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

[Hriston]

I am not arguing the extra work it would take (even though for some DMs it might be a lot more than you imply). I stated clearly, the player should ask, especially if it is the DM's world. I am not talking about arriving at Candlekeep or Neverwinter, which already have established lore.

You also mention "established lore at the table" as though that is the litmus test. No offense, but that is a ridiculous notion. There are hundreds of things at a D&D table that the players do not know - are all of those open for the players suggestion, a suggestion I might add, that you think the DM should just go along with.
DM: You are at the river Styx in hell. It won't be long until you are found and killed for sneaking into this plane.
Player: Well, I am going to suggest that I can get passage anywhere where there is a boat. So... we leave.
DM: Sure.
The players do not create the lore in D&D. They interact with the world, and establish lore based on their interactions, not by their suggestions.

Securing passage on a vessel for you and your party is not anything different from interacting with the world.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

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

This is flawed on a deep level. This game is cooperative at it's core. The implied thought patterns here are contrary to that basic principle of D&D. It assumes the DM has an interest in "steamrolling into uselessness" something a player did or wants. It assumes antagonism, something the designers explicitly discourage and the social contract forbids.

I'd argue any situation where this occurs, it's a DM problem and not a rule problem. And asking the designers to design around, what is widely regarded as, very poor DMing strikes me as very strange.

I hope that DM antagonism is something very few players have to worry about.

 

[Hriston]

missing the point by a mile. What are the chances you will know someone in the town when the town you get dropped off in is random?

If it happens to be Barcelona, sure, you know someone. In the other 10000 possible places you know no one however, so what are the chances for a random town?

You're shifting the goal posts. You said it's impossible to know someone in a place to which you've never been. Now you're putting me in a random town. Who said I was in a random town?

 

[Hussar]

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

The solution, of course here, is to always use spells. That's what I've found happens.

 

[Hriston]

Great! but that's if you're in barcelona, what about all the other 99% of times when the adventure doesn't lead you to barcelona? do you have a childhood friend stationed in every single town, city and village across the lands just so the feature works?

No, that's not how the feature works. It doesn't say it creates anything like the fiction you're describing.

 

[mamba]

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

from my understanding they use ‘dysfunctional’ for ‘the people at the table have a different understanding of the situation, so something seems feasible for some, but not others’.

This then gets used to mean that if everyone is understanding the situation the same, then either the player would not ask to use their feature in the first place, with the flip side being that everyone agrees that it does work when the player actually does use it

Funnily enough they just posted exactly that

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.

 

[mamba]

You're shifting the goal posts. You said it's impossible to know someone in a place to which you've never been. Now you're putting me in a random town. Who said I was in a random town?

it was a random town / plane from the very start. The example always was the characters get sucked onto a plane and have no control over it. Ravenloft was the example plane used, but it could really have been any random one

 

[Oofta]

from my understanding they use ‘dysfunctional’ for ‘the people at the table have a different understanding of the situation, so something seems feasible for some, but not others’.

This then gets used to mean that if everyone is understanding the situation the same, then either the player would not ask to use their feature in the first place, with the flip side being that everyone agrees that it does work when the player actually does use it

Funnily enough they just posted exactly that

I think the DM should discuss certain things like how they handle background features during a session 0. As long as you do that, I don't think it's "dysfunctional" in any way.

 

[Hriston]

yes it is nonsensical.

You're saying it's nonsensical to know the messengers in the places where you have them send messages for you? If no one knows any messengers, how does anyone send messages?

There is no difference between knowing them everywhere and knowing them everywhere the character uses the feature.

Of course there is. Those are two entirely different fictions!

For the latter to be true, the former needs to be true, or you are incredibly lucky, neither of which makes sense

I thought we agreed, for the latter to be "true" (i.e. established fiction), everyone at the table has to agree it's "true". The rest is nonsense people made up on the internet to try to win an argument.

yes, seriously, it makes no sense whatsoever

Huh, I thought it was a pretty straightforward/solid reading of the text, but I guess different people have different opinions of what makes sense!

you know them locally, not everywhere throughout the multiverse. That would make sense, but since you insist on ‘everywhere you use the feature’ it is simply utter nonsense

I guess people knowing other people in some places doesn't make sense to you.

cool, so we agree it is a person you already know beforehand, because last time you did not sound like it was.

Ah, that's telling. I was talking about how the feature works at the table in the real world ("Bingo! You know them."), not about fictional causal processes in the game-world (you made connections with certain people/organizations in your past which you use to send messages). Those are two entirely different things. One is real, and the other is imaginary.

So you are telling me from your past as a criminal you know people in every settlement of every world in the multiverse, and they are all part of a multiverse-spanning network that knows your contact and can get messages to them, really? And you are wondering why I say this does not make sense?

What doesn't make sense is why you think I'm telling you that.

You know the local thieves guild in your hometown and maybe a dozen people that can get messages to your contact. That makes sense and is in line with knowing the local messengers, not your ‘wherever you are, that is where you know them’ interpretation

Not "wherever you are", it's wherever you use the feature. Please represent me accurately.

that is not what the text says, it is very much talking about individual people that fall into one of several categories… and how do you recognize a member of that group (and now we are back to ‘recognize’ a person, not ‘know’… that did not last long…)?

Not that you can't know individual people, but, except for you and your contact, the text doesn't mention them. It refers only to the categories: messengers, caravan masters, and sailors. It also mentions criminals as another group. I'm not sure why being able to recognize them is something you're bringing up, but it's fairly easy to explain. You recognize them because you know them.

And that still means there is someone in every town in every world, still complete nonsense, even with that twist of what is written

I don't know what you think means that, but I disagree.

 

[mamba]

You're saying it's nonsensical to know the messengers in the places where you have them send messages for you? If no one knows any messengers, how does anyone send messages?

I said it is nonsensical to know them everywhere, not that it is nonsensical to know any

Of course there is. Those are two entirely different fictions!

not really, and I explained more than once why neither one makes sense

I thought we agreed, for the latter to be "true" (i.e. established fiction), everyone at the table has to agree it's "true".

yes, we agreed that if the table agrees on something, that something is true for the table. That does not really solve anything however, that is just a prerequisite, the real question is whether the table would agree and should agree

I guess people knowing other people in some places doesn't make sense to you.

knowing them in all places does not make sense to me

Ah, that's telling. I was talking about how the feature works at the table in the real world ("Bingo! You know them."), not about fictional causal processes in the game-world

and I disagree with the ‘Bingo, you know them’ approach, it is nonsensical. I want something that makes sense in the world and not get a shoulder shrug when the problem of it making sense in the world is brought up

Not "wherever you are", it's wherever you use the feature.

for all intents and purposes there is no difference between the two, if there is I’d like for you to explain it

Not that you can't know individual people, but, except for you and your contact, the text doesn't mention them. It refers only to the categories: messengers, caravan masters, and sailors.

but it means individual people within these groups, not anyone within them, a different interpretation is yet again nonsensical

I'm not sure why being able to recognize them is something you're bringing up, but it's fairly easy to explain. You recognize them because you know them.

I do not know them and even if I recognize someone as being a sailor, that does not at all mean they can pass on a message to my contact. None of this is an argument, it is all just utter nonsense that defies reality, logic and plain English