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

[UngeheuerLich]

What extra work does he have to do?

Depends. If the adventure gets sidetracked too much, that can result in extra preperation work.

For example, an audience with the evil king needs to be prepared or the king is dead faster than you can say "kneel".

 

[soviet]

Depends. If the adventure gets sidetracked too much, that can result in extra preperation work.

So it's about disrupting your railroad?

 

[soviet]

The port they might be in is very small, one boat a week.

OK, so the characters have to wait for up to a week. Seems fine?

The last twenty ships that docked there might be nothing but lizard folk sailors peddling their swamp jewelry.

Sounds like an opportunity to make some interesting new friends, and potentially get embroiled in some lizardmen-related adventures.

Maybe the port has been blocked for a month due to political tension.

OK. So does anyone intend to test this blockade? Or try to sneak round it?

Maybe the port had a natural catastrophe, so the sailors you often associate that make the long journey over here, have not come for years. because it wasn't profitable.

Is there a way to make it profitable? A way to resolve the damage the catastrophe caused?

Ultimately if there are no sailors at all, or the water all dried up, or everyone died, I guess that's a good enough reason to say no sailing trips.

Maybe in this port, the navy has considered your native port vessels as pirates.

Sounds like a good adventure?

The list goes on and on. That is my point.
I am fine with the DM saying sure, we can make room for your background feature. But it is a two-way street, the player needs to make room for the DM's knowledge, which they might not be privy to.

It seems to me that most of these 'reasons to say no' are actually opportunities for fun new adventures in disguise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So it's about disrupting your railroad?

So now we are going to ad hominems?

 

[soviet]

So now we are going to ad hominems?

It was a cheap shot. Apologies.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you're missing my point. The kind of mundane details that support the use of background features don't need to be prepped by DMs. If I'm playing a sailor, and it's established the party's in a port and needs to get somewhere by boat, I ought to be able to say, "I spend some time on the docks asking around for Moss, my former crewmate, whom I've heard now captains the Comox which frequently lies at anchor in this harbor, so I can secure free passage to our destination aboard that ship for me and the rest of the party."

What extra work would a DM have to do in response to such an action declaration?

None, if the party are in a familiar port or a port where the Comox is known to go.

Quite a lot if the party are somewhere far removed from the Comox's usual trading routes and-or on a different ocean (or different world).

In my own setting, for example, most of the adventuring takes place around a big inland sea - think the Mediterranean only running roughly north-south lengthwise instead of east-west - and were the Comox usually sailing that sea then sure, asking about her or her captain in almost any major port on that sea's shore has a good chance of getting some answers.

But if you travel overland south of that inland seas and get to the sea beyond that, asking about the Comox will get you nothing but blank stares; a vague real-world geographical equivalent would be asking about a Mediterranean trader while standing in Tokyo, or Vancouver. And were the Comox in fact going to the South Sea and back, then the "frequently anchors here" piece gets blown up as such a journey would take months each way.

 

[soviet]

None, if the party are in a familiar port or a port where the Comox is known to go.

Quite a lot if the party are somewhere far removed from the Comox's usual trading routes and-or on a different ocean (or different world).

In my own setting, for example, most of the adventuring takes place around a big inland sea - think the Mediterranean only running roughly north-south lengthwise instead of east-west - and were the Comox usually sailing that sea then sure, asking about her or her captain in almost any major port on that sea's shore has a good chance of getting some answers.

But if you travel overland south of that inland seas and get to the sea beyond that, asking about the Comox will get you nothing but blank stares; a vague real-world geographical equivalent would be asking about a Mediterranean trader while standing in Tokyo, or Vancouver. And were the Comox in fact going to the South Sea and back, then the "frequently anchors here" piece gets blown up as such a journey would take months each way.

But hasn't the player just made up the Comox? And has said it anchors at this harbour?

 

[tetrasodium]

But hasn't the player just made up the Comox? And has said it anchors at this harbour?

You just admitted that the player is quite literally cheating & cloaking it in "backstory" at a game where nobody wins.

Spoiler: relevant & timestamp'd video

10:54The last step to make sure that your backstory is not just this oh we need somebody has rope use-- well in my backstory that I'm just busy adding in now I could use rope because my family was in a circus and I used to tie the ropes

that to me is not good back storying **that to me is someone who's cheating to try and win in a game that you can't win in.

 

[mamba]

But hasn't the player just made up the Comox? And has said it anchors at this harbour?

probably, I do not see how that makes it any better however

 

[Oofta]

But hasn't the player just made up the Comox? And has said it anchors at this harbour?

Sounds like you want to play a narrative game. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the default for D&D and I wouldn't want it to be for several reasons. Good news is there's plenty of games out there that do use that concept and if you like the style I'm sure it's great. You're just never going to convince me that it's better, because it's a preference.