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

[Oofta]

Sure. All I'm saying is that when you are cutting back because buying power is down, D&D will be the decision to cut for some percentage of people who would otherwise have bought the books. It will also be the decision to buy over movies or concerts or something for some percentage of people who would otherwise have also done those other things.

I get that, but it could also be a decision that "Instead of bowling night, we're going to play a game." For some percentage, of course, it will be neither.

 

[Cadence]

I get that, but it could also be a decision that "Instead of bowling night, we're going to play a game." For some percentage, of course, it will be neither.

Bowling used to be really expensive at the wrong times a couple years ago. I'm kind of scared to think what it would be now!

 

[Hriston]

and yet is what you said, isn’t it?

Uh, no.

yes, that would make it true, and we are back at ‘the DM says you know no messenger here’…

And then the player says, "Stop playing my character for me."

Everyone has to agree for it to be "true".

"The DM says so" is one way for the table to agree, but it's not the only way.

I don’t follow, we just agreed that something is not true just because the player says so.

No, we didn't. We agreed something is not true as a result of the character thinking it is true. My "who decides" was meant to be understood as "who decides whether the character is correct or mistaken". I think that's a question for the player to decide because they are the one playing the character.

If the player says so and everyone agrees, then it is true in the fiction because the player said so.

The DM does not say ‘your character does not search for ships, instead he goes into a pub’, he says ‘you find no ships’

Why did the player says their character is looking for ships if there was no actual possibility of finding a ship? It seems like the participants aren't on the same page about what's going on in the fiction.

I do not want the Sailor background dragged into this, I was talking about the Criminal, the two are different…

This seems like a non-sequitur. You quoted part of a post of mine in which I had referenced an example that touched on the Sailor background which you continue to discuss in the quote below. If you don't want it dragged in, why are you engaging me on the topic?

we are back to highly unlikely to the point of near impossible, since you ended up on a random world and did not anticipate this.

Also, you were a sailor in your past and you can consider yourself lucky if you traveled more than one sea / ocean in one world, there is no way you knew of ship routes on other worlds from your background.
Same for the criminal, you know a local thieves guild, that is it.

If you planned this trip, that is something different

Who decided I was on a random world and that my background is as limited as you say it is? It sounds like it's the DM who decided all this, and yet I'm sure you have players who play wizards in your games. Do you also tell them there's no way their character could possibly have studied magic long enough to know the spells in their spellbook? I mean, talk about impossible!

 

[mamba]

And then the player says, "Stop playing my character for me."

the DM telling the character that they do not know a messenger here is not at all the same as the DM playing their character

Everyone has to agree for it to be "true".

"The DM says so" is one way for the table to agree, but it's not the only way.

no one said it is the only way

No, we didn't. We agreed something is not true as a result of the character thinking it is true. My "who decides" was meant to be understood as "who decides whether the character is correct or mistaken". I think that's a question for the player to decide because they are the one playing the character.

no, the player cannot decide what is true in the world, at least not without prior agreement of everyone involved in the game (session zero, not every time…)

If the player says so and everyone agrees, then it is true in the fiction because the player said so.

if everyone agrees, it is true because everyone agreed, not because the player said so

Why did the player says their character is looking for ships if there was no actual possibility of finding a ship?

the possibility existing is not the same as the possibility coming true. If you do not understand the difference then play the lottery sometime

If you don't want it dragged in, why are you engaging me on the topic?

I was talking about the criminal, you brought up the sailor, I still want to focus on the criminal as they have different criteria

Who decided I was on a random world and that my background is as limited as you say it is?

the random world is the scenario we are discussing… as to the limits of the background, that is the topic of this discussion. Not sure what is confusing you here

It sounds like it's the DM who decided all this,

we are having a discussion….

and yet I'm sure you have players who play wizards in your games. Do you also tell them there's no way their character could possibly have studied magic long enough to know the spells in their spellbook? I mean, talk about impossible!

this has nothing to do with anything at all. The wizard learned how to cast spells, the sailor knows a thing or two about ships, the criminal made contacts with the local thieves guild. What does any of this have to do with them knowing ship routes on worlds they most likely did not even know existed?

 

[Hriston]

you’d be amazed how little prep that takes…

Player: I use my criminal feature to find a messenger and ask my contact to …
DM: you are in Ravenloft, you do not know any messengers here

Takes literally no prep at all, and not even an effort to come with something on the spot, as it generally would if the feature worked

All it takes is having an idea where the characters are from and where they are in relation to that to determine a probability

This post doesn't address my post you quoted about conflict between prepped setting details and background features. The DM in this example is extrapolating an outcome from the (we assume) established fiction and then railroading the player into it.

 

[Lanefan]

I own and run games at an FLGS and I've never really cared if people own their own books. I mean, I'd like them to buy books, but that's up to them. OTOH, I absolutely want everyone to have their own dice. I'll lend a total newbie a set, but they better get their own if they want to keep playing. It's not a big expense.

I care more about their characters being complete though. If they can't "finish" a character, then they better pick one of my pregens where I finish it for them.

"You finish it, or I finish it off. Your choice."

 

[Lanefan]

Bowling used to be really expensive at the wrong times a couple years ago. I'm kind of scared to think what it would be now!

Next wave of WotC marketing:

An image of a d20 next to the slogan "Why be bowling when you could be rolling!"

 

[Lanefan]

And then the player says, "Stop playing my character for me."

Everyone has to agree for it to be "true".

"The DM says so" is one way for the table to agree, but it's not the only way.

Someone has to have the final say; and if not the DM, then who?

Who decided I was on a random world and that my background is as limited as you say it is?

Very possibly the players; maybe even thinking along the lines of "Hey, Jocasta, you've got this background feature that says no matter where we go you can get a message to-from home. Let's go!"

And now the DM is hosed.

 

[mamba]

This post doesn't address my post you quoted about conflict between prepped setting details and background features. The DM in this example is extrapolating an outcome from the (we assume) established fiction and then railroading the player into it.

you were talking about the amount of prep it would take to say a feature would not apply in a given location, I showed that you can do so with no prep at all

Establishing an outcome has yet again nothing to do with a railroad. For someone who always replies with ‘I did not say it was a railroad’ when I point this out, you sure use the term a lot

I don’t know, the more you reply, the more confused you sound about the topic, which given that 200 pages were spent on this is frankly amazing… maybe follow your own advice…

If you don't understand my comments, I have no idea why you feel the need to respond to them as if you do.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sure. All I'm saying is that when you are cutting back because buying power is down, D&D will be the decision to cut for some percentage of people who would otherwise have bought the books. It will also be the decision to buy over movies or concerts or something for some percentage of people who would otherwise have also done those other things.

IME when things are rough, people spend MORE on escapism. Recessions tend to be good for business at my Comic and Game store, as long as too many of my biggest customers don't lose their jobs (even then, it kind of evens out). That's what I've noticed over 30 years. 2008 was a boom year. So was 2021.

Right now things are a little tight(ish) but I don't think that would be true if publishers were putting out more compelling stuff. (I'm talking mostly Comic publishers here, but WotC is "between" what a lot of our customers will find exciting right now. The new PHB ought to change that.)