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

[Scott Christian]

We are in a thread where a poster literally gave an example and declared that the player just made it up earlier. It feels like the people trying to hang you on some middle ground are looking for anything but middle ground.

I know, and it seems to happen often in these forums. It's preferred playstyle (from a different game) that bleeds into the D&D discussions. We know how the game is played; the dozens of convention games, streams, and store play give infinite examples.
But some simply don't want to adhere to this. They have played something else, and they want it to be a part of their D&D game. I get it. When Magic the Gathering first came out, I set up the next two D&D modules to incorporate Magic's rules as well. I really wanted to combine the two. Then I realized they are two different games, and that I was playing a "not-so-good" version of both.
Maybe, in their experience, their integration works better. I don't believe it does, simply because every game I have watched live, played at, or seen on the internet doesn't work that way. But, I lived in my MtG bliss for a while, so hopefully they can do the same.

 

[mamba]

Well, the criticism was the feature could be used without the PC talking to/convincing any concerned NPCs. I think, if the table is imagining those interactions taking place, that's a huge improvement!

how much you play this out is up to the table, but since this isn’t the contact from your background, at least the part that establishes a new contact will need something more than just a declaration

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've repeatedly stated that other ways of playing are fine and that I'm talking about my personal preferences.

So did I. Trust me, you don't come off as more casually discussing it or less dismissive than the people you are speaking to about it.

I absolutely believe you that you're just talking about the way you do it - the part I don't understand is why you think that anyone else is doing anything different.

(Before one gets rolling - I am trying to advocate for peace here, not start a fight! I mean any small criticism with the utmost respect.)

 

[Maxperson]

ok, I thought they are still in the process of establishing Frakir as a contact. If they already are, then both can approach them like the first example in your first post. I see no reason that at that time the criminal still has the advantage of not having to roll, it’s just that the criminal gets to that point faster because they can establish trust faster

Because he's a criminal and has a background ability. Why should a wizard cast arcane spells? It's one of his abilities. Why should a dwarf have darkvision? It's one of his abilities.

Once contacts are established, it's only a default auto yes for the criminal. That doesn't mean that the other PC can't possibly achieve an auto yes through roleplaying, but the criminal has an advantage there and doesn't have to jump through any extra hoops to do so. Once the criminal has a contact, it's a yes. Once the non-criminal has a contact, it's a persuasion roll unless something extraordinary happens during roleplay to make it an auto yes or no.

 

[mamba]

Once contacts are established, it's only a default auto yes for the criminal. That doesn't mean that the other PC can't possibly achieve an auto yes through roleplaying, but the criminal has an advantage there

that is basically what I wrote

 

[Hriston]

let me make it as simple as possible

1) the feature says you know some people who can get word to your contact
2) you are in a world you have never been to, so you do not know anyone here
3) your feature that relies on knowing contacts working despite that fact is illogical

Your 2) doesn't follow. I can know (and/or know about, which I think is a fair gloss of the word know as used in the features) people in places I've never been, so that's what's illogical in what you've posted here.

 

[mamba]

Your 2) doesn't follow. I can know (and/or know about, which I think is a fair gloss of the word know as used in the features) people in places I've never been, so that's what's illogical in what you've posted here.

2) pretty much does follow, at least the chance is so slim as to be negligible, so if you want the featrure to rely on that miniscule chance, I very much disagree with that idea

 

[Maxperson]

that is basically what I wrote

Gotcha. That's all backgrounds are. A small advantage for the PC. They aren't intended to be god abilities that work at all times in all corners of every universe.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

2) pretty much does follow, at least the chance is so slim as to be negligible, so if you want the featrure to rely on that miniscule chance, I very much disagree with that idea

Of course you can "close all the doors" and make it impossible. @Hriston has never said that you can't.

His only point has ever been that you don't need to. If the Player and their DM want to establish a reason in their fiction that the PC either "knows someone" or "knows OF someone" or "knows how to get to know someone" or any other extended variant of the sort, then they can come up with a story-based reason for how it happens, without resorting to your illogic.

Far-fetched isn't particularly important, because the details of how it happened would be established in the fiction. And far-fetched stuff has happened in the real world all the time, throughout history.

On top of that, the worlds of D&D are fantastical, so fantastical parts of the fiction might (they don't need to be, it depends on the details of the individual campaign) be an important part of it. But there's no reason that they need to stoop to allowing the illogical, and there's no innate "player entitlement" involved.

At most tables, IME, players and DMs get along and are fully capable of working together to establish something that they're both happy with without a lot of conflict. Or the table falls apart.

Note: The above is my opinion which I humbly submit to the assembly, knowing full well that it will be objected to, and under no circumstances do I expect anyone to submit to my views, nor do I think that there is only one way to play. In fact, I fully suspect that we all play very nice and successful games that differ only in the details, most of which would probably never come up if we were to play together.

 

[tetrasodium]

Of course you can "close all the doors" and make it impossible. @Hriston has never said that you can't.

His only point has ever been that you don't need to. If the Player and their DM want to establish a reason in their fiction that the PC either "knows someone" or "knows OF someone" or "knows how to get to know someone" or any other extended variant of the sort, then they can come up with a story-based reason for how it happens, without resorting to your illogic.

Far-fetched isn't particularly important, because the details of how it happened would be established in the fiction. And far-fetched stuff has happened in the real world all the time, throughout history.

On top of that, the worlds of D&D are fantastical, so fantastical parts of the fiction might (they don't need to be, it depends on the details of the individual campaign) be an important part of it. But there's no reason that they need to stoop to allowing the illogical, and there's no innate "player entitlement" involved.

At most tables, IME, players and DMs get along and are fully capable of working together to establish something that they're both happy with without a lot of conflict. Or the table falls apart.

Note: The above is my opinion which I humbly submit to the assembly, knowing full well that it will be objected to, and under no circumstances do I expect anyone to submit to my views, nor do I think that there is only one way to play. In fact, I fully suspect that we all play very nice and successful games that differ only in the details, most of which would probably never come up if we were to play together.

Are you still talking about d&d? The details of how it happened will obviously not be established when a player simply "player just made up" whatever details are needed to get the GM to stop asking questions that block their solution. That permissiveness towards "player just made up" also works to ensure that whatever established details will be dismissed & discarded with some other JIT solution that avoids any hurdles created by an old creation of some prior session. Worse still is the disruption caused when the GM tries to reintroduce that old contact that the players forgot when the creator denies it by blaming the GM for getting confused or whatever.