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

[mamba]

You literally said "it ruins the rest of the story." Not "it ruins my ability to enjoy the game."

it ruins the rest of the story for me, I thought that part was obvious, I mean it clearly does not for you, so it cannot be universal either…

I generally talk about how I see things and do not make declarations of objective fact, I assume this is true for everyone and does not need to constantly be pointed out

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. You're not playing a solo game here. You're playing a group game. Sometimes you have to give a little, especially on matters that are not disruptive or harmful. Why is it better that their experience of the game potentially be ruined--and along with it, potentially their trust in the DM's willingness to be fair with them?

there is no hypocrisy here, I said this is not a story I am interested in, so if they insist on having that story, we are not a good fit (should be in different groups)

Why should I have to bend over backwards to accommodate them, their experience is not somehow more important than anyone else’s

I mean, are you seriously saying that if a player used this ability in a way you find improbable--but that helped move the plot or her or someone else's personal goals along (or at least didn't hinder them) and wasn't harmful to anyone at the table--that you'd still be miserable about it sessions later?

sounds like you were saying they have every right to be if the shoe were on the other foot… yet you deny me that right, talk about hypocrisy

Realistically speaking, if I were the DM, I’d have ruled as I did, if the player cannot accept that, tough.

If I were a player and improbable things happening because a feature or something ‘demands’ it were semi-frequent, I’d just bow out. A single instance would not matter however

 

[mamba]

You're making the erroneous assumption that GMs (and other RPG participants) who make up setting details while they play, rather than at some earlier time, don't care about logic, interconnectivity, and consistency. I can assure you, you are completely wrong about this.

and yet you were constantly looking for how to explain why the highly improbable is what is happening rather than even considering whether it actually should…

 

[Maxperson]

no, not at all, that is just your interpretation of things because you want the fighter to still roll after he has been killed, incinerated and digested by a dragon, because your interpretation of the rules includes no such limitations

I used to love pointing out that 3e by RAW allowed you to do just that. When you went below 0 you fell unconscious. This was a condition that explicitly only lasted until -9. If you got to -10 you were now dead, but no longer unconscious. The definition of dead was that your soul left your body. No big deal there. Lots of folks don't have a soul. You can't benefit from normal healing. Okay. And you start to decay which gets stinky, but nothing actually says you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious and attack some more.

We all get what dead means, but if you are just following the written definitions...

 

[mamba]

I used to love pointing out that 3e by RAW allowed you to do just that.

didn’t realize I was so spot on

 

[Oofta]

Somewhat pertinent to this conversation is that I recently had a mult-session D&D game at a convention. This DM was very into a more narrative style of play while also using critical hit and luck cards. The former had different effects for crits (standard rules would have always been better for my PC), while the luck cards did things like give you an automatic hit, an enemy becomes an ally, a reroll on a save.

Between the cards and the narrative style, it was significantly different from most D&D games I would run or have played .

Thing is that while he was an excellent DM and I enjoyed myself, after the games my wife and I were in agreement. We would not want to have him run a long term campaign. It just wasn't the style of game we enjoy. Neither one of us felt particularly challenged, there were too many metagame options and so on.

My point is not that he was a bad DM. It's that he just wasn't the right DM for us. For different people? He would likely have been the best DM they'd ever had. Which, I think, is kind of cool and one of the strengths of D&D.

The fact that we play the game with different styles should be celebrated. Which is why I will never tell and push back against telling other people how to run their games or that they're doing it wrong if it works for their group.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, you mean there's more than one way to play the game?

There are two kinds of folks who play this game. Folks who play the game my way, and those who have not yet learned that my way is the only way to play!!!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

there is a difference between ruining an entire game and ruining my enjoyment of a game.

I also find it interesting that me insisting that the feature does not work in this case is important to me essentially got ridiculed by you (“Well, I'm sorry your ability to enjoy a game is so easily ruined.”) while at the same time the exact opposite is perfectly fine with you (“Of course, it may ruin that player's ability to enjoy the rest of their story”) if they cannot make use of their feature this once.

Either this is of too little importance to ever be taken seriously as something that should affect the enjoyment of the story, or both issues are equally valid. So spare me your complaints about us saying it is highly unlikely to bordering on illogical for the feature to always be available.

I never said you cannot play that way if you enjoy it, I said I would not enjoy playing that way, but apparently that is too much to accept

This is what I mean when I try to point out that both sides - intentionally or not - appear to be telling other people how to play. I believe both sides when they say that they do not mean to. I know that I never intended to & even tried unsuccessfully to avoid anyone thinking that I was. @Oofta has done the same, repeatedly insisting that he's only trying to speak to his preferences.

In that light, can we all give everyone the benefit of the doubt? There's been poorly-worded sentences on both sides that have ruffled feathers. We don't need to necessarily stop talking to each other (though I think we can probably agree that it's going nowhere) but let's choose to assume that we're just talking, and not insulting one-another (at least not on purpose).

 

[Faolyn]

In my opinion it is ridiculous.

You were literally saying it was always ridiculous, not just ridiculous in your game.

As far as being a rules lawyer, you accused me of being a "Mother may I" DM.

Long, long after you called me a rules lawyer.

According to you the only thing that matters is that you as a player gets to decide how to implement a rule.

No, I didn't say that. Unless you take "have the player justify their abilities and actions" equals "gets to decide how to implement rules."

Which I don't think most people would consider to be rules-lawyering.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How long till the release of 5.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?

 

[Faolyn]

it ruins the rest of the story for me, I thought that part was obvious,

No. Because if you had meant to say "for me," then you should have said that, especially when you spend so much time talking about how illogical it is. I'm not a mind-reader. I only know what you write.

sounds like you were saying they have every right to be if the shoe were on the other foot… yet you deny me that right, talk about hypocrisy

That doesn't answer the question.

Do you become miserable for multiple sessions if a player uses an ability you find illogical?

Realistically speaking, if I were the DM, I’d have ruled as I did, if the player cannot accept that, tough.

The DM has a great deal of power over the player. If you-as-DM shut down a feature of mine, then you get to feel that logic has prevailed for, what, a few minutes? The rest of the session? Whereas that player learns that you're the type of DM to shut down abilities that you don't like, and for the rest of the time they play with you, they will be wary of how you treat their abilities.

If I were a player and improbable things happening because a feature or something ‘demands’ it were semi-frequent, I’d just bow out. A single instance would not matter however

And yet you're not even willing to risk a single instance.