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

[Lanefan]

What this tells me is that we should never, ever sit at the same table.

What I'm hearing is you deliberately ignored the wishes of all the other players at the table who had no interest in your side bar, to the point where you had to "stealth" away from the party and then justify it because your DM panders to this sort of thing by giving you benefits for doing it.

"If it's what the character would do..." shall be the whole of the law. I'm fine with what @Faolyn did here.

As a player at that table, I'd resent every single second that you spent on your sidebar. If it became a habit, I would quit the group. The fact that you care so little about what anyone else thinks is fun, in order to make your own fun the highest priority is the last thing I want from a fellow player.

And at some other time it'd likely be you doing your own thing while others stood by. It IME tends to largely even out in the long run...provided players want to have their characters engage with the setting beyond just the adventures it provides, something I take as both expected and a given.

As a DM, my reaction would be, "Ok, you talk to the fortune teller. We'll deal with that over email (or whatever format you care for) during the week between sessions. I would then deliberately turn away from you to the rest of the group and I would not come back to you until after they had dealt with the temple.

Leading to the following completely unacceptable sequence:

During session 1:
Faochar*: takes off to visit the fortune teller
DM: puts that on hold, session continues otherwise (Faochar is absent from the party for a while, then returns) and things progress.

During the week:
DM and Faochar exchange a series of in-character emails during which Faochar learns some vital info from the fortune teller that, had she been able to report it to the rest of the party when she returned during the previous session, would 99.9% certainly have significantly changed how things proceeded afterwards.

Start of session 2:
DM and-or Faochar: Um, sorry guys, but we have to retcon everything that happened last session after Faochar came back from the fortune teller.....

Nope. Infinitely better that Faochar's visit be dealt with when it happens, to preserve in-game sequentiality and avoid retcons.

* - "Faolyn's character".

 

[Lanefan]

Exactly my point. They don't stop working.

They don't stop working, but they (should) become less reliable and-or less frequently usable as you get farther in time and distance from your roots.

Well, there's assumption number 2: That everyone is (only/mostly) using pre-written adventures.

Not so much an assumption; I just needed a common-denominator example.

And it's not just 5e adventures. The high-level adventures for BX and 1e pull you on to different planes and worlds, or send you (most likely) far from home.

And isn't it right there in the tier descriptions (in 4e or 5e, can't remember) that at the higher tiers you're expected to be taking on interplanar challenges and so forth?

I tried to run CoS (except I had to do so many rewrites to make it halfway interesting), which takes place entirely within a smallish geographic location. I also had the PCs be natives to Ravenloft.

That you made the PCs native to Ravenloft makes you, I think, a real outlier. Isn't much of the poitn of that module the whole strangers-in-a-strange-land piece?

"When you assume..."

Sure, many games have the PCs go far afield. Maybe even a majority of them. But it's still ignoring those games who don't. How many tables do games that take place entirely within a city or kingdom, because they're not about dungeon-crawling?

Unless it's a pretty short campaign, staying in the same city or kingdom for the whole thing would be, I think, unusual. The moment you start doing site-based adventures (whether dungeon-crawls or other types) the PCs are going to be travelling; even more so if those adventures are tied to specific settings e.g. desert, arctic, jungle, etc.

 

[Oofta]

Exactly my point. They don't stop working.

They don't stop working, they may no longer apply or grant any meaningful benefit. If the mid-to-high-level party is back in their hometown that they saved from the invading dragons, it doesn't matter if you have a noble in the group. You can likely get an invite to see the local high pumbah.

(And I'd say that 1st-level spells do get used a lot, because some DMs believe that if you have to have the PCs use all or almost all of their resources each adventuring day, and that would include those first-level slots.)


Well, there's assumption number 2: That everyone is (only/mostly) using pre-written adventures.

I tried to run CoS (except I had to do so many rewrites to make it halfway interesting), which takes place entirely within a smallish geographic location. I also had the PCs be natives to Ravenloft. I am currently in an Icewind Dale game, which thus far also has taken place in a smallish geographic location (no spoilers, please!). Yes, I know that there are other adventures that are long-distance travel and plane-hopping, but, well, the vast majority of D&D games I've played in have not been pre-written. One of the only D&D games that I've been in that actually concluded was 100% homebrew. I'm currently in a D&D game that's Forgotten Realms In Name Only and is a completely homebrew adventure.

I always run a homebrew campaign (unless I go back to DMing for AL), but it just seems natural that at a certain point the PCs travel far and wide. They come back home as well, but as I said above at a certain point the background feature matters less than the reputation of the group. For good or ill. If the group has stood up to the criminal element of the city and thwarted their plans time and again, any good will or favors the PC with a criminal background were burned long ago.

"When you assume..."

Sure, many games have the PCs go far afield. Maybe even a majority of them. But it's still ignoring those games who don't. How many tables do games that take place entirely within a city or kingdom, because they're not about dungeon-crawling?

