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

[UngeheuerLich]

Why am I "negotiating"? I want to go to X. I have Y gold. Done. Services? Who cares? Why am I wasting a bunch of time on trivialities?

Guess what? I don't want to talk to that shop keeper either. I don't want to talk to that random innkeeper either. Just let me mark off the gold, get a room and we're done. Trivial NPC's that have nothing to do with anything are trivial and a complete waste of the table's time. Get on with it.

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?

Sometimes you are correct. Sometimes playing it out is fun.
Players also often don't know that some seemingly trivial scenes could be important for the story.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yup, we're here to role play. Does that mean I have to play out, in real time, in first person, every single interaction with every single person we meet? Bugger that. Talking to random NPC who DOES NOT MATTER is pointless. The only reason I "have" to talk to the ship's captain is because the DM is forcing it. I don't want to. The ship's captain is utterly irrelevant to what we are doing. After we arrive at Point B, he will never be seen again.

I have an ability on my character sheet that I chose. I CHOSE this ability and background. I made it perfectly clear by chosing this that I have zero interest in playing this out in detail. If I wanted to play it out in detail and then rely on some randomly chosen DC skill check to ... well... I'm not even sure what the check is supposed to represent... then I would have taken a different background that doesn't have this ability.

Now, if I, the player, CHOOSE to make your ship's captain important, and start talking to him, that's a different story. The player is showing interest? Fantastic. Great. Let's get right to it. I'll move heaven and earth to make that NPC interesting for your character. But, the player shows zero interest and invokes his or her character background ribbon and then I decide, oh, that's not quite good enough. You have to "role play" this interaction to earn that benefit? Yeah, not interested. Go make some other player dance for your enjoyment. I'll be over here on my phone waiting quietly until the game gets back to doing whatever it is we came here to do.

And next time? I will avoid at all costs ANY interaction with NPC's. Because I know that the DM is only doing it to satisfy their own personal preferences. So, I'll rely on spells and concrete mechanics as much as I can. Need to travel? I will search out the first Teleport Circle and then walk. Anything to avoid being forced to run the "Make Me Happy" DM gauntlet of pointlessness.

Again, it's all about pacing. You have no problems wasting my time because you figure that the campaign is going to go for years. Me? Six to 12 months. 50 sessions for a 1-15 level campaign is about right. So, I'm not about to waste everyone's time on some random NPC in a pointless, foregone interaction.

DM: You are in Baldur's Gate and you need to get to Waterdeep in order to do X.
Player: Ok, I book passage on a ship using my Sailor Background.
DM: Ok, two weeks pass, you are now in Waterdeep. Let's get on with the adventure. Was there anything you wanted to do in those two weeks aboard ship?
Players: No, not really.
DM: Ok, sure. You're in Waterdeep....

THAT'S the pacing I'm looking for.

Which is a good pacing. But what benefit did your sailor background have?
If you leave it out, and say: "Ok, I book a passage to waterdeep.", should you then have to go through what you call wasting time?
I don't think so. The only difference: at the end the DM would say: "Ok, You are in Waterdeep, each of you deducts 5 gold from their purses".

This is why I don't like the abilities. Because what they do are something every player should be able to do.

 

[Scott Christian]

In my experience, when they say "no" it's because they feel like there should be some sort of nebulous concept of "challenge" here and feel that if we're not rolling a check for some reason, we're getting things for free.

So when the DM says no, you specifically feel like you need to challenge the DM? That sounds like a way to not play the game according to the rules. And I know that is a no-no. Somehow, somewhere, people find this not aligned with the spirit of the game. But it is not.

The game clearly states, for both characters, classes, and backgrounds, that you need to check-in with your DM. And that is okay. Because, in the end, the DM, and you, are on the same side. This antagonist approach needs to stop. It was a rare occurrence back in the day, and it is an even more rare occurrence today.

 

[Valetudo]

Sometimes you need to time skip. Sometimes you have to narrate with details, sometimes it's better to just say a week has passed.

 

[Hussar]

But, @UngeheuerLich, I'm not talking about how I want things to be. I agree. I think spells should be a LOT less reliable than they are. But, again, we're talking about the way the game IS, not how we wish it to be.

