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

[tetrasodium]

I don't think using natural language a terrible choice at all; in that you can use natural language and still keep it tight.

In the features we've been discussing, for example, it'd take changing maybe 2 or 3 words in each one to make the intent crystal clear while still keeping it natural and thus readable.

Changes that would have been seen during editing just as clearly and obviously needed as typos had technical writing been used rather than shrugging it off on how natural language means lruings not rules. Natural language allowed these kind of problems to get published.

Technical writing is by its very nature dull and boring to read; and as part of the point of the core books is to make them engaging enough to get new players (and DMs) to pick them up and read them, boring is a no-no.

No on so many levels.... "Natural language" is not the alternative to "bad technical writing", the alternative is "good technical writing".

3 Myths on Technical Writing

Look at three myths about technical writing and explain why they are not true.

blog.alphanumeric.com

 

[Faolyn]

I suspect (but am open to correction if wrong) that their concern is that the exact phrasing might force them into a position of either:

--- having to allow those features to work everywhere every time, or
--- having to disappoint one or more players who, having quite reasonably interpreted 'always works' as the intent of the phrasing, expect to be able to play it that way; and thus come across as the bad guy when I deny their argument.

Well, that's why I've been suggesting ignoring the exact phrasing.

Or using another, completely legitimate, actually primary definition of the word "know" that doesn't add the word "personally" to the sentence.

Or focusing on the feature's actual purpose (the contact instead of the messenger; getting ship's passage instead of calling in a favor) instead something written into the feature in what (to me) is clearly an example, not an exhaustive list, or making up the meaning entirely.

I know that'd be my own concern, were I to have missed fixing that terrible wording before starting play.

Yeah, well, hindsight woulda shoulda coulda, etc. I'm sure that the '14 books would have quite a few changes if the players got a hold of it before publication. It would have an actually useful index, for starters.

And were I a player, by the wording given I'd naturally expect the feature to be always-on no matter what because that's what it says and then probably get somewhat hacked off when the DM shut the feature down when the fiction disagreed with the rule. And that's not fair to the DM, who has unjustifiably been put on the spot by badly-written rules.

And this is one of the other things I've suggested doing--ask the players. "OK, you're in a land you've never been to before. How do you expect to use <feature>?" Because often, the players have really interesting, useful, and sensible ideas. And often, they'll go "Oh, yeah, it wouldn't make sense for me to use it here." And if they do have an idea that's really stupid or illogical or overdone[1], or is one you don't like or that violates your understanding of the RAW or RAI, then you say "Not this time, and we can talk about it more after the session" or even just "No."

Sure, there are argumentative players out there who won't let it go--but in my experience, that's usually because they have DMs who strip all their power and input away to the point they only have RAW to back them up. Either that, or they're just argumentative jerks, in which case they need to be talked to.

-----

[1] And can't be turned into a plot hook, of course. "Yes, it is a bit strange that there's always a ship at every port that's willing to give you a ride. What did you say your passive Perception was again? Hmm." And then you start thinking about what sort of eldritch creatures are manning the boat and why, exactly, they're always there for the PC. As someone who primarily runs horror games, I would be giddy if this happened in one of my games.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, that's why I've been suggesting ignoring the exact phrasing.

Yes, and most of us would almost certainly do just that.

And yet, when we do that we as DMs are removing from the players a power (however minor) that the game rules flat-out state they should own.

My point - and I'm making it not for the first time here - is that putting the DM in the position of having to remove or deny player-side powers in order to make the game work is the wrong way to design a D&D game. The rules should be written much more harshly, with options for the DM to relax them as desired, thus making the DM look like the good guy when she does so and so furthering harmony at the table.

Yeah, well, hindsight woulda shoulda coulda, etc. I'm sure that the '14 books would have quite a few changes if the players got a hold of it before publication. It would have an actually useful index, for starters.

You'd think, after all that playtesting they did.....

