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

[Faolyn]

and you considered it the least important part because what mattered was to get the message to the contact, no matter how.

So how is the PC not finding the messenger or the messenger refusing not an issue then? Do they try again until they succeed? Then why even bother with letting them fail once if you ultimately guarantee delivery anyway and all that changes is the number of hoops they had to jump through…

At this point I have to assume you never actually read anything I wrote, because I've addressed this.

I am not taking away player agency by point-blank saying they can't try to roll to find a messenger. That's what you are doing by flat-out saying the ability doesn't work.

If they roll for it (or roleplay it out) and fail, then it's no different than if they roll to pick a lock a fail--they can't try again right then and there.

Maybe they can try again tomorrow: "Sorry, you don't see anyone in the bar with a tattoo that indicates an association with the Guild Of Thieves, Lowlifes, and Affiliated Scum. You can try again tomorrow night."

Maybe they can't try again in this area: "You've learned that the guards are really cracking down on crime in this town. All those gibbets hanging from the town walls you saw when you came in? Yeah. Anyone in this town who could have passed your message along has fled or is lying low. You can try to find a messenger in the next town."

Or maybe they actually can try again right away, but only if they figure out a completely different approach: "Based on your rolls and your painstaking research, you've discovered that the town that I described as being in the middle of the grasslands in fact has no docks and therefore has no seedy sailors. Did you want to try looking somewhere else?"

(These, of course, are examples and are certainly not exhaustive.)

But any of these are better than just flat-out saying "no, this doesn't work."

 

[mamba]

At this point I have to assume you never actually read anything I wrote, because I've addressed this.

at this point I could argue the same… I specifically acknowledged the difference, I explained why it either is not relevant to the discussion or that you would have to give them enough tries to ultimately succeed, and here you do exactly that

But any of these are better than just flat-out saying "no, this doesn't work."

that is your opinion, I disagree, I rather have a world in which they simply do not have known messengers everywhere they go

 

[Hussar]

You posit it’s the DM that will screw you over. Even if you had this option in a DMless game where the magical method was complication free but the non-magical method had a risk of complications you would still choose the magical complication free method.

This entire conversation is about how the dm will screw players over. DMs insisting on limiting player abilities to serve the dms view of believability.

But a spell just works. DMs will almost never mess with spell effects.

So why would a player ever choose any other option than spells? That’s what they’ve been taught. Use a spell and get the effect you want. Don’t use a spell and jump through the entirety arbitrary hoops the dm puts forward for no other reason than the dm feels the player has to “earn” whatever result the player is trying to achieve.

 

[Hussar]

Spells don't work 100% of the time, either. And many of them, especially in 5e, are written vaguely and are also subject to wide and differing interpretations.

They are considerably more reliable and far less subject to dm fiat.

 

[mamba]

But a spell just works. DMs will almost never mess with spell effects.

hold my beer

So why would a player ever choose any other option than spells? That’s what they’ve been taught. Use a spell and get the effect you want. Don’t use a spell and jump through the entirety arbitrary hoops the dm puts forward

again, they are not arbitrary, I certainly can find better justifications for why you do not know messengers everywhere you go than you can give for it. In fact I have never heard any non-meta explanation for it in these roughly 200 pages

 

[Cadence]

This entire conversation is about how the dm will screw players over.

I'm pretty sure almost everyone on here was ok with the B&C agreement part of:

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

well, your interpretation defies reality, logic and the English language… if that does not stop you, then I doubt anything I say will either… The more I read that feature, the more I believe it is intended to be local, not universal (you know the local messengers…). In any case, nothing will...

www.enworld.org

Spoiler: Edit: Here's post 2506 if the direct link doesn't work

It feels like the thread is stuck in something vaguely like the following (please edit in your head as needed). I wonder if we'll get an AI someday that can enforce a stalemate for a thread when it finds an (essentially) repeated set of moves?

A: X always works
B: No, it doesn't, that's ludicrous
C: Why wouldn't it work?
B: No, it can work sometimes but certainly not always.
C: Why can't it work the vast majority of the time?
B: Why should it work in crazy examples!?
C: Why are you hung up on crazy examples?
<iterate>
B&C: So X should always work when it's reasonable, in iffy cases when there's a reason, and should not be expected to work in the virtually impossible cases
A: X Always works!
<go back to line 2, possibly with B and/or C subbed out for B+1 and/or C+1>

Or is there some general disagreement (beyond a person or two) about "X should always work when it's reasonable, in iffy cases when there's a reason, and should not be expected to work in the virtually impossible cases". Anyway, I think I'm pulling my auto-eject cord and bailing on this tangent because it feels done?

I'm pretty sure no one on here has come out in favor of the following being cool uses, but then forget that the minute they iterate the above:

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

You said the game tells players this. The game is more than the PHB, and even the PHB does so, in the first quote All but one of your references are in the DMG, and the single one you've found in the PHB, doesn't say anything about fudging at all. you were the one bringing up fudging 5e...

www.enworld.org

Spoiler: Edit: Here's post 2400 if the direct link doesn't work

At first Han was really, really, really, pissed at Chewie. But the look on Boba Fett's face when Chewie started negotiating passage for the two of them to Kashyyk was priceless. Fett never forgave them for that one. Han, on the other hand, couldn't wait to have Chewie do the same the next time an imperial blockade caught them in a tractor beam. Think of the fuel savings!

-----

Having called on Miracle Max to scry the future, Prince Humperdinck knew exactly what he needed to do. Grabbing the cook from his royal yacht they set out in a rowboat for the Dread Pirate Roberts. As Wesley in disguise began to order his crew to do the obvious, the cook called on his years of cooking in ships from many ports and sought passage on the Revenge for he and the prince to get to Florin.