I never do dungeons per se. Occasionally the adventure takes them to ruins or uninhabited areas but the vast majority of my campaigns are urban. But the Tiers of Play section in the DMG does assume your sphere of influence broadens widely. Although I admit I never do world-ending cataclysms simply because I never assume the PCs are going to succeed and I don't want to create a new world from scratch.

But as I said above the important thing is that after a certain point, the reputation of the group and what the PCs have done overshadows their background.

 

[Maxperson]

Best short version I've seen is 5.24.

They could use 5.5e

 

[FitzTheRuke]

They could use 5.5e

PPPppbbpbpbpthhhhhhhtt.

 

[Hussar]

I was thinking the exact same thing. There might be a common denominator why groups @Hussar plays in so often wish not to continue the campaign...

EDIT: That came off as incredibly harsh, but if the participants (even completely legitimately) constantly complain or otherwise express that they are not enjoying the campaign, that will diminish the fun of the other participants, which in turn makes them less eager to continue.

It's okay. I'm not offended. I see where the misunderstanding lies.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You think that I started this way and I'm the one being the problem player. I can see why you'd think that. But, that's not the case here. This is the position I've ended up with after YEARS of endlessly watching campaign after campaign go up in smoke and never coming to resolution.

IME, a campaign has about 6-12 months of half-life. From the time of Session 0 to that campaign ending, we've got maybe, if we're lucky, 50 sessions. Why do the campaigns end? Mostly real life stuff. People get jobs, kids, lose jobs, move, get posted, get paroled, go off to school, whatever. A year is a long time and people's lives change. Which means that there is always a ticking clock the second you start a campaign.

It's not that I'm against the sidebar stuff per se. If there wasn't this countdown clock, they'd be fine. Because, well, who cares right? We've got all the time in the world, so, let's really sit back and enjoy the ride. Great. Fantastic.

But, that's not realistic for me. For those of you who have stable lives and groups that can play year after year and not see the campaign fizzle? Great. I'm happy for you. But that isn't me. And I suspect there is a significant percentage of the fandom that are in the same boat as me. But, all the advice that gets dispensed is "oh, you should enjoy the journey" or "if you don't cater to every little thing, you hate role playing" or "you're a bad player for feeling this way". Not because I'm a bad player but because I cannot play the way you folks do. It's literally impossible because of that ticking clock.

So, my advice for speeding the game up, skipping the sidebars, skipping the stuff that isn't all that central to the campaign, isn't for you. You don't need that advice because it's not helpful to you. No, my advice is to those DM's who, like me, know that there is a ticking clock on the campaign. If I spend too much time on X, I will not have time for Y. Something has to be cut, not because it's not fun. Not because it's anything. But, because we simply do not have time for it.

It's like making a movie. No matter what, something is going to end up on the cutting room floor because a movie has a fixed run time. Doesn't matter how great this scene is. Doesn't matter how fun it is. None of that matters because of that great ticking clock.

I am in absolute awe of @MerricB. He recently posted a thread about how his group did the entire Shattered Obelisk adventure in like 10 or 11 sessions. :wow: You can't do that if you have a bunch of sidebar stuff. There just isn't time. As a DM, my personal compromise here is doing stuff between sessions on the game's forum. Do some play by post stuff between sessions to do deep dives into personal sidebars. Got zero problems with that. Love that actually. Doesn't run down the Doomsday Clock and allows for all sorts of the really fun character growth stuff.

But, in game? During session? Sorry, but, no. We just ain't got the time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's okay. I'm not offended. I see where the misunderstanding lies.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You think that I started this way and I'm the one being the problem player. I can see why you'd think that. But, that's not the case here. This is the position I've ended up with after YEARS of endlessly watching campaign after campaign go up in smoke and never coming to resolution.

IME, a campaign has about 6-12 months of half-life. From the time of Session 0 to that campaign ending, we've got maybe, if we're lucky, 50 sessions. Why do the campaigns end? Mostly real life stuff. People get jobs, kids, lose jobs, move, get posted, get paroled, go off to school, whatever. A year is a long time and people's lives change. Which means that there is always a ticking clock the second you start a campaign.

It's not that I'm against the sidebar stuff per se. If there wasn't this countdown clock, they'd be fine. Because, well, who cares right? We've got all the time in the world, so, let's really sit back and enjoy the ride. Great. Fantastic.

But, that's not realistic for me. For those of you who have stable lives and groups that can play year after year and not see the campaign fizzle? Great. I'm happy for you. But that isn't me. And I suspect there is a significant percentage of the fandom that are in the same boat as me. But, all the advice that gets dispensed is "oh, you should enjoy the journey" or "if you don't cater to every little thing, you hate role playing" or "you're a bad player for feeling this way". Not because I'm a bad player but because I cannot play the way you folks do. It's literally impossible because of that ticking clock.

