• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Plan to adopt the new core rules?

  • Yep

    Votes: 256 53.3%
  • Nope

    Votes: 224 46.7%

Hussar

Legend
I am really sorry that you only have those experiences.
At least now I know why you fight for those little scraps of agency left.
Dude, what are you talking about? @Lanefan RIGHT THERE stated exactly what I was talking about. @Maxperson is insisting that everyone MUST ROLEPLAY no matter what. Several others have flat out stated that "there must always be a chance of failure".

It's not like I'm pulling this out of thin air here.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
Look, I hate how Backgrounds are marginalized, it's a damn shame that they don't fit with some people's view about how the game should be played.

But this isn't a matter of saying people MUST roleplay. It's more that they SHOULD WANT TO ROLEPLAY. That's a base expectation of the game. I mean, look at the cover of the PHB:
2024-05-06_081807.jpg

Huh, imagine that. This is a game about roleplaying.

So I'm perfectly on board with the idea that, just as you have to use an action and a spell slot to cast a magic missile that always hits, absolutely you should have to roleplay to use a background feature that always works.*

*Within reason, I mean, how much roleplay is involved in saying "I, a Con Artist, forge fake documents"?

What you seem to be pushing back against, Hussar, are small encounters that don't advance the game. If you're a goal-oriented DM or player, that's a perfectly cromulent thing to not care for- just like the 4e books said, sometimes it's ok to skip past uninteresting content.

But what is uninteresting varies. Some people really do feel more immersed when they have conversations with NPC's, even if those conversations don't advance the adventure, they can enhance the experience. In the "which ship" scenario, several of those options led to either side encounters or potential story hooks later in the campaign, and one option...didn't.

When I was playing in 4e, one of my favorite Skill Challenges involved us going through a forest, trying to avoid hobgoblins. At the outset, I wasn't sure why we were rolling, since we had a Ranger, and I figured, hey, this is his bag, I'm not a forest expert.

But it turned out that there was more going on than "avoid encounters with hobgoblins" (which, btw, wouldn't have led to more xp, since we got the same xp either way, it was more about conserving resources that would be spent by skirmishes with small groups of hobgoblins, and potentially getting the jump on them later). Because there was a secret objective we didn't know about, which led to a lost temple in the forest, guarded by undead.

We only found it due to sheer luck, and having done so, we ended up using resources anyways, but got some really nice treasure as a reward.

None of this had to do with advancing the adventure- we were always going to fight Hobgoblins. All that we were doing was figuring out what shape we would be in when we got there, and whether we'd have an advantage in the battle or not. But actually going through the motions, and uncovering a side encounter with a big payoff, did, in fact, matter to the campaign at large. I'm not saying this is how every game should be run- far from it! Every group has their own preferred pacing and style.

You want to complete the adventure and the campaign without steps you feel are unnecessary, fantastic.

But those "unnecessary" steps are like the deep cuts on albums that never get radio play. There can be hidden gems there, and some people can really enjoy the experience.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Bingo. This is where I get off the train. No. There doesn't need to "always" be a chance of failure. One of the best rules in 3e was Take 20. 5e incorporates the same idea in that if there's no actual consequence for failure, don't roll.
There is a meaningful consequence for failing to get a message out or secure passage on a ship, though.
I have a power that makes this a foregone conclusion. It only works in this one, very specific, very narrow situation. There are a thousand other things I'll have to make checks and fail at that you can narrate to your heart's content.

Letting the players just win sometimes without futzing about with a bunch of pointless crap is the best DMing advice I have ever received.
You're literally arguing that the ability has to work when you are in a landlocked desert town with no water or ships.

"When you need to, you can secure free passage on a sailing ship for yourself and your adventuring companions. You might sail on the ship you served on, or another ship you have good relations with (perhaps one captained by a former crewmate). Because you're calling in a favor, you can't be certain of a schedule or route that will meet your every need. Your Dungeon
Master will determine how long it takes to get where you need to go. In return for your free passage, you and your companions are expected to assist the crew during the voyage."

That says it always works and the paragraph requires neither water, nor ships to be in the town. Only that you have need of passage.

Of course 5e says that it doesn't always work since the DM has discretion to override any rule if he feels that it doesn't make sense, so not even that ability is 100%.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Remember though, the ONLY reason I'