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

[Oofta]

T

Neither attacking nor searching for traps are social exchanges. Getting passage on a ship is. Even more so with the feature, because it's assumed (although not required) that you probably have some sort of a connection with the ship or its crew.

There's zero requirement for any social exchange. In a port and need to get to another port? All that's required is that the player says "I'm a sailor so I get free passage on a ship to where we need to go." Badda boom badda bing it just happens according to the rules. Everything else is unnecessary fluff.

 

[Hussar]

My table has found that the how is often incredibly interesting and helps to develop the character enormously and make the scene more colorful.

To me, if you can't imagine how your character would do it, then clearly they can't either, which means they can't do it. If you can imagine your character doing something, then they can at least give it a try (within reason, of course--you can't imagine your fighter into being a wizard without actually multiclassing).


Why would they bother? Because it's a role-playing game. I find it incredibly boring to just say "I use my ability" when actually getting into a conversation at the table and describing my actions makes everything far more interesting. Do you have the PCs roll dice for everything and never actually describe how they're doing anything? Do they never interact with NPCs beyond rolling Charisma skills?

You know, you called me a rule's lawyer but you're the one who is insisting here on no roleplaying and with sticking so closely to the rules that you'd let a hungry chimpanzee on a ship when there is no logical reason for that.

Note, I've never called you a rules lawyer. I have no idea why you are accusing me of doing so. I don't believe we have directly interacted in ages, @Faolyn. But, I certainly never accused anyone of being a rules lawyer.

How is generally a DM's tool for trying to inject "difficulty" into the scene. I have no idea how to climb a wall. Yet, the DM will inevitably ask me "How do you climb that wall". I dunno. I haven't the foggiest. Nor do I care. Note, I'm also pretty sure that the DM doesn't know either, and is only asking in order to block the action.

How do I get passage on a ship? I honestly don't know. I've never booked passage on a sailing ship in a medieval setting. Is there a travel agent? Expedia website? Let me ask you then. Who should you talk to when booking passage on a ship? The captain? The quartermaster? The owner of the ship, since that's very likely not the captain? Can I just talk to any sailor? I don't know. And netiehr do you.

But, because I don't know, then my character can't do it, according to you. Despite the fact that it says that I CAN do it right there on my character sheet. It doesn't say, "talk to your DM so that your DM may place fifteen hoops for you to jump through in order to book passage". It says, "You can book passage". Done. The point of the exercise is that the passage is booked. I've booked the passage, let's go. We know that you want us on that ship. We want on that ship. Why be coy and pretend like it's not going to happen? I have a thing in my character background that says I get to skip this. Since I took this background and you okayed it, then presumably we're all good with skipping this.

Does that mean I get to skip every single social interaction? Nope. Just this one. I don't care about making this scene more colorful. I just want to get on with the adventure. If I have to "get into a conversation" every time I want to use this ability on my character sheet, well, why is it there? What's the point of it? Anyone can have this conversation. Doesn't have to be me. Let Dave over there "make the scene more colorful". I'll be having a nap until we actually get to the interesting bits where the DM isn't arbitrarily screwing me over just to make things "more colorful".

 

[soviet]

T
There's zero requirement for any social exchange. In a port and need to get to another port? All that's required is that the player says "I'm a sailor so I get free passage on a ship to where we need to go." Badda boom badda bing it just happens according to the rules. Everything else is unnecessary fluff.

Can't you make exactly the same argument about e.g. IC discussions between the PCs? No chance of failure so you just skip over it?

 

[Hussar]

Neither attacking nor searching for traps are social exchanges. Getting passage on a ship is. Even more so with the feature, because it's assumed (although not required) that you probably have some sort of a connection with the ship or its crew.

I'm booking passage on a ship. Why does this need to be a "social exchange"? I book, I pay my gold, and we move on to the next scene. Done. I don't want to talk to random NPC #162 that is going to feature this one time and never again. What's wrong with just getting on with it?

 

[Hriston]

I glossed over it because it was such a weird take that I did not think it warranted a reply.