The truth is, spells are far more reliable than mundane actions. And the reason spells are much more reliable is amply demonstrated in this thread. Even a pretty clearly worded ability like:

When you need to, you can secure free passage on a sailing ship for yourself and your adventuring companions. You might sail on the ship you served on, or another ship you have good relations with (perhaps one captained by a former crewmate). Because you're calling in a favor, you can't be certain of a schedule or route that will meet your every need. Your DM will determine how long it takes to get where you need to go. In return for your free passage, you and your companions are expected to assist the crew during the voyage.

gets nerfed to high heaven with forced skill checks, endless rigamarole and pointless NPC interactions. Why would any player choose to use this background feature when you have perfectly acceptable, always reliable and above all, much faster methods in the spell lists?

 

[Hussar]

Sometimes you are correct. Sometimes playing it out is fun.
Players also often don't know that some seemingly trivial scenes could be important for the story.

Often DM's don't know that the scenes they are forcing on the players are trivial and not important. It works both ways. It's pretty clear, most of the time, when the DM is simply adding in role play for the sake of role play.

 

[Hussar]

So when the DM says no, you specifically feel like you need to challenge the DM? That sounds like a way to not play the game according to the rules. And I know that is a no-no. Somehow, somewhere, people find this not aligned with the spirit of the game. But it is not.

The game clearly states, for both characters, classes, and backgrounds, that you need to check-in with your DM. And that is okay. Because, in the end, the DM, and you, are on the same side. This antagonist approach needs to stop. It was a rare occurrence back in the day, and it is an even more rare occurrence today.

In what way am I challenging the DM here? The DM is forcing a scene upon me that I clearly have zero interest in playing out. So, I'm supposed to what? Smile and eat my veggies because the DM knows best?

This is the point that people seem to be missing. Sometimes the players just aren't interested in playing out that scene for you. They really aren't. At best, they're doing it because you've forced it on them. Instead, why not skip the scene and get on to the stuff they ACTUALLY came to the session to do?

 

[James Gasik]

To me, if you can't imagine how your character would do it, then clearly they can't either, which means they can't do it. If you can imagine your character doing something, then they can at least give it a try (within reason, of course--you can't imagine your fighter into being a wizard without actually multiclassing).

There's something wrong with this statement. Characters often have capabilities their players lack. I'm not a swordfighting expert, but my Fighter is. I don't know the ins and outs of magical theory, but my Wizard does.

I might have an Int of 14 irl. Does that mean my 18 Int Wizard is limited to what only I can conceive? At that point, why have ability scores at all?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But, @UngeheuerLich, I'm not talking about how I want things to be. I agree. I think spells should be a LOT less reliable than they are. But, again, we're talking about the way the game IS, not how we wish it to be.

The truth is, spells are far more reliable than mundane actions. And the reason spells are much more reliable is amply demonstrated in this thread. Even a pretty clearly worded ability like:



gets nerfed to high heaven with forced skill checks, endless rigamarole and pointless NPC interactions. Why would any player choose to use this background feature when you have perfectly acceptable, always reliable and above all, much faster methods in the spell lists?

Yeah. It should not have any skill checks. But this is one of the nicer features, because it explicitely tells the DM that they can screw the PCs over as much as they like:
-schedule
-expected to help the crew

And so on. A "creative" DM can do a lot without any skill check.

Edit:
To be clear: my stance is not that those features should be nerfed. My stance is that not doing skill checks for such things should be the default anyway.

Or skill checks to determine how fast, save or cheap they can book a ship (which the sailor feature leaves at the DM's discretion anyway).

 

[Hussar]

Yeah. It should not have any skill checks. But this is one of the nicer features, because it explicitely tells the DM that they can screw the PCs over as much as they like:
-schedule
-expected to help the crew

And so on. A "creative" DM can do a lot without any skill check.

Edit:
To be clear: my stance is not that those features should be nerfed. My stance is that not doing skill checks for such things should be the default anyway.

Or skill checks to determine how fast, save or cheap they can book a ship (which the sailor feature leaves at the DM's discretion anyway).

To be fair - it's hard to get cheaper than "free". I'm not supposed to have to pay for passage.

But, yeah, that sort of thinking get's right under my skin. "Oh, well, there's these nice loopholes in the description where I can insert monkey's paws" is not conducive to getting players to try anything other than spells.

Again, I fail to really understand why DM's seem incapable of just saying, "Ok."