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

[mamba]

Well, I'm sorry your ability to enjoy a game is so easily ruined.

Of course, it may ruin that player's ability to enjoy the rest of their story if they can't use their feature. But who cares, right?

that just means we want different stories and should play in different groups.

 

[Oofta]

that just means we want different stories and should play in different groups.

Wait, you mean there's more than one way to play the game?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If feats like this comes baked in with each background, there won't be a choice - if you want that background, you get that feat.

Yeah sure - in 2014. Of course, this conversation started in a thread about 2024.

 

[Faolyn]

Wait, you mean there's more than one way to play the game?

Except that--according to you and mamba, at least--that other way is illogical, ridiculous, rules-lawyery, objectively bad, and something that literally ruins entire games.

(Please don't pretend that I'm some big baddie who's yukking your yum. You two have gone out of your way to poo-poo any decision that doesn't match your own on this thread.)

 

[mamba]

Except that--according to you and mamba, at least--that other way is illogical, ridiculous, rules-lawyery, objectively bad, and something that literally ruins entire games.

there is a difference between ruining an entire game and ruining my enjoyment of a game.

I also find it interesting that me insisting that the feature does not work in this case is important to me essentially got ridiculed by you (“Well, I'm sorry your ability to enjoy a game is so easily ruined.”) while at the same time the exact opposite is perfectly fine with you (“Of course, it may ruin that player's ability to enjoy the rest of their story”) if they cannot make use of their feature this once.

Either this is of too little importance to ever be taken seriously as something that should affect the enjoyment of the story, or both issues are equally valid. So spare me your complaints about us saying it is highly unlikely to bordering on illogical for the feature to always be available.

I never said you cannot play that way if you enjoy it, I said I would not enjoy playing that way, but apparently that is too much to accept

 

[Oofta]

Except that--according to you and mamba, at least--that other way is illogical, ridiculous, rules-lawyery, objectively bad, and something that literally ruins entire games.

(Please don't pretend that I'm some big baddie who's yukking your yum. You two have gone out of your way to poo-poo any decision that doesn't match your own on this thread.)

I've explained my position and my opinion. What neither of us has stated is that your game would be better if you ran it like we do. I've never told anyone that giving narrative control to players will make your game worse, I just explained what limits I have and why.

Meanwhile we've been told that we're destroying player's fun and that if we weren't such control freaks we'd be better DMs.

There's a difference between "This is my preference, play the way you want" and "You're playing wrong, but I won't stop you. "

 

[Faolyn]

there is a difference between ruining an entire game and ruining my enjoyment of a game.

You literally said "it ruins the rest of the story." Not "it ruins my ability to enjoy the game."

I also find it interesting that me insisting that the feature does not work in this case is important to me essentially got ridiculed by you (“Well, I'm sorry your ability to enjoy a game is so easily ruined.”) while at the same time the exact opposite is perfectly fine with you (“Of course, it may ruin that player's ability to enjoy the rest of their story”) if they cannot make use of their feature this once.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. You're not playing a solo game here. You're playing a group game. Sometimes you have to give a little, especially on matters that are not disruptive or harmful. Why is it better that their experience of the game potentially be ruined--and along with it, potentially their trust in the DM's willingness to be fair with them? Why not just ignore it the probably one or two times in an entire campaign that it may come up?

I mean, are you seriously saying that if a player used this ability in a way you find improbable--but that helped move the plot or her or someone else's personal goals along (or at least didn't hinder them) and wasn't harmful to anyone at the table--that you'd still be miserable about it sessions later?

At my table, we have a player who loves giving her characters exceedingly silly names, particularly when she plays members of certain species. I hate these names, because I'm trying to be immersed in a serious game and use serious naming conventions. Do I make a big deal about it? Do I tell her (when I'm the DM) she can't use that name or demand the DM (when I'm a player) make her change the name?

No, of course not. Because it's a group game. She's a good player and a lovely person. She works well with the group both in and out of character. Her silly naming conventions aren't actually ruining the game or my enjoyment of the game. I get really annoyed when I have to use her characters' full names, but annoyed =/= ruined.

 

[Hriston]

because some GMs actually care to make their gameworlds into logically functioning and connected settings with consistency rather than just adding whatever arbitrary quick-fix solution pops into their head at the moment to solve whatever problem arises,

You're making the erroneous assumption that GMs (and other RPG participants) who make up setting details while they play, rather than at some earlier time, don't care about logic, interconnectivity, and consistency. I can assure you, you are completely wrong about this.

the player likely doesn't know because they didn't care to ask or inquire beyond what might advantage their character.

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.

 

[Faolyn]

I've explained my position and my opinion. What neither of us has stated is that your game would be better if we ran it like we do. I've never told anyone that giving narrative control to players will make your game worse, I just explained what limits I have and why.

Meanwhile we've been told that we're destroying player's fun and that if we weren't such control freaks we'd be better DMs.

There's a difference between "This is my preference, play the way you want" and "You're playing wrong, but I won't stop you. "

Except that you weren't saying "this is my preference." You were saying "this idea is objectively bad because it's illogical, ridiculous, and too supernatural" and that me pointing out ways that it's not caused you to brand me as a rules lawyer--not as someone who has other ideas of what makes a game fun.

 

[Oofta]

Except that you weren't saying "this is my preference." You were saying "this idea is objectively bad because it's illogical, ridiculous, and too supernatural" and that me pointing out ways that it's not caused you to brand me as a rules lawyer--not as someone who has other ideas of what makes a game fun.

In my opinion it is ridiculous. If it's not ridiculous in your opinion, we just have different opinions. Neither opinion is wrong as long as you don't tell other people that their opinions or preferences are wrong.

As far as being a rules lawyer, you accused me of being a "Mother may I" DM. According to you the only thing that matters is that you as a player gets to decide how to implement a rule. As if you, the player were a lawyer deciding how rules are implemented.