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

[Hriston]

I was thinking about something possibly related to this. I assume folk agree that Background Features are game mechanics. If so, then it's in the nature of game mechanics to apply in moment-to-moment play. Picture by analogy if I had to tell you what squares I intended my Rook to occupy during the game of Chess we're about to start! There's no game text that requires players to lock in Rome or Barcelona, or even European cities, during chargen.

However, the exercise of rules is done following principles. To extend my analogy, in playing Chess when I move my Rook I ought to be doing so in accord with an intent to win. (There are exceptions, but I believe "play to win" is the norm.) Given how essential fiction is to TTRPG, a group could have in mind that the use of all rules is constrained by it. That would mean that game mechanics ought to be employed in ways that both fit with their established fiction and develop it according to the norms they have in place.

Which supports both sides of the argument. As a game mechanic, Criminal Contact should be able to say which cities it counts in during play... the're no text locking that only to chargen. As a game mechanic, I ought to be able to use it in a location that comes up in play, even if I didn't say I was going to use it in that place when I rolled my character.

And groups could still justifiably - by their lights - constrain it by their fiction. They could say that "great distances" is not the same as "vast" or "interplanar" distances. They could say that in their fiction there are places lacking "local messengers", "caravan masters" (corrupt or otherwise) and "sailors" (of any disposition).

I agree with all of this. One way it might be related to what I wrote is constraining the rule might be seen as a way of constraining the potential fiction.

 

[mamba]

So do I, and in my experience, so does the player. That you, apparently, can't think of a better explanation for the PC knowing the local messengers than they know them wherever they are or a one in a million chance isn't a problem with the feature.

are you saying it is a problem with my imagination? The problem with the feature is that it is written poorly and its poor phrasing allows you to use it as justification for something working that to me is clearly nonsensical. That is the problem with the feature.

Remember, the group has agreed to imagine this fiction together. They're not going to create fiction that defies genre or their sense of believability.

so does that mean that either the whole group agrees that they are in a location where using the feature makes sense or the whole group agrees that they are not in such a place, there is never any disagreement about this? Because that sounds rather naive…

Why doesn't it make sense to know someone where you are? Do you not know anyone where you are?

the characters got sucked onto a random world, remember that part? Now you tell me whether in that scenario it makes sense to know someone…

Yes, of course, and that would include some places where the player doesn't use the feature.

‘include some places’? So you are saying I could find myself in a place where I do not know anyone, but I could still use the feature?

It's also a strawman.

then you did an awful job of describing a better explantation, because that legitimately is the only one I got from you…

I would summarize your statements so far as ‘ignore the odds or reasons, it just works. I have no idea why or how, but why look a gift horse in its mouth. Let’s run with it and not think about how this is even possible’, that and that the table magically always agrees on when this is sufficiently feasible and no one would use their feature otherwise

 

[mamba]

The 2014 background features were never a problem until someone criticized the new books for not including them. Then, all of a sudden, there were "reasons" they were bad and had to go.

they were bad before, but I grant you that the 2024 changes are the reason why we are discussing this now

 

[Oofta]

they were bad before, but I grant you that the 2024 changes are the reason why we are discussing this now

I never implemented some of the features exactly as written, they were always problematic. I'd be surprised if we didn't discuss it at some point or another where people just explained what they did and we moved on.

 

[James Gasik]

The 2014 background features were never a problem until someone criticized the new books for not including them. Then, all of a sudden, there were "reasons" they were bad and had to go.

Somewhere in the dark recesses of this forum, I have a post from years ago where I gave my example of not being able to use my Noble background the one time it came up in an adventure because the DM reasoned the local lord would have no idea who I was (repeated earlier in this thread).

Players have been griping about Background Features being pretty much ribbons for quite some time. Which is what I assumed Crawford meant when he said Backgrounds needed more meat.

