Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 9345491" data-attributes="member: 6787503">It’s unclear what you’re saying here. Are you saying there’s no problem with the feature working under the conditions I described in my post? If so, then you should agree that the “problem” being talked about for many pages now in this thread is not a problem with any particular background feature, but a problem with a hypothetical play group that’s not on the same page with respect to the established fiction.It's unclear what the instance of play is you're describing or what you think the problem is. It's also unclear whether these things are being said in response to some action the player has declared or whether this is part of the DM's description of the environment. Or whether this is an effort to come to a consensus with the rest of the table about what the fiction entails after it has become clear that everyone isn't on the same page about what's going on. To me, the most glaring thing is how much the DM is telling the player what their character knows or doesn't know. When I DM, I do my best to avoid doing that because I think it's the player's job to describe what their character thinks (I.e. to roleplay their character).I’ve asked for examples of these issues from actual gameplay, and no one has been able to provide any, so, yeah, I tend to think they don’t exist and that the "reasons" are just handwringing from posters who don’t like the 2014 background features because they don’t match up with their playstyle preferences. Otherwise, why would they argue against them so vehemently? I also don't know what the "it" is that's supposed to be analogous to going 500 mph. If it's using the background features as rules that work in games of D&D, then yes, I can do that and haven't heard any reasons that would make me think I can't.That's not how I understood your response to me in this exchange up-thread (bold text added):I mean, how do you figure some fiction (people you know or who know you) can be "established at the table" without it being "established through gameplay"? To me, the two phrases I’ve enclosed in quotation marks are synonymous!I’m not sure what sort of instance of play this describes. It sounds to me like one in which the player’s feature has been removed or suspended (by the DM?), at least temporarily. The feature says (in part) "you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you." So if you don't "know" any people in Ravenloft who fit that description (for whatever accepted meaning of know you want to insert here), then, for the purpose of playing in Ravenloft, you don't have the feature.Well, I can't tell from what you've written what the context of the DM's statement is. I mean, whether it's "ok" or not would be up to the individual group. Fictional positioning is only relevant if someone is making an action declaration, which I'm not sure has taken place in what you've described. But putting that to the side along with my objection to the DM telling the player what their character does or doesn't know, I think it might take this kind of out-of-game discussion for the sake of clarity at the table if the DM wants to suspend/remove the player's feature for the duration the game takes place in Ravenloft. The background features are, of course, subject to removal or revision by the DM just like all the other rules of the game, but I hardly think that amounts to a valid criticism of the features.</blockquote>

Verification