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

Hussar said:

As a player at that table, I'd resent every single second that you spent on your sidebar. If it became a habit, I would quit the group. The fact that you care so little about what anyone else thinks is fun, in order to make your own fun the highest priority is the last thing I want from a fellow player.

Click to expand...

I'm not resentful when the bard takes game time to recite poems and sagas that the player actually wrote.
I'm not resentful when the cleric takes game time to have vision (or actual) quests.
I'm not resentful when the fighter takes game time to explore his background (the player went for amnesiac) or had long, personal moments with his adoptive family.

We don't resent each other when one player gets a bit of extra screen time, because we know that everyone will get a chance to shine. At the end of each session, we give out two inspiration. One is awarded by the DM. The other is awarded by the players as a group. The players game me inspiration for my "sidebar," just like we give them inspiration for when they do things like I wrote above.

I have asked the other players to tell out of character me if my actions are hurting the game, because I know that chaotic neutral is a very iffy alignment. Out of character, am I, Faolyn, doing things that are harmful to the other players' enjoyment of the game? You know what? They always say no. And since we as a group are very good at expressing our feelings to one another like adults, especially when one person does something that is bothersome to another, I can trust that they actually mean no, not that they actually mean yes but are trying to be polite.

Hussar said:

As a DM, my reaction would be, "Ok, you talk to the fortune teller. We'll deal with that over email (or whatever format you care for) during the week between sessions.

Click to expand...

And if it were just a talky moment that had no hooks or mechanical issues, the DM would have done that--and has done that. But I think you ignored the bit where there was actually important information. I guess I wasn't clear about it: this was a literal encounter the DM had planned for, in case one of us decided to go to the fortune teller's. The DM wasn't "forced" to come up with something for me. This was something already written up.

It's like the thing with the five boats, where two of the boats had backstories and a purpose other than just "ferry the players somewhere."

My own upcoming game has numerous NPCs that have their own plot hooks. Some of them connect to the main plot; others, to side-plots. They're all there in case the PCs want to talk to the NPCs, not because they have to talk to the NPCs.

None of these sidebars are pointless. I'm not going to write red herrings for no good reason. A side-plot may not lead to the main plot, but it will lead to something meaningful.

Hussar said:

I would then deliberately turn away from you to the rest of the group and I would not come back to you until after they had dealt with the temple.

This is the exact opposite of what I want from a game or a player.

You keep telling me to change how I game. As if the way you game is somehow "superior". That it's somehow more fun.

Click to expand...

Superior? Well, the other players at my table and I are having fun. Are you? Because you certainly don't seem to be.

Hussar said:

I've gamed at those kinds of tables. They are the furthest thing from fun for me. They work for you? Great. Different strokes. But, insisting that I should somehow start playing the way you want to play, so that we spend even MORE time on pointless sidebars, forcing the DM to constantly come up with stuff that rewards your spotlight hogging, is the last thing I want at a table.

Click to expand...

I have to wonder, if any sort of diversion upsets you, how are you expressing this at the table? Are you pretending that everything is hunky-dory, or are you complaining like you're complaining here?

Micah Sweet said:

That all makes sense. Can we all accept then that background features, regardless of how they are presented in the 2014 books, are in fact adventure/campaign dependent and therefore may not work as well (or at all) at all tables and in all campaigns?

Click to expand...

Sure. And I never said that they had to work in all campaigns.

What I've been talking about is the incorrect idea that they are always bad and illogical because certain DMs have decided that they can't work in a few very specific circumstances--even though there are logical ways for them to work in those circumstances.

Faolyn said:

Sure. And I never said that they had to work in all campaigns.

What I've been talking about is the incorrect idea that they are always bad and illogical because certain DMs have decided that they can't work in a few very specific circumstances--even though there are logical ways for them to work in those circumstances.

Click to expand...

True, they're not always bad, but they cN be bad for certain tables and certain campaigns, and for those tables it amounts to the same thing. The rules paint the use of backgrounds with far too broad a brush.

Faolyn said:

I have to wonder, if any sort of diversion upsets you, how are you expressing this at the table? Are you pretending that everything is hunky-dory, or are you complaining like you're complaining here?

Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing. There might be a common denominator why groups @Hussar plays in so often wish not to continue the campaign...

EDIT: That came off as incredibly harsh, but if the participants (even completely legitimately) constantly complain or otherwise express that they are not enjoying the campaign, that will diminish the fun of the other participants, which in turn makes them less eager to continue.

Micah Sweet said:

That all makes sense. Can we all accept then that background features, regardless of how they are presented in the 2014 books, are in fact adventure/campaign dependent and therefore may not work as well (or at all) at all tables and in all campaigns?

Click to expand...

I think that's exactly it, you nailed it - they can work well in some games and at some tables, when there's a lot of buy-in by both the DMs and the Players involved, in that they've found a way to make them work for their table and game. However, they don't suit all tables or all campaigns. In fact, it seems likely (based on WotC's actions in removing them) that they didn't fit most tables or most games, for whatever reason.

