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

[soviet]

<- That was what my laugh-like was for (the rest is a thumbs-up-like).

I appreciate the clarification!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

yes, they could get lucky, I said earlier that you can find a way / excuse. To me that does not mean I am obligated to do so every time however

Of course not. No one has once suggested that you have to do it the same way. They've just disagreed with your characterization of their use of it as NONSENSE. Again, you're acting like the other side is telling you that your way is wrong, while telling them that their way is wrong.

That means you know the local messenger wherever you happen to be. That either means 1) you know all messengers there are, all across all the worlds and planes and 2) they exist all across the world and planes to ensure there always are local messengers or 3) you know a handful or so of messengers and miraculously one of those is always wherever you find yourself

No, it doesn't have to be either of those things. They are, again, mischaracterization of what's been discussed.

If you however agree that neither one makes sense and are ok with the unlikely but not impossible coincidences you go with, then I am not belittling you, I just very rarely would do the same

And yet, you persist on calling any way that is different to how you'd do it as nonsense.

Heck, I don't personally LIKE the background features at all - I only got into this discussion because I think that it's perfectly fine for others to use it - without resorting to "illogic" and "nonsense" as they were characterized with "being okay with" as the only allowable option for why they'd put up with it. (Either that or having the DM passively give in to unreasonable player demand). None of these things are required - only imaginative storytelling.

Which isn't to say that games that "say no" don't also have imaginative storytelling! I'm absolutely sure that they do!

 

[mamba]

Of course not. No one has once suggested that you have to do it the same way. They've just disagreed with your characterization of their use of it as NONSENSE. Again, you're acting like the other side is telling you that your way is wrong, while telling them that their way is wrong.

if no one claims it should always work, that there are cases where it very unlikely but unlikely things can happen, then we can end it right here. What you say is not nonsense, I just would probably not use that long shot as often as you do.

That is not how I understand it however. If someone insists that it has to always work, then to me it means they have to insist on one of the two options I mentioned, and yes, both are nonsensical, nothing I can do about that

No, it doesn't have to be either of those things. They are, again, mischaracterization of what's been discussed

if you always know the local messengers, no matter where you go, then these are the two options. If you have a third one, I’d like to hear it

 

[Scott Christian]

The more I read that feature, the more I believe it is intended to be local, not universal (you know the local messengers…). In any case, nothing will convince you and I feel I said everything more than once already, so I won’t continue this topic with you

To start, the DM has discretion in D&D to say no. It is stated. But, if we interpret the writing:

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver the message for you."

The wording is clearly problematic:

• It states you have a contact (singular), yet you know local messengers, caravan masters, and sailors (plural). Now if it said, "specifically, you can use you liaison to contact local messengers..." then it might make sense.
• Second, it phrases the three you know as a list. Meaning the "local" adjective does not carry over to the caravan masters and sailors. If they wrote it like this: "specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters and seedy sailors, who can deliver the message for you." then I think the local argument might have some weight. But it is a list, not an appositive. Therefore, local does not attach to the other items on the list.
• And let us not forget the oxymoron that is a "reliable and trustworthy" contact to a network of "other" criminals. Does that mean they are a criminal or are they referring to you as the criminal. The way this is phrased, it means the liaison is also a criminal.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

if no one claims it should always work, that there are cases where it very unlikely but unlikely things can happen, then we can end it right here. What you say is not nonsense, I just would probably not use that long shot as often as you do.

That is not how I understand it however. If someone insists that it has to always work, then to me it means they have to insist on one of the two options I mentioned, and yes, both are nonsensical, nothing I can do about that


if you always know the local messengers, no matter where you go, then these are the two options. If you have a third one, I’d like to hear it

Nah, it's a typical argument of nuance, while both sides characterize the other as only allowing for the extreme-ends: "You're saying this feature can NEVER work!" vs "You're saying that this feature must ALWAYS work!"

Where, say, @Oofta is saying that they would "rarely" work in HIS games, because he often has his PCs 'ported to parts unknown, and @Hriston is saying that they would "nearly always" work in HIS games, because they're very unlikely to be somewhere where he can't come up with a good story to everyone's satisfaction. (Or so I infer, both of you feel free to correct me.)

I sound like I'm on Hriston's side, only in that I can't imagine a scene in which it would be impossible for me to come up with a story reason that would work if I were of a mind to, but IF the scene was so far outside the norm that it wouldn't make any sense? Well, in that case, I'd be closer to @Oofta, in that 1) My players wouldn't ask (because they'd be roleplaying the fish-out-of-water scenario of that game) AND 2) I'd make it obvious and clear that there was no contact to be had.

Poorly worded, misspoken, and circular as this whole discussion has been, I don't think that any of us are all that different - we do things different by degrees not by whole extremes, even when it appears otherwise.

 

[mamba]

To start, the DM has discretion in D&D to say no. It is stated. But, if we interpret the writing:

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver the message for you."

The wording is clearly problematic:

• It states you have a contact (singular), yet you know local messengers, caravan masters, and sailors (plural). Now if it said, "specifically, you can use you liaison to contact local messengers..." then it might make sense.

to me the messengers and others are the way to get messages to your contact. Implicitly that means you can contact the messengers

• Second, it phrases the three you know as a list. Meaning the "local" adjective does not carry over to the caravan masters and sailors. If they wrote it like this: "specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters and seedy sailors, who can deliver the message for you." then I think the local argument might have some weight. But it is a list, not an appositive. Therefore, local does not attach to the other items on the list.

that is because caravans and sailors do not tend to stay local, but to me that still means we are talking about the ones that make a stop in your local area

• And let us not forget the oxymoron that is a "reliable and trustworthy" contact to a network of "other" criminals. Does that mean they are a criminal or are they referring to you as the criminal. The way this is phrased, it means the liaison is also a criminal.

your contact is the one that can reach other criminals. the contact is likely is a criminal themselves and you all are likely part of that same network

 

[Lanefan]

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, the alternative is the messengers are local to the place in which you are.

Yes, that's how I'd read it; but then how do you know them?

And it's not "you might know the local messengers"*, it's straight-up "you know the local messengers"; which makes it automatic.

* - if that key word 'might' was in there, all this discussion would be moot.

 

[Lanefan]

So the fact you probably don't know somebody on every single plane of existence means it's completely unbelievable that you know somebody on one of them?

I know a few people in the UK but the odds of me happening to bump into one of them by chance were I to suddenly find myself in London would be near-zero low.

 

[Lanefan]

Which makes the feature useless in any game that isn't tied to a specific location. Do you really think that's what the designers intended, to have a trait that is useless 95% of the time?

It's what they wrote.

I suspect the designers assumed these background thingies would be used more at low levels when the PCs are most likely still not far from their point(s) of origin; and become less relevant and-or useful as the PCs gained levels and started adventuring farther afield.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, that's how I'd read it; but then how do you know them?

And it's not "you might know the local messengers"*, it's straight-up "you know the local messengers"; which makes it automatic.

* - if that key word 'might' was in there, all this discussion would be moot.

I think the intention was that the DM and player would work together to create an appropriate contact, organization, network, or whatever best fits the campaign. The list they provide, I suspect, was only meant to inspire.

Of course, depending on the table, this could range from a DM allowing a player to come up with their own contact on the spot, working it into the fiction (someone like Matt Mercer might do it that way) across a wide range of back-and-forths between players and DMs (either in the game or out of it) all the way to the DM doing all the work themselves, and introducing what they've come up with to the player during play.

All of those approaches are fine, depending on the table, the roles they've defined, and the trust they have built (or feel comfortable with).