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

[soviet]

It feels like the thread is stuck in something vaguely like the following (please edit in your head as needed). I wonder if we'll get an AI someday that can enforce a stalemate for a thread when it finds an (essentially) repeated set of moves?

A: X always works
B: No, it doesn't, that's ludicrous
C: Why wouldn't it work?
B: No, it can work sometimes but certainly not always.
C: Why can't it work the vast majority of the time?
B: Why should it work in crazy examples!?
C: Why are you hung up on crazy examples?
<iterate>
B&C: So X should always work when it's reasonable, in iffy cases when there's a reason, and should not be expected to work in the virtually impossible cases
A: X Always works!
<go back to line 2, possibly with B and/or C subbed out for B+1 and/or C+1>

Or is there some general disagreement (beyond a person or two) about "X should always work when it's reasonable, in iffy cases when there's a reason, and should not be expected to work in the virtually impossible cases"

I'm not sure anyone thinks the abilities should always work. The issue is what that failure rate should be, and what the bar for reasonableness is.

Personally I can almost always find a way to justify such abilities, or a way to play through the justification of such abilities. And I think the GM should be looking for a reason to say yes rather than no. The failure rate I would expect to see is south of 1 in 10, and it's where we're in extreme edge cases like 'you're in a locked box with no way to contact the outside world' - stuff that any decent player wouldn't try anyway.

I think the 'other side' defines what's reasonable differently. They assign such abilities a much higher failure rate. They apply a much stricter reading to the conditions in the text. They require the justification to have been pre-agreed as part of the character's history rather than revealed on the spot. They require the usage to meet with their own ideas about cultural attitudes, shipping charts, underworld etiquette, bird migrations, weather conditions, etc. They aren't looking for a reason to say no, necessarily, but they are at best neutral about it. If the player's idea of what should happen isn't a match with the GM's, then the GM's ideas should automatically take precedence.

 

[mamba]

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?

between sensible and limited and utter nonsense I go with the former. No idea what the designers thought, nor does it matter to me. I assume they meant local the way I did, there are other backgrounds that do.

As you point out neither option is really satisfactory, but at least one is not nonsensical, so I take that one…

 

[FitzTheRuke]

yes, but it is not reliably weird

Right. But it could happen in any given individual case, none of which would be common.

the reason we do not discuss the common scenarios is that no one disagrees about it working then..

Exactly! You seem to jump back-and-forth between common and unique cases, depending on what will make for the most disagreement.

I assume that it must feel to you that the same is happening on the "other side". It seems to me like most of the arguments around here stem from both sides seemingly doing the same thing while only seeing the other side as doing it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

between sensible and limited and utter nonsense I go with the former. No idea what the designers thought, nor does it matter to me. As far as I can tell it was not all that much to begin with or we would have a better feature.

As you point out neither option is really satisfactory, but at least one is not nonsensical, so I take that one…

... Aside from this. THIS is the other source of arguments. Where one side (intentionally or not - I know that I never intended for anyone to think that I was belittling their peferences) mischaracterizes the other:

You have characterized anyone who disagrees with you as nonsensical or at least, that they play games that allow for "nonsense" in their stories. This is NOT the case. It's a pretty rude and uncharitable suggestion. I'd like to think that you don't mean it to be.

 

[Cadence]

If the player's idea of what should happen isn't a match with the GM's, then the GM's ideas should automatically take precedence.

Unless I am misremembering something, that is how D&D the game has unequivocally presented the dynamic in B/X, 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e and 5e at least. I am very happy that later editions are explicit about the DM taking what the player wants into account (certainly more than some of the things in 1e!!). I am happy that almost all DMs on here seem to discuss things with their players before starting campaigns. I am also happy that nothing prevents a DM from relinquishing that authority if they want and many apparently choose to. And I am sad that many players don't have a choice of DMs. Vaguely tying into the OP, I am interested to see how 2024 presents it.

 

[mamba]

Right. But it could happen in any given individual case, none of which would be common.

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

 

[soviet]

... Aside from this. THIS is the other source of arguments. Where one side (intentionally or not - I know that I never intended for anyone to think that I was belittling their peferences):

You have characterized anyone who disagrees with you as nonsensical or at least, that they play games that allow for "nonsense" in their stories. This is NOT the case. It's a pretty rude and uncharitable suggestion. I'd like to think that you don't mean it to be.

Yes, if it's rude to say that those who don't allow certain uses lack the imagination to think of a justification, it's also rude to say that those who do allow such uses have implausible/nonsensical gameworlds.

 

[soviet]

Unless I am misremembering something, that is how D&D the game has unequivocally presented the dynamic in 1e, 2e, 3/3.5e and 5e at least. I am very happy that later editions are explicit about the DM taking what the player wants into account (certainly more than some of the things in 1e!!). I am happy that almost all DMs on here seem to discuss things with their players before starting campaigns. I am also happy that nothing prevents a DM from relinquishing that authority if they want and many choose to. And I am sad that many players don't have a choice of DMs. Vaguely tying into the OP, I am interested to see how 2024 presents it.

Well, I don't think that 5e is unequivocal about anything. But aside from that, no, I think that the background traits themselves are a marker on the 'non-GM dominance' side of the ledger, albeit a fairly lonely one.

 

[mamba]

You have characterized anyone who disagrees with you as nonsensical or at least, that they play games that allow for "nonsense" in their stories.

here is what I said is nonsensical

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

If you think either of these options is reasonable, I guess I am belittling you.

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

 

[Cadence]

Well, I don't think that 5e is unequivocal about anything.

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