Which is not to say that no one found value in them. It just seems that not enough people found value in them. I would hope that tables that liked them will continue to do something very similar to what they were doing before, regardless of whether there is "official" support for it. Worst case scenario for tables that enjoyed them: Keep using them by either sticking to 5.14 or mix-n-matching with 5.24, OR just port them over. Heck, you could probably easily just make a list of Backgrounds and write your own (based on the 5.14 ones, but with more details for how you best prefer to use them).

Crimson Longinus said:

I was thinking the exact same thing. There might be a common denominator why groups @Hussar plays in so often wish not to continue the campaign...

Click to expand...

That might be a bit harsh of an implied judgement, but I have to admit: IMO it takes patience sometimes to Play Nice With Others. I'm glad that I generally play with a pretty laid-back group. Not everybody gets exactly what they want all the time, and that fact doesn't bother anyone.

For example, we have one player who clearly (and vocally) wants to "roll Initiative" pretty much all the time. I take that to mean that he enjoys combat, so I try to make sure that he's going to get one as often as is reasonable - but he still has fun when the group is RPing or problem-solving or plot-building. He doesn't "resent" it!

OTOH, if @Hussar has managed to find a table that all (or most) the players feel the same way, then he should be good to go with a fun game. I get the impression that he's just sharing his deeper feelings about his preferences, and his experiences aren't entirely as negative as they sound. By which I mean, I don't think that he's not having fun playing, he just knows what he likes and doesn't like.

Faolyn said:

To be fair, Ravenloft is a closed domain. You can enter unless the Dark Powers (i.e., the DM) allow it. So you can't know about people in Ravenloft because there's no way to get that knowledge, and if you're in Ravenloft, you can't get in touch with people who aren't in Ravenloft.

Also, the Dark Powers will alter memories or create completely new ones. The domain of Darkon was actually all about that in earlier editions.

Click to expand...

Other than the DM is in control of the Dark Powers, this tells me nothing about how it’s supposed to operate at the table. I’m sure the PCs aren’t the only people the DP have ever allowed into Ravenloft, and presumably they’ve also let some of those people out again who could have brought stories back to their home worlds about their experiences, some of which could have come to the PCs’ ears in the years represented by their backgrounds. As travelers between worlds, the Vistani could also have brought information about Ravenloft to the Material Plane, and zeroing in on Barovia, wasn’t the time of its occultation into Ravenloft only about 400 years before the present day of the adventure? That seems recent enough for some to remember tales of the land that mysteriously disappeared into the Mists.

EtA: So I understand the DM plays the DP in the game, but that really doesn't tell us how the players are supposed to interact with the wider setting and how it might intersect with their PCs' backgrounds, that is unless the DM's control of this aspect of the setting is being used to justify running a total railroad.

Hriston said:

Other than the DM is in control of the Dark Powers, this tells me nothing about how it’s supposed to operate at the table. I’m sure the PCs aren’t the only people the DP have ever allowed into Ravenloft, and presumably they’ve also let some of those people out again who could have brought stories back to their home worlds about their experiences, some of which could have come to the PCs’ ears in the years represented by their backgrounds. As travelers between worlds, the Vistani could also have brought information about Ravenloft to the Material Plane, and zeroing in on Barovia, wasn’t the time of its occultation into Ravenloft only about 400 years before the present day of the adventure? That seems recent enough for some to remember tales of the land that mysteriously disappeared into the Mists.

Click to expand...

Sometimes the Dark Powers take entire cities or countries. Sometimes they take a copy, or they take the original and leave a copy in its place (there's literally no way to tell). The Mists also does weird things with time. You can enter them and exit immediately, only to find that years, decades, or centuries have passed. Or you can enter them and wander for a week, only to emerge after only a few minutes. It's even possible to enter the Mists and exit them before you ever left. Some of the Vistani have mastered this ability and do not exist in linear time the way everyone else does, effectively letting them travel in time, and at least one, Madame Eva, is still around even though, hundreds of years ago, she was murdered by Jacqueline Montarri.

Of course, that was back in previous editions. Now it's pretty much whatever you want.

Hriston said:

So I understand the DM plays the DP in the game, but that really doesn't tell us how the players are supposed to interact with the wider setting and how it might intersect with their PCs' backgrounds, that is unless the DM's control of this aspect of the setting is being used to justify running a total railroad.

Click to expand...

the DM saying that your Criminal has no messengers he knows in Barovia does not make the adventure a railroad

mamba said:

the DM saying that your Criminal has no messengers he knows in Barovia does not make the adventure a railroad

Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Anyone that doesn't DM exactly like I expect them to is an evil, soul crushing monster laughing maniacally as we trudge through yet another railroad with no hope of ever using every theoretical option our character has.

I mean the other option is that different DMs have different preferences and there's no reason to be insulting about how other people play their games. We could simply accept that there is no one true way and that no DM is right for every player and vice versa. Hmm ... nah.