If you are really having a hard time with understanding what else ‘always’ could possibly mean, let me help you out. I meant ‘every time’ because that actually does make sense, as you noted ‘constantly’ would be entirely nonsensical…

Okay, then what's wrong with a feature like Criminal Contact "working" (i.e. you can send and receive messages to and from your contact) just those times when it's used by the player? To go back to Ravenloft, let's say it's established the party is in Barovia and the table agrees the means stated by the player of the criminal PC to get messages to and from their contact are supported by the fiction and don't violate the game's genre conventions (i.e. the game is not dysfunctional). What's wrong with it working under those conditions? Because that's seriously all I'm advocating for.

first of all, the feature does say that, there is nothing unstated about it, your denial does not change that.

It's unclear here which feature you're talking about, but assuming it's Criminal Contact, I don't know how you get from a statement that "you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors" to a requirement that those facts be established through gameplay independently of the feature, which is what you seem to be saying. You might as well also say the feature doesn't grant you "a reliable and trustworthy contact" unless you play through the process of cultivating one first. Basically, you're just looking at what the player's feature grants them and saying "no, you don't."

Second, by removing that prerequisite you are removing the cases in which it would not work, which leaves us with a feature that is working every time…

It's not a prerequisite, so I haven't removed anything. It is part of the benefit of the feature, so you are the one removing something.

I have no idea what play was dysfunctional,

It seems you were already in the process of responding to my post while I was still editing it to clarify what I meant by this. Here's the final version of my last paragraph with the parts missing from the text you quoted in bold:

What I have tried to advocate for is the features working when, and only when, the players use them by making action declarations that invoke their features, as long as the described actions fall within the game's genre considerations and their PCs have the fictional positioning to take the described actions. If both conditions aren't met, something has gone wrong with the table's consensus on the established fiction and a discussion needs to take place to get everyone imagining pretty much the same thing. Hypothetical examples of dysfunctional play where this step is not being taken don't show there's anything wrong with these features.​

I hope that clarifies what I meant by dysfunctional.

as far as I can tell your stance is ‘when the player says so, that is what it is’, so working every time

It's more nuanced than that. It rests on the precondition that a player is making a permissible action declaration only if it has the requisite fictional positioning and is within genre, which are matters of table consensus. As long as those conditions are met, there's no problem with the feature "working" when the player makes an action declaration that relies on it.

Give me an example where the player declares it, the GM rejects it, and you side with the GM, I cannot think of one… and no, the two disagreeing does not make the game dysfunctional, that is just your cop out to not have to address this case

No, dysfunctional play, as I believe I've now clarified, would be if there was such a disagreement at the table over whether the feature could be used appropriately to the situation, and play merely proceeded without a discussion to resolve the disagreement, so a player having one conception of the fiction, in which using the feature is appropriate, declares an action expecting a certain result, and the DM adjudicates the player's action using a different conception of the fiction in which it was not appropriate to use the feature. There's no example of functional play that fits what you've described, but I can give an example of what functional play looks like in the event of such a table disagreement. The player(s) and DM stop the game and come to an agreement on what the fiction actually entails, and then either the player's action is resolved in a way that honors their use of the feature, or the player revises their actions declaration to one that conforms to the agreed upon fiction.

 

[Hussar]

Can't you make exactly the same argument about e.g. IC discussions between the PCs? No chance of failure so you just skip over it?

No. Because I don't have anything on my character sheet that would remove the requirement for other social interactions. I have a very limited ribbon ability that lets me book passage on ships. That's it. It doesn't apply anywhere else. Or, I have a limited ribbon ability that lets me send messages. Or I have a limited ribbon ability that lets me get a safe place to sleep for the night.

FFS, let the players have their minor ribbon abilities. Like I said earlier, this thread is exactly why those abilities are going away. Just like things like alignment, all it does is cause problems and arguments at the table. So, make it go away, turn things into minor feats and all the arguments stop. Better yet, turn them all into once per day spells and then it's really no problem. After all, magic solves everything.

 

[Oofta]

Can't you make exactly the same argument about e.g. IC discussions between the PCs? No chance of failure so you just skip over it?

Those discussions are not required either. I'm sure some groups ignore it entirely and still have fun playing the game. Wouldn't work for me, but I don't tell others how to play the game.