So, my advice for speeding the game up, skipping the sidebars, skipping the stuff that isn't all that central to the campaign, isn't for you. You don't need that advice because it's not helpful to you. No, my advice is to those DM's who, like me, know that there is a ticking clock on the campaign. If I spend too much time on X, I will not have time for Y. Something has to be cut, not because it's not fun. Not because it's anything. But, because we simply do not have time for it.

It's like making a movie. No matter what, something is going to end up on the cutting room floor because a movie has a fixed run time. Doesn't matter how great this scene is. Doesn't matter how fun it is. None of that matters because of that great ticking clock.

I am in absolute awe of @MerricB. He recently posted a thread about how his group did the entire Shattered Obelisk adventure in like 10 or 11 sessions. :wow: You can't do that if you have a bunch of sidebar stuff. There just isn't time. As a DM, my personal compromise here is doing stuff between sessions on the game's forum. Do some play by post stuff between sessions to do deep dives into personal sidebars. Got zero problems with that. Love that actually. Doesn't run down the Doomsday Clock and allows for all sorts of the really fun character growth stuff.

But, in game? During session? Sorry, but, no. We just ain't got the time.

In fact, I have a good example of a situation in which I ABSOLUTELY experience the same sort of thing that you've been talking about - here on ENWorld, when I run or play Play By Post games!

PBP games take forever to get anywhere. We are lucky to complete a single round of combat once a WEEK. On top of that, it is extremely common for players to ghost me. I've sometimes worried that they've died (I'm not kidding) because I often don't get any sort of "goodbye" when they leave the game. Every Single Game that I've been in as a player has not finished. I've only completed one game myself, and I've had two fizzle out, while I have (five, I think?) that are plodding along at a snail's pace.

Now, I LOVE IT anyhow, (it's not for everyone) but if I look at the part that can be disappointing, it's very similar to what you're talking about, but with F2F games. At least you've got a solution - a way to handle it - I just basically keep plodding along, hoping that it won't get any worse. I still enjoy it though, most of the time.

 

[Hussar]

Now, I LOVE IT anyhow, (it's not for everyone) but if I look at the part that can be disappointing, it's very similar to what you're talking about, but with F2F games. At least you've got a solution - a way to handle it - I just basically keep plodding along, hoping that it won't get any worse. I still enjoy it though, most of the time.

Heh. I did try play by post way back when. And, yup, what you're saying here is exactly why I stopped. I just couldn't do it anymore. I tried a few times, and I do actually really love playing in a written format where you have time to really express the character of your character which I honestly find harder (and more embarrassing) to do in a face to face game. Not impossible mind you. I loves me the amateur thespianism of RPG's. It's just something I get really challenged by (and I enjoy that challenge).

But, yeah, watching PbP games go absolutely nowhere for months at a time, and then falling apart because of people just ghosting the game meant that I just couldn't do it anymore.

 

[Maxperson]

In fact, I have a good example of a situation in which I ABSOLUTELY experience the same sort of thing that you've been talking about - here on ENWorld, when I run or play Play By Post games!

PBP games take forever to get anywhere. We are lucky to complete a single round of combat once a WEEK. On top of that, it is extremely common for players to ghost me. I've sometimes worried that they've died (I'm not kidding) because I often don't get any sort of "goodbye" when they leave the game. Every Single Game that I've been in as a player has not finished. I've only completed one game myself, and I've had two fizzle out, while I have (five, I think?) that are plodding along at a snail's pace.

Now, I LOVE IT anyhow, (it's not for everyone) but if I look at the part that can be disappointing, it's very similar to what you're talking about, but with F2F games. At least you've got a solution - a way to handle it - I just basically keep plodding along, hoping that it won't get any worse. I still enjoy it though, most of the time.

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison. There's a world of difference between play by post which takes weeks to accomplish what can be done in 5-20 minutes in a sit down game, and a 5-20 minute sidebar. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't do sidebars that last longer than a few minutes out of respect for the other players, but they still aren't the same as a play by post game. The time frame differences are just too dissimilar.

 

[Hriston]

We're cool on this, then.

Alright, now we're getting somewhere!

We're not cool on this. As written (as opposed to as - it seems - usually played) I think they already go too far in guaranteeing the outcome, leading to reasonable (and unmet) player-side expectations that the outcome will be X when the fiction suggests it should be Y.

Umm, go back and re-read what we just agreed on. The features are written with that in mind, so there shouldn't be the kind of mismatch in expectations you describe. My point was that having a more predictable outcome which is less subject to DM judgment encourages the player to actually use the feature.

So? I've no problem with "gotcha", and if something doesn't work when it in theory should (or the reverse) there's always going to be a reason for it; and if they notice things seem 'off' it's on them to either figure out what's going on or shrug and ignore it.

When telegraphing makes sense in the fiction, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'm not going to hold their hands.

It seems like the PCs noticing something seems off would be the result of the DM telegraphing that. If the players ignore your telegraphing, that's on them, but if they're making blind choices, that's on the DM for not providing an informed decision space.