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

[mamba]

Did 4e have an SRD?

not one that would be of any value, it's just a collection of names with no description

 

[Lanefan]

What specific wording do you have in mind?

For the backgrounds, changing anywhere it says that NPCs "will" do something to that they "may" do something, to introduce uncertainty and to make it clear this isn't necessarily going to work every time. That change alone gives the DM freedom to deny the feature in nonsensical situations without pushback from the rules.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For the backgrounds, changing anywhere it says that NPCs "will" do something to that they "may" do something, to introduce uncertainty and to make it clear this isn't necessarily going to work every time. That change alone gives the DM freedom to deny the feature in nonsensical situations without pushback from the rules.

Why would anyone take a background the DM can just steamroll into uselessness instead of one that just gives them better numbers then?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Even an evergreen sheds its needles and grows new ones over time.

If-when we do ever get a true 6e my speculation is that it will a) be a huge departure* from 5e and b) will be sold side-along with continuing 5e rather than being an attempt at outright replacement.

* - what design/philosophy/style direction that departure takes is a very open question - could be anything.

The only reason that I disagree with your assertion here is that... it's too good an idea.

They'd never come up with it. And if they did, they'd almost certainly screw it up.

 

[Oofta]

For the backgrounds, changing anywhere it says that NPCs "will" do something to that they "may" do something, to introduce uncertainty and to make it clear this isn't necessarily going to work every time. That change alone gives the DM freedom to deny the feature in nonsensical situations without pushback from the rules.

I would make it clear when explaining backgrounds that the features are just examples of how the background might be useful. The example may not always apply, but there may be other options at the DM's discretion.

 

[Hriston]

I said I agree with what you wrote, not sure what is unclear about it

The way you paraphrased what I described the table agreeing on in my post as "there is no problem" leaves it unclear whether you're actually agreeing with (or understanding) what I said.

the conditions being that everyone at the table agrees?

Specifically, that they agree "the means stated by the player of the criminal PC to get messages to and from their contact are supported by the fiction and don't violate the game's genre conventions". Is that what you mean by "there is no problem"?

yes, in that case there is no problem. The problem is that none of what is being discussed here meets that premise, if everyone at the table were in agreement, then there would be no argument over how the feature worked...

And yet I've been told the features themselves are the problem, that the features even "working" is "illogical"! But here we see they're only a problem in the context of a dysfunctional game.

I guess, but that is really not helping your case, the discussion will only ever happen if there is a disagreement, so I am not sure where you are going with any of this

Where I'm going is the pages of criticism of the features posited on the premise of dysfunctional gameplay are completely invalid. It's what I've been saying since this nonsense started.

The rest is just various 'it's unclear', 'that is not how I understood it', and 'I need as specific example to even discuss this', so I guess there is nothing to add

Okay.

 

[Hriston]

They're not.

Establishing something at the table can be done through out-of-character discussion that might not even take place during a session. For example, getting together with the player of a sailor-background character at the pub during the week and sorting out where-when she did her sailing etc. and maybe even who some of her captains were establishes those things when brought to the table next session; and yet no actual play was involved.

Okay, I see your point. I was more taking "at the table" to mean, well, at the table, i.e. during a session of gameplay, and that the establishment of fiction at the table is part of gameplay, so that when, in your example, the fiction that was made up at the pub is brought to the table and established, the game is being played at that point in time. But I do concede that out of game discussion can be useful to get everyone on the same page about what fiction is to be considered established so that play can proceed accordingly.

 

[mamba]

And yet I've been told the features themselves are the problem, that the features even "working" is "illogical"! But here we see they're only a problem in the context of a dysfunctional game.

them always working everywhere is illogical, that does not mean a table cannot agree to ignore that… I do not see one as dysfunctional and the other as not, if anything everyone agreeing with nonsense might be dysfunctional

Where I'm going is the pages of criticism of the features posited on the premise of dysfunctional gameplay are completely invalid.

you are the only one talking about dysfunctional gameplay, and to me nothing that is being discussed here is about that at all, it is about what interpretation of the feature makes (more) sense. People can agree on utter nonsense or disagree over straightforward logical conclusions, so dysfunction is orthogonal to this

 

[Oofta]

them always working everywhere is illogical, that does not mean a table cannot agree to ignore that… I do not see one as dysfunctional and the other as not, if anything everyone agreeing with nonsense might be dysfunctional


you are the only one talking about dysfunctional gameplay, and to me nothing that is being discussed here is about that at all, it is about what interpretation of the feature makes (more) sense. People can agree on utter nonsense or disagree over straightforward logical conclusions, so dysfunction is orthogonal to this

Seems like "dysfunctional" in this case really means "not the way I prefer".

 

[Hriston]

Might be miscommunication, but your player question is still the same. Perhaps the DM is suggesting the player does not know about this port. That is half the adventure for some tables, exploring the port they do not know. If you are suggesting the player already knows the port, then I assume the DM gave them that information ahead of time, such as, you know all the ports on the East Coast or, you know all the major ports on the Sword Coast.

I don't know what you mean by "player question". This exchange between you and I started because of an example I gave of a player using the feature, meaning the player is suggesting they already "know the port" in whatever way that's meaningful for use of the feature. If the DM had told the player they were in a port where their feature is being removed from play because of XYZ reason, the player would not then be using the feature in the first place. There seems to be an assumption that, by using their feature, the player is going off half-cocked and stating things over which they have no authority, and if that's the case, it's a table-problem, not a feature-problem.

I am not disparaging any playstyle here. I stated earlier (several times), that if the DM is just going to use improvisation to create their world, then there is never a reason to say no to a player that wants to use their background feature.

I don't think that's necessarily true, in the sense of the feature being removed from play I described above. In a game where the DM hasn't prepped reasons to remove the feature from play, the feature could still be removed as a result of a failed check of some kind.