And this is one of the other things I've suggested doing--ask the players. "OK, you're in a land you've never been to before. How do you expect to use <feature>?" Because often, the players have really interesting, useful, and sensible ideas. And often, they'll go "Oh, yeah, it wouldn't make sense for me to use it here." And if they do have an idea that's really stupid or illogical or overdone[1], or is one you don't like or that violates your understanding of the RAW or RAI, then you say "Not this time, and we can talk about it more after the session" or even just "No."

Sure, there are argumentative players out there who won't let it go--but in my experience, that's usually because they have DMs who strip all their power and input away to the point they only have RAW to back them up. Either that, or they're just argumentative jerks, in which case they need to be talked to.

Or they're simply players doing what players are supposed to do: advocate for their characters.

Sometimes that advocacy expressly includes taking and holding a stand on rules issues where - as in this case - the rule is clearly worded in their favour. It's then, sadly, on the DM to either accept the player's position or to say "no" and rewrite the rule.

[1] And can't be turned into a plot hook, of course. "Yes, it is a bit strange that there's always a ship at every port that's willing to give you a ride. What did you say your passive Perception was again? Hmm." And then you start thinking about what sort of eldritch creatures are manning the boat and why, exactly, they're always there for the PC. As someone who primarily runs horror games, I would be giddy if this happened in one of my games.

Cool idea for one campaign - I like it! - but hard to justify repeating for every character in every campaign who has that background.

And that's the other thing: what happens once sets precedent for it happening again whenever the same circumstances arise.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes, and most of us would almost certainly do just that.

And yet, when we do that we as DMs are removing from the players a power (however minor) that the game rules flat-out state they should own.

My point - and I'm making it not for the first time here - is that putting the DM in the position of having to remove or deny player-side powers in order to make the game work is the wrong way to design a D&D game. The rules should be written much more harshly, with options for the DM to relax them as desired, thus making the DM look like the good guy when she does so and so furthering harmony at the table.

I disagree. That would make players and DMs alike unwilling to ever relax them at all. If the rule is so strictly worded, then any change to it would be seen as something that, for whatever reason, would ruin the game's balance or intent or make things too easy or too hard or too dangerous.

As an example, the rules for critical hits are quite plain: you roll twice as many damage dice. I have a house rule: the weapon's die (or one of them, if your weapon inflicts more than one die of damage) is maxed; you only roll the extra die. This is because I find it dumb that your critical hit may still only inflict 2 damage and I want critical hits to feel more dangerous. Some of my players don't like that rule, because it means that opponents can also inflict more damage on them. They accept it in my game but won't use it in their own. Fair enough--that's their game, they can use whatever house rules they want; I'm not going to complain. But me "relaxing" that strictly-worded rule hardly made me the seem like the good guy.

Sometimes that advocacy expressly includes taking and holding a stand on rules issues where - as in this case - the rule is clearly worded in their favour. It's then, sadly, on the DM to either accept the player's position or to say "no" and rewrite the rule.

It's not sad. Sometimes the players have very good reasons why a rule needs to change.

Cool idea for one campaign - I like it! - but hard to justify repeating for every character in every campaign who has that background.

Except, of course, that everyone here agrees these features aren't used all that often, and most of the time aren't going to be "abused" in that fashion either. Chances are, your players will try to get a ship (or contact their contact, or get an audience with a noble, or try to hide from the law) once in a great while. Two examples:

(1) There was a fairly long stretch of the game I'm in now that dealt with court bureaucracy (and other things too, but the bureaucracy was a big part of it). I have the Courtier background. Their feature is literally entirely about dealing with court bureaucracy. You know how many times I had to use my feature? Maybe once.

(2) I ran a game that took place along what was basically a world-river. One of the players was a sailor. The number of times he had to get free passage on a boat? None, because he very quickly "obtained" their own boat. Instead, he used his background to help him haggle with people for prices for repair and docking fees.

So my above suggestion is there on the off-chance you have a sailor who insists on getting free passage everywhere they go and who insists that they know someone in every port who will give him that free passage.

And that's the other thing: what happens once sets precedent for it happening again whenever the same circumstances arise.

Sure--and that's not inherently a bad thing at all. If a rule sucks, then changing it is good. Or if a houserule makes an OK rule better, then adopting that houserule is good.