 

[James Gasik]

That's probably a pretty common summary even for newer players/gms. I can only guess, but think that @Lanefan might have been knocking the near fetishization in recent years when it comes to reflexively jumping from "x can be a problem" to declaring that it can't be a problem because the GM & GM alone is responsible for covering that in session zero.

Personally I've tried running what was explicitly called "session zero" because I was tired of hearing a couple players grumble "well that [unforeseen edge case☆ that needs a ruling bob doesn't like] should have been covered in a session zero". Made a big deal about it & how the players should bring up anything they feel is important to clear up before we start another campaign. Unsurprisingly the grumblers had nothing to bring up.

☆One example was that after selling multiple looted fire resist items in earlier levels the players (led by Bob) decided that they were going to refuse to fight the dragon they had known about as a problem for months of lower level real world weekly sessions unless they took the time to make fire resist items. The fastest way to obtain the needed components from elementals was to attack a nature shrine/temple type thing & kill the elementals. Players were outraged that immediately taking a long rest in the desecrated temple resulted in a plague of stinging/biting insects that prevented a successful long rest the whole way back to town and that was never covered in session zero.

Boy is that one of my biggest pet peeves. I seed loot with important items that I know the players will need for an upcoming fight, and if they didn't forget they existed, then they are like "oh I sold that".

/facepalm

 

[tetrasodium]

Boy is that one of my biggest pet peeves. I seed loot with important items that I know the players will need for an upcoming fight, and if they didn't forget they existed, then they are like "oh I sold that".

/facepalm

Yea... Every time they did it I would load up the world map & remind them of the dragon of desolation a few hexes away only to have them scoff because it was one point lower in ac or whatever . They were outraged I "didn't tell [them they] would need to fight the dragon of desolation if it woke up"

 

[James Gasik]

Yea... Every time they did it I would load up the world map & remind them of the dragon of desolation a few hexes away only to have them scoff because it was one point lower in ac or whatever . They were outraged I "didn't tell [them they] would need to fight the dragon of desolation if it woke up"

Yeah, been there, as I said. The last time was in a Pathfinder 1e game where the players would eventually fight a black dragon. I knew this, and had them find scrolls of protection from elements and potions of acid resistance, and I think a shield that granted acid resist.

I then let them do some shopping.

Come the big fight. Nobody has acid resist. "Man, James, you should warn people before they have to fight a dragon, that fight was really hard!"

Me: "What happened to the potions?"

"What potions?"

Brings up the treasure list. Me: "These potions!"

"Oh, I didn't remember having those."

Me: "Ok, what about the shield?"

"Oh I sold that to get a +2 shield, gave me better AC."

Me: "[REDACTED]. You guys [REDACTED]."

 

[Hriston]

that sounds like both you saying it is nonsensical that it works when the characters wants it to and at the same time saying that it will happen then… I agree with it being nonsensical, I disagree with just looking the other way so I do not notice that, which seems to be what you want to do…

No, sorry if I wasn't being clear, but that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is nonsensical is the fiction that the PC knows someone in every possible place or, coincidentally, in every place they visit which you extrapolate from the, to my mind, sensible fiction that the PC knows someone in the places the player says they do. There really isn't a good reason, IMO, to make that extrapolation, and I don't believe not making it is "looking the other way".

why is this limited to the player recognizing it. Either it is appropriate or it is not, it would be great if the player recognized it, but it is not required for it to be inappropriate

If the player doesn't recognize it as inappropriate to say their PC knows someone (but other participants do), then there isn't a consensus about what constitutes appropriate behavior at this table with regard to saying your PC knows someone, and an out of game conversation needs to take place before play can resume.

 

[Lanefan]

Boy is that one of my biggest pet peeves. I seed loot with important items that I know the players will need for an upcoming fight, and if they didn't forget they existed, then they are like "oh I sold that".

/facepalm

Ayup. Been there, seen (and done!) that.

Parties sometimes sell off the darndest things.