirely your invention. You seem to associate players having a different opinion with players being outright disruptive/obstructive.

 

[soviet]

Strangely, two people can have different opinions about what is appropriate to a setting.

I agree that they can. But the tenor of the discussion was not 'people can disagree about what's appropriate' but instead 'players just ask for things without considering what's appropriate'.

Also, we're talking about getting shelter for the night, or getting passage on a ship. Hardly game- or continuity-breaking events. It's not clear to me why, if both sides have reasonable positions, it must always be the GM's position that takes precedence.

 

[soviet]

Hard to have a good relationship with someone you've never met.

Feature: Ship’s Passage
When you need to, you can secure free passage on a sailing ship for yourself and your adventuring companions. You might sail on the ship you served on, or another ship you have good relations with (perhaps one captained by a former crewmate).

Note the full stop after the first sentence, and the 'might' in the second sentence. The ability is not dependent on knowing anyone.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Which again is not what the feature says. It doesn't even say that you have to know someone on that ship! It says "might." And while you're calling in a favor, the favor could also be volunteering yourself and the rest of your party to serve as free guards while they travel through pirate waters, or to work in the galley or on the oars as free labor.

And honestly, it does make sense that a sailor could know someone in every port. Crew don't stay on a single boat forever. The captain and officers would, sure. The lower-ranked dudes? No, a lot of them will get off at any port (or get thrown off the ship at a port) for any number of reasons.

While this is correct, I think that the underlying issue is that when the DM is specifically telling the player "your character cannot use that feature of theirs because I have placed them in a situation where they cannot use that feature", the player can't just insist that they can (unless they come up with a justification that is accepted by the DM).

At the end of the day, the DM is the arbiter of the rules, and if when asked "Can my sailor character work for her passage from this port down to the South seas?", they say "No.", the player generally has to accept that by the social contract of the gaming group.

 

[Cadence]

Also, we're talking about getting shelter for the night, or getting passage on a ship. Hardly game- or continuity-breaking events. It's not clear to me why, if both sides have reasonable positions, it must always be the GM's position that takes precedence.

Whether getting passage on a ship is game or continuity breaking feels like it is entirely dependent on where they want to get the ship from and too. As per Eye's of the Overworld and Cugel's Saga, etc... Sometimes the journey is the adventure. As per recent IRL cruise ship shenanigans, sometimes there are world reasons things don't work.

As far as why the GM's position takes precedence, that seems to historically be the default in D&D. There are lots of threads on it. No one has to like that or follow it. Hopefully a lot of it was worked explained in the prospective DMs pitch to the players before they even got to session 0.

 

[Oofta]

Note the full stop after the first sentence, and the 'might' in the second sentence. The ability is not dependent on knowing anyone.

Followed by an or. You know someone or you sailed on the ship before.

 

[soviet]

I for one am fine adding things if it "fits within the world's consitency [at a reasonable level]".

Some posters have implied that consistency doesn't matter at all. I haven't paid attention if some have said they would never add the player suggestion.

Maybe a poll with:

"I would never add something new to fit with a player background, even if it is reasonably consistent with the game world"
"I would always add something new to fit with a player background, even if it doesn't seem like there is a very plausible explanation in the game world"
"It depends on the situation, don't pigeonhole me!"

I don't think anyone has said that consistency doesn't matter. I think some people are less precious than others about the GM being the sole author of the fiction. Note that all of your poll options presuppose that the GM has absolute ownership of adding things to the fiction and players can only make submissions to them rather than having any authority themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree that they can. But the tenor of the discussion was not 'people can disagree about what's appropriate' but instead 'players just ask for things without considering what's appropriate'.

Also, we're talking about getting shelter for the night, or getting passage on a ship. Hardly game- or continuity-breaking events. It's not clear to me why, if both sides have reasonable positions, it must always be the GM's position that takes precedence.

The importance of the action at the table is less significant than what it represents in game design.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think anyone has said that consistency doesn't matter. I think some people are less precious than others about the GM being the sole author of the fiction. Note that all of your poll options presuppose that the GM has absolute ownership of adding things to the fiction and players can only make submissions to them rather than having any authority themselves.

Because background features are pretty much the only rules widget in 5e where the player can explicitly make a ruling without GM oversight on anything other than direct PC action. That deserves to be called out and discussed.