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

[Mistwell]

I disagree. The rules aren't an excuse for behaving like an ass-hat, and it isn't the job of the rules or houserules to correct such behavior.

You guys have been debating the Criminal background for 150 pages now with one side being "broken as written" and the other being "not used like that unless you're a jerk".

What I don't get is, after a decade, has anyone ever complained about this background, or any of the PHB backgrounds, ever? Has anyone ever said it was a problem in a game? I cannot recall that complaint. Not here, not Facebook forums, not Reddit, not the three other RPG message boards I belong to, nobody has ever complained that any of these backgrounds were problems in their games, either with jerk players "abusing" the abilities or there being some issue with the fiction of, for example, knowing a criminal contact in a location you've never been to before.

Why the heck are you guys so devoted to this argument? It seems to have no meaning. It has a ten year track record of not being a gaming issue.

 

[Parmandur]

You guys have been debating the Criminal background for 150 pages now with one side being "broken as written" and the other being "not used like that unless you're a jerk".

What I don't get is, after a decade, has anyone ever complained about this background, or any of the PHB backgrounds, ever? Has anyone ever said it was a problem in a game? I cannot recall that complaint. Not here, not Facebook forums, not Reddit, not the three other RPG message boards I belong to, nobody has ever complained that any of these backgrounds were problems in their games, either with jerk players "abusing" the abilities or there being some issue with the fiction of, for example, knowing a criminal contact in a location you've never been to before.

Why the heck are you guys so devoted to this argument? It seems to have no meaning. It has a ten year track record of not being a gaming issue.

I mean, I have definitely seen a ton of people sya the features never come up, yes...and that suggests to me it is not a coincidence they are quietly shifting to pure fluff.

 

[Mistwell]

I mean, I have definitely seen a ton of people sya the features never come up, yes...and that suggests to me it is not a coincidence they are quietly shifting to pure fluff.

Yes I agree a lot of people say they kind of ignore background abilities because they're kind of minor and easily forgotten. Not sure I mark that down as a "problem" though. Have you seen anyone argue the Criminal background is somehow overpowered and broken, or forces DMs to change the fiction in ways they don't want to? I have not.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So the background feature has fallen into a familiar trend

1. Poster 1: I don't like how several of the background feature work [possibly insert what I do instead]
2. Poster 2: There is no problem
3. Poster 1: it's illogical to me, which is a problem when I play the game [you have to know someone, your reputation has to precede you wherever you go, etc..]
4. Poster 2: it's not a problem because [I know someone in a random location so therefore I just know someone where we are, it clearly says local which means local to wherever I happen to be]
5. Poster 1: but that's illogical
6. Poster 2: the book says...
7. go to step 1

Has anything new been added in the past few hundred pages? Follow the background features if you want. Personally I don't want to use several of them as written in my games for some of them and no amount of explanation of how some people decide it works will change that.

Do we really need to keep repeating the same posts, slightly reworded?

Man, I tell ya - I have never been so sick of a subject on ENWorld as I am of the subject of Background Features. I feel like the only person who moved an inch on their position was me. (And I'm not trying to pat myself on the back - the whole thing is somewhat depressing).

I stand by much of the earliest stuff that I said, if not how I said it - I think that they're not very well done and I don't use them, but I think that they are easy enough to implement for those who like them. I don't think that they have to be illogical or nonsensical to players that play them in good faith and work with their DM and stay true to the story in the game.

But I think that groups that find it easier to just not use them (the group that I actually belong in) have decent points (just not the logic one) - they can potentially cause problems in the game for questionable gain. They shouldn't work all the time with no consideration for the individual game's story.

At this point, I wish we'd just stop talking about it and move on to something more useful. However, I don't consider myself any sort of "police" for what we can talk about here, so... everyone carry on, I guess? S'up to you (whoever you may be).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

You guys have been debating the Criminal background for 150 pages now with one side being "broken as written" and the other being "not used like that unless you're a jerk".

What I don't get is, after a decade, has anyone ever complained about this background, or any of the PHB backgrounds, ever? Has anyone ever said it was a problem in a game? I cannot recall that complaint. Not here, not Facebook forums, not Reddit, not the three other RPG message boards I belong to, nobody has ever complained that any of these backgrounds were problems in their games, either with jerk players "abusing" the abilities or there being some issue with the fiction of, for example, knowing a criminal contact in a location you've never been to before.

