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

[Clint_L]

I have a theory about the game and DM enjoyment. Well when it’s my turn anyway.

I want to know the parts and systems but I like not knowing everything. I have a patron and a world shaped by a cataclysm.

I don’t actually know all the “whys” and it keeps me interested in my own creation.

As things progress I will “learn” more of the whys but not being open to discovery as a dm is not as fun.

I think the chaos serpent was defeated for a time by the world shaping cataclysm, but I am not sure and I like that.

In a more day to day adventuring level, I like that some emergent things become more and I did not plan or expect it! Fun for all…

At my games, I run the world and keep an eye on the overarching story. But the players are free to add details, and sometimes the story turns out to be emergent, due to player choices. My home campaign just finished off a six game arc driven entirely by the ramifications of a single choice the players made about how to deal with a hag (they wound up helping the hag reunite with her sisters in a quid pro quo arrangement that spanned several continents). None of that was pre-planned, but once the players made that initial choice we wrapped up the session so I had time to come up the resultant options.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Random scenes with NPCs that originate with the players making unexpected choices are the best. Those are often the highlights of game, and sometimes spawn completely unexpected story arcs. As a DM, I love them - I love when I don't know exactly where the story is going.

In one of my games at school, a player had her character walk into a pirate tavern looking for directions, decided that she saw her long lost sister sitting in the corner, and the story took a huge swerve. It was great!

Certainly if a player were to try to book passage on a ship, using their background or not, I'd say a few lines about the ship, its crew, the docks, and the basics of the discussion. I may or may not speak in first (though probably third) person, I may or may not give the captain (or whoever) or the ship a name (I probably would, though I might not remember it later if no one writes it down) but I absolutely would give the whole thing some sort of story. Exactly how much would depend on the Player asking, the table's mood, and whether we need to push on or have time for some fluff.

What I wouldn't be doing, whether I asked for a check or not, is @Hussar's idea of "screwing the player" nor would I feel like it's a "waste of time". Nor would I hope that any of the players would feel that way.

The ship and the NPCs involved absolutely might wind up important later on. Who knows?

 

[Faolyn]

You may want to read what I said again.

I said RP didn't change the outcome and was not at all required, adding RP does not change the outcome. I did go on to say that if a group doesn't care about RP the feature still works.

Nothing in the feature mentions RP, checks, or even restrictions of any kind. But yes, following the letter of the rules you could RP a hungry chimp and it would still work.

So in other words, you have no problem being derisive of my preferred style ("hungry chimp").

 

[Oofta]

So in other words, you have no problem being derisive of my preferred style ("hungry chimp").

You have quite the gift for misrepresenting a response. Have fun with that.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't care what your style of play is, nor did I comment on it in any way. People should run the game in whatever manner works for them. What I was responding to was your statement that RP is required or necessary for the background feature to work. It's not. I honestly don't know how you could have taken a phrase out of context and somehow turned it into anything to do with how you play.

 

[James Gasik]

Weird. I meant to quote @Hussar, and thought that I had. The strangest part, is that I even looked at his specific wording when writing that reply. If I was somehow quoting you, how did I even do that?

Strange things are afoot at Enworld today!

 

[Hriston]

how much you play this out is up to the table, but since this isn’t the contact from your background, at least the part that establishes a new contact will need something more than just a declaration

I think you might have meant this in response to a different post because my post that you quoted is at the end of an exchange between @Lanefan, @Oofta, and myself which began with @Oofta saying the background features for the Folk Hero and Sailor don't even require that the PC speaks with an NPC to obtain the benefits of the feature. So I don't know who you're saying "isn't the contact from your background" or what "the part that establishes a new contact" is.

 

[mamba]

I think you might have meant this in response to a different post because my post that you quoted is at the end of an exchange between @Lanefan, @Oofta, and myself which began with @Oofta saying the background features for the Folk Hero and Sailor don't even require that the PC speaks with an NPC to obtain the benefits of the feature. So I don't know who you're saying "isn't the contact from your background" or what "the part that establishes a new contact" is.

yep, doesn't fit here, must have replied to the wrong thing.

The context was that since you have no messengers in Ravenloft that can get a message to your contact, you will need to establish new contacts within Ravenloft, and that you would have to play out as you could not fall back on your feature for it.

 

[Hriston]

2) pretty much does follow, at least the chance is so slim as to be negligible, so if you want the featrure to rely on that miniscule chance, I very much disagree with that idea

"pretty much"

That doesn't mean it follows. I've never been to Spain, but I know someone who lives in Barcelona. That's a fact.

 

[mamba]

"pretty much"

That doesn't mean it follows. I've never been to Spain, but I know someone who lives in Barcelona. That's a fact.

No, it doesn’t follow, but it means it is highly unlikely for you to have a messenger there. Would you be ok with rolling 3d100 and if every one comes up 00, you have a messenger?

Even in today’s world the chances of you knowing someone in a random town you get dropped off in are pretty slim, so…

 

[Faolyn]

You have quite the gift for misrepresenting a response. Have fun with that.

EDIT: to be clear, I don't care what your style of play is, nor did I comment on it in any way. People should run the game in whatever manner works for them. What I was responding to was your statement that RP is required or necessary for the background feature to work. It's not. I honestly don't know how you could have taken a phrase out of context and somehow turned it into anything to do with how you play.

First, please point out where I said that roleplaying (or rolls) are necessary or required by RAW or RAI. Anywhere at all in this entire thread. Go ahead.

What I have said is that they are good for roleplaying, that rolls can be used with them (since some people dislike them being automatically successful), that I would use them in this way at my table. You, however, jumped onto this part of the thread just to tell me that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong--and again, I must point out the hypocrisy here for calling me a rules lawyer because I would allow the feature to work in the first place, yet also saying that it's just "unnecessary fluff" if I ask for the players to RP it.