-----

As if "Parlay" wasn't bad enough Barbaossa thought, now there was this. Right after making them walk the plank, Jack merely kicked in a leisurely circle to face the boat and invoked "Sailor Background" for he and Swann to be ferried around like it was some sort of aqua-taxi.

As always, I'm sorry for the number of folks who have had to play with really expletive DMs over the years ( :-( ) and am forever grateful that I haven't had to.

 

[Oofta]

At this point I have to assume you never actually read anything I wrote, because I've addressed this.

I am not taking away player agency by point-blank saying they can't try to roll to find a messenger. That's what you are doing by flat-out saying the ability doesn't work.

If they roll for it (or roleplay it out) and fail, then it's no different than if they roll to pick a lock a fail--they can't try again right then and there.

Maybe they can try again tomorrow: "Sorry, you don't see anyone in the bar with a tattoo that indicates an association with the Guild Of Thieves, Lowlifes, and Affiliated Scum. You can try again tomorrow night."

Maybe they can't try again in this area: "You've learned that the guards are really cracking down on crime in this town. All those gibbets hanging from the town walls you saw when you came in? Yeah. Anyone in this town who could have passed your message along has fled or is lying low. You can try to find a messenger in the next town."

Or maybe they actually can try again right away, but only if they figure out a completely different approach: "Based on your rolls and your painstaking research, you've discovered that the town that I described as being in the middle of the grasslands in fact has no docks and therefore has no seedy sailors. Did you want to try looking somewhere else?"

(These, of course, are examples and are certainly not exhaustive.)

But any of these are better than just flat-out saying "no, this doesn't work."

There's clear guidance in the DMG that sometimes you should just flat out say no. Admittedly it's regarding checks, you can't hit the moon with an arrow is their example.

I see no reason to let someone attempt something impossible. If there is no chance, why give the player false hope? If you're always allowing an attempt then either giving them false hope or you say there's a chance of success under any and all circumstances.

I hope you're not doing the former, the latter is a style of play I personally dislike because it can lead to unrealistic conclusions.

 

[Hussar]

I'm pretty sure almost everyone on here was ok with the B&C agreement part of:

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

well, your interpretation defies reality, logic and the English language… if that does not stop you, then I doubt anything I say will either… The more I read that feature, the more I believe it is intended to be local, not universal (you know the local messengers…). In any case, nothing will...

www.enworld.org

I'm pretty sure no one on here has come out in favor of the following being cool uses, but then forget that the minute they iterate the above:

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

You said the game tells players this. The game is more than the PHB, and even the PHB does so, in the first quote All but one of your references are in the DMG, and the single one you've found in the PHB, doesn't say anything about fudging at all. you were the one bringing up fudging 5e...

www.enworld.org

As always, I'm sorry for the number of folks who have had to play with really expletive DMs over the years ( :-( ) and am forever grateful that I haven't had to.

Sorry, what is a "B&C" agreement? And, what cool uses?

Sorry, can you actually quote the posts instead of links because the links you provided simply take me to the first page of the thread.

But, this has nothing to do with bad DMing. This has everything to do with the fact that DM's will very often think that throwing die rolls and checks at the party = challenge. It's pointless challenge for no reason. But, if the players use a spell, poof, it just works.

 

[Hussar]

hold my beer


again, they are not arbitrary, I certainly can find better justifications for why you do not know messengers everywhere you go than you can give for it. In fact I have never heard any non-meta explanation for it in these roughly 200 pages

They are entirely arbitrary. You are looking for "justifications" because it's arbitrary. The only reason to not allow the background bonus to function is because you want to preserve some sense for YOUR believability. Has nothing to do with anything else. YOU don't think it's believable, therefore, it's not possible. What the player or players or the game thinks is immaterial.

But, if the players use a spell? Poof, it works. Need to climb a wall? Make checks. Oh, you cast a spell? Poof you're over the wall. Need to rest for the night? Make checks. Oh, you cast a spell? Poof it works. Want to gather information from an NPC? Make a bunch of checks. Oh, you cast a spell? Poof it works. Need to get a message to an NPC. Sorry, that's not possible where you are. Oh, you cast a spell? Poof it works. On and on and on.

This is why players will almost always try spells and ignore backgrounds. This is what they are taught over and over again. Backgrounds don't work. The DM will always be on the lookout for some way to make the background not work because the player is "only looking for an advantage" (actual quote from this thread - @Lanefan I believe). But a spell? They just work. Far, far more often than they don't. So, players default to spells. Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?

 

[Faolyn]

I see no reason to let someone attempt something impossible. If there is no chance, why give the player false hope? If you're always allowing an attempt then either giving them false hope or you say there's a chance of success under any and all circumstances.

I don't start out by thinking "Bwa-ha-ha! There's no messengers here, but I'll just pretend to let them try to find one! Little do they know that I'm going to screw them no matter what they do!"

I don't give the players false hope. If they can give me a good reason why an ability should work, or if I can think of a good reason myself, I see no reason why I should either allow it, or allow it with a good die roll or two.

Nor do I say that there's a chance of success under "any and all circumstances." The players can use a bow and arrow whenever they want and would agree that it's unreasonable for them to try to hit the moon. My players can try to find a messenger whenever they want and would agree that there are some circumstances wherein it would simply be impossible for them to find one. Knowing my players, they'd likely be the ones to say it was impossible to begin with.

If I don't disallow the use of standard equipment because it's impossible to use for one specific purpose, why would I disallow a background feature because it's impossible to use for under one specific circumstance?