Why the heck are you guys so devoted to this argument? It seems to have no meaning. It has a ten year track record of not being a gaming issue.

With respect to various perspectives the rules are secondary to the group.

These are loose tools to help encourage RP in my opinion. I don’t think it comes up a lot because folks usually understand the game is first and this is a “help.”

Rigidly applied like a to hit bonus is going o be a problem unless folks buy into it always must work as written.

I don’t think this works without player/dm cooperation. Not do I think it falls apart without signficantly differing expectations.

I don’t suggest people never have a problem; I think they may be misdiagnosing the root cause.

And…while in the depths of a dungeon yesterday my friend benefiting from
Thieves tools and stealth; criminal contacts would not have been a discussion. I guess unless one of the umber hulks was some kind of Jamba the hut crime boss? I just gave myself an idea…

My acolyte background was not big either except I discerned some symbols on a door with religious meaning…

Given that you can customize a background with discussion with the dm…I think all of these are meant to be interactive and cooperative features.

 

[mamba]

have no problem occasionally saying that yes, they meet a sailor they knew in another port; or yes, they meet a shady caravan driver they knew on on the far end of their newly-expanded caravan route. Neither of those concepts is ridiculous or illogical.

it is not illogical, as long as 'occasionally' does not turn into 'every time they try, no matter where they are'

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, quite: Hoard of the Dragon Queen was less expensice, because it was small.

Though it is worth noting that, adjusted for inflation, $49.99 in 2024 would come to $37.74 USD in 2014 terms. So these books do effectively cost like 25% less in comparison despite being much bigger.

Oh yeah, $50 USD is exceedingly reasonable. It's not dangerously so, though - they'll make bank with that price. It's a smart move. And they've got to get rid of the 50th Logo eventually, which would be a good time to pop up the price. I'm impressed and a little surprised - because I don't generally think that WotC has been very marketing-smart lately (though mostly due to MtG practices).

 

[Faolyn]

it is not illogical, as long as 'occasionally' does not turn into 'every time they try, no matter where they are'

And as I said, if that problem comes up, I'll deal with it then. I see no reason to rewrite or remove rules for an extremely hypothetical and unlikely circumstance.

 

[clearstream]

I addressed that. The feature states that the part doesn't have to pay the fare, but they do have to work for their passage.

Or just don't have sails... I mean, the main reason to dislike Background Features IMNSHO is that they're poorly designed.

 

[clearstream]

You seem to be using the rule as a source of potential fiction. I.e. an in-world "physics engine". It wasn’t designed for that purpose. Thus the user error you’re experiencing. There’s no reason to think the rule creates fiction on its own when not being used by the player in-game to actually establish fiction at the table.

I was thinking about something possibly related to this. I assume folk agree that Background Features are game mechanics. If so, then it's in the nature of game mechanics to apply in moment-to-moment play. Picture by analogy if I had to tell you what squares I intended my Rook to occupy during the game of Chess we're about to start! There's no game text that requires players to lock in Rome or Barcelona, or even European cities, during chargen.

However, the exercise of rules is done following principles. To extend my analogy, in playing Chess when I move my Rook I ought to be doing so in accord with an intent to win. (There are exceptions, but I believe "play to win" is the norm.) Given how essential fiction is to TTRPG, a group could have in mind that the use of all rules is constrained by it. That would mean that game mechanics ought to be employed in ways that both fit with their established fiction and develop it according to the norms they have in place.

Which supports both sides of the argument. As a game mechanic, Criminal Contact should be able to say which cities it counts in during play... the're no text locking that only to chargen. As a game mechanic, I ought to be able to use it in a location that comes up in play, even if I didn't say I was going to use it in that place when I rolled my character.

And groups could still justifiably - by their lights - constrain it by their fiction. They could say that "great distances" is not the same as "vast" or "interplanar" distances. They could say that in their fiction there are places lacking "local messengers", "caravan masters" (corrupt or otherwise) and "sailors" (of any disposition).