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

[Oofta]

I notice you didn't actually answer my questions here.

I've answered the same questions a dozen times. I'm tired of repeating.

 

[mamba]

Do you have any actual, real-game evidence that a feature you don't like will destroy an entire campaign?

I said that the two are unrelated....

I also said previously that things being too unbelievable ruin the story (for me, just so we are clear on that ) and I lose interest in it. That might not per se ruin the campaign, but it is definitely the opposite of helpful and I might bow out as a player because of it.

 

[Faolyn]

That's not how the feature works. There's no checking for someone in charge, no persuasion check required. The feature states that you already know someone (apparently anywhere in the multverse) and are calling in a favor.

Just like an illusion spell doesn't require you to say what the illusion looks like and the text doesn't say that you can use it to distract a foe.

That's what my question was, by the way. Do you just let your PCs cast an illusion without saying what it looks like? Do you allow it to be used as anything other than just a picture, or do you allow it to be used to distract a foe, or to maybe add a bonus to a skill check, or anything else that's not plainly written in the spell's text?

 

[Faolyn]

I said that the two are unrelated....

But you have said that it would ruin your enjoyment of the game. Has this ever actually happened in a real game? Or are you just saying you know you won't like this thing that's never actually happened to you?

 

[Vaalingrade]

It utterly baffles me why DM's insist on faffing about on a bunch of completely forgettable, utterly trivial scenes. We are at point A. We need to get to point B because that's where our adventure is. Why would I bother wasting the table's time on talking to random stranger who has nothing to do with the story?

Because with a good DM/Other Players dynamic, it can become not a waste of time. You might like that character and pull them into the story, for example.

A lot of DMs want to encourage this sort of organic emergent shared storytelling, but have no support or improv basics to make that happen, or the social savvy to see when the players aren't buying in/earn they buy in.

Sadly, eventually a bunch of them get broken of this by pushback and social pressure and turn their backs on emergent collaborative plot and eventually player agency writ large.

 

[mamba]

But you have said that it would ruin your enjoyment of the game. Has this ever actually happened in a real game? Or are you just saying you know you won't like this thing that's never actually happened to you?

it hasn't happened, but then I know what I like and tend to stay away from such campaigns, so the opportunity for it to happen is pretty small, I also only 'recently' returned to TTRPGs, there has been a long gap, during most of my 'career' these things would not have happened to begin with

 

[Faolyn]

it hasn't happened, but then I know what I like and tend to stay away from such campaigns, so the opportunity for it to happen is pretty small

OK, I'm going to channel the power of mothers everywhere: Try taking a no-thank-you bite. You might find you like it.

 

[mamba]

OK, I'm going to channel the power of mothers everywhere: Try taking a no-thank-you bite. You might find you like it.

I can tell you that I for sure do not like it in movies and I do lose interest fast if it does happen. I don't expect it to be any different in TTRPGs

 

[Scott Christian]

Perhaps, but why wasn't it shared? @Scott Christian has made up all these wonderful details about the goings on in the port in which the party finds themselves, and yet the player of the sailor, whose years of voyaging ought to have granted them at least some familiarity with these details, is declaring an action that contradicts them. And why should the player have to ask? The sailor doesn't need to ask anyone. They just draw on their years of experience.

The player should ask. My statement was the player doesn't know this port. Not every port is a major hub of business and trade. Some ports are literal fishing villages. Others are just stops to get fresh water. Others are used by military ships only. Others are only used in emergencies. Others are in out of reach places, making it inopportune t "just travel there." Others only export one thing, possibly small and expensive, like the one area that's cultivated cocoa beans. All of these ports might only see ten ships a year. Some might only see ships seasonally. This is what the DM knows if they've done their work.

This is why the player asks.

Of course, other ports are business trade centers. Others might be the only stopping point on a common route, so therefore always have ships going in and out. Other ports might be a vacation port for the hard-working crew. Other ports might be full of pirate ships constantly going in and out. These ports, the player should ask, and almost always the answer should be yes.

 

[Scott Christian]

Your post in which you said this didn't say anything about the timing of when the DM was making up the apparently secret backstory about the port that you said they could use to justify shutting down the player's feature, but If the work has already been done then how can it be "extra work"?


This doesn't answer the question why when DM-authored fiction is made up matters, unless you're saying consistency doesn't matter unless when the fiction is made up matters, and I don't believe that's true.

I think it is very clear what I was saying. If the DM has the port written, and the player doesn't know the port, yet the DM does know it, then the player can ask, but the DM reserves the right to say no - because they know what exactly is going on in the port. This might happen with more linear adventures. It might happen when you run a campaign where certain levels take place in a specific area.