 

[mamba]

To me, if you can't imagine how your character would do it, then clearly they can't either, which means they can't do it.

the feature says they can, so they can do it… also, let me introduce you to @Hussar

I gotta admit, as a player that’s generally my reaction to DMs who do this. How do I do it? I don’t know. I don’t care either. I just do it, stop trying to monkey’s paw things and get to the results.

The how is completely uninteresting and only being done so you can say no/nerf the idea/throw roadblocks up so I have to faff about for the next X amount of time until I satisfy your sense of “challenge”.

I took the background specifically so I don’t have to do this. It just gets done.

If you’re not going to allow it, just tell me that and quit wasting my time. If you are going to allow it, then quit wasting g my time and let’s go. In either case, quit wasting my time.

 

[mamba]

Okay, then what's wrong with a feature like Criminal Contact "working" (i.e. you can send and receive messages to and from your contact) just those times when it's used by the player? To go back to Ravenloft, let's say it's established the party is in Barovia and the table agrees the means stated by the player of the criminal PC to get messages to and from their contact are supported by the fiction and don't violate the game's genre conventions (i.e. the game is not dysfunctional). What's wrong with it working under those conditions?

if the table agrees that there is no problem, then there is no problem.

When the DM points out that since you are in Ravenloft and do not know anyone here, that means you also do not know any messengers, and even if you did they could not leave Ravenloft, then there is…

The problem is that you start with the premise that there are no issues and then say ‘since there are no issues, I can do it’.
You are basically saying ‘if I ignore all the reasons for why my car cannot go 500 mph, then it should be able to go 500 mph’

It's unclear here which feature you're talking about, but assuming it's Criminal Contact, I don't know how you get from a statement that "you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors" to a requirement that those facts be established through gameplay independently of the feature

of course it is the criminal, I have been talking about no other background for 200 pages

I am not saying the messengers need to be established through gameplay, I am saying the feature says you know the messengers, you do not know anyone in Ravenloft, therefore no one in Ravenloft is one of the messengers that can get a message to your contact / one of the messengers your feature refers to

It's more nuanced than that. It rests on the precondition that a player is making a permissible action declaration only if it has the requisite fictional positioning and is within genre, which are matters of table consensus. As long as those conditions are met, there's no problem with the feature "working" when the player makes an action declaration that relies on it.

so if the DM says 'you know no one in Ravenloft, so there are no messengers your feature refers to' that would be ok, because the player 'lacks the requisite fictional positioning' then?

 

[Hussar]

the feature says they can, so they can do it… also, let me introduce you to @Hussar

Oh, fair enough. I've been pretty clear here that I'm not on board with the DM arbitrarily road blocking abilities for the sole purpose of satisfying their own sense of what is "plausible". I simply don't care what you find plausible. That's a you problem. The only reason it becomes a me problem is because you're forcing your preferences upon me through the authority of sitting in the big daddy chair.

Because if you were simply another player at the table, I would giggle if you tried to deny my use of a character ability. But, because it's YOUR table and YOUR campaign, suddenly I have to jump through all these arbitrary hoops to satisfy YOUR sense of plausibility. Which leads to players simply abandoning things like this in favor of spells where the DM won't do that.

The feature gives a poor man's version of a limited use spell. Whoopee! Wow, that's totally going to destroy your campaign. Totally unbelievable. That thirty seconds at the table which isn't likely going to have a single bit of impact on the game is going to completely ruin all your hard work.



So, wake me up when we get back to stuff we're actually here to do. Because faffing about for an hour to book passage on a ship that is completely superfluous to the campaign (could be any ship, any NPC's, doesn't matter since the point of booking the passage is GOING SOMEWHERE). Because faffing about for an hour trying to send a message when I could simply cast a spell and 15 seconds later get back to the game is just so much fun.

No thanks. I'll stick to not screwing over my players thanks. If they want to role play out sending a message or booking a passage? Great. I can do that. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste the table's time on incredibly tedious, boring, and utterly pointless stuff just so I can pretend that it's "plausible". My ego's nowhere near that important to me.