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

[mamba]

By sticking to the exact phrasing, you mean that mamba and Oofta should have to not only use those features, but allow them to function everywhere, all the time. Right?

that is not what the feature says (local...), despite you ignoring that, but yes, that is what the discussion is about, where are messengers available.... somehow I thought that was clear 200 pages ago...

 

[tetrasodium]

If I ever needed convincing that natural language is an awful way to clearly communicate something, then that has been decisively settled by this thread…

It's been clear since 2014 but this thread has demonstrated how extremely terrible of a choice it was and why it should never be repeated. The thread shows a couple other things as well though... Specifically it shows the impossible fight that the gm is setup to detail the game or fold over when a player feels wronged by fiat override and the player mindset that was protected.

I am not saying make it all technical, that is a nuisance to read, but be very precise in how you write things, maybe even add a glossary that defines what commonly used terms mean

Technical writing doesn't need to be difficult to read, Ikea directions are a good example of bad technical writing that most people are familiar with &4e wasn't much better with it's crunch presentation.

Although there are differences in goal and standardization level "technical writing" is not particularly different from any other codified structure of writing (ie AP MLA etc). The term "natural language" is more the odd man out term used to distinguish everything not covered by some structural framework under a useful term rather than any sort of standard.

 

[mamba]

Technical writing doesn't need to be difficult to read, Ikea directions are a good example of bad technical writing that most people are familiar with &4e wasn't much better with it's crunch presentation.

and that is why I am not so sure I want it to be technical again rather than just better natural writing

 

[tetrasodium]

and that is why I am not so sure I want it to be technical again rather than just better natural writing

4e was only "better" than the average Ikea assembly instructions because the Ikea assembly instructions place a high value on the merits of being understandable to people who can barely speak/read the language (ie english/french/spanish) or are going through a hilariously altered state of consciousness like so. Bad technical writing is not a black mark on technical writing any more than bad AP/MLA/etc writing is the fault of those.

 

[Faolyn]

when it comes to the feature, the messengers are how you communicate, I am not sure why you have such a hard time focusing on the feature

You mean the feature CRIMINAL CONTACT? Yeah, I have no idea why I'd focus on the CONTACT part of the CRIMINAL CONTACT feature. Are messenger and contact synonyms?

sending has nothing at all to do with the feature either

Yes it does. It's a way to contact your CRIMINAL CONTACT. You know, the thing the entire feature is about.

If your whole point is the feature says you have a contact,

Which I have been saying for 200 pages.

But hey, everything I write is twisted and wrong, yeah? So you just flat-out ignore it.

so there are different ways to get information to them, e.g. through sending, then yes, you can, if you have access to sending or other magical means. If you do not then you might have access to messengers, depending on where you are, then I agree. The discussion is about when the messengers are available however, so in that case I am not sure why you keep brining up things that are irrelevant to this

No, the discussion is not about that. You keep trying to pretend it is, because then you can ignore anything other than the RAW. Because for some reason, even though you claim you don't care about the RAW, you refuse to ignore that one sentence.

So since everything I say is wrong, why do you even bother replying to me?

 

[Maxperson]

If I ever needed convincing that natural language is an awful way to clearly communicate something, then that has been decisively settled by this thread…

I am not saying make it all technical, that is a nuisance to read, but be very precise in how you write things, maybe even add a glossary that defines what commonly used terms mean

The grass is always greener. 3e made the attempt at being precise and that led to other issues that folks complained about and wanted changed. We got 4e and 5e as a result.

Personally, I find myself less frustrated by the natural language model, but more frustrated by the "We aren't going to produce much of anything other than adventures and monsters" model.

 

[mamba]

You mean the feature CRIMINAL CONTACT? Yeah, I have no idea why I'd focus on the CONTACT part of the CRIMINAL CONTACT feature. Are messenger and contact synonyms?

no, but the feature says ‘specifically you know the local messengers who can deliver messages for you’, so don’t pretend like the only focus is the contact here.
We both simply allow the contact to be reached by other means too, if feasible

No, the discussion is not about that.

sure it has, the question has always been about messengers, and as far as I can tell you have been arguing that the character should be able to find one even under the most unlikely of circumstances, so they can get their message delivered. Why argue for that then…

 

[Lanefan]

By sticking to the exact phrasing, you mean that mamba and Oofta should have to not only use those features, but allow them to function everywhere, all the time. Right?

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.

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

 

[Lanefan]

It's been clear since 2014 but this thread has demonstrated how extremely terrible of a choice it was and why it should never be repeated.

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.

Although there are differences in goal and standardization level "technical writing" is not particularly different from any other codified structure of writing (ie AP MLA etc). The term "natural language" is more the odd man out term used to distinguish everything not covered by some structural framework under a useful term rather than any sort of standard.

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.

 

[Nakana]

I’m a 4e fan. The only thing that might bring me to 5e is if they bring back the Nentir Vale.

Given the recent news about Greyhawk, I guess I won’t be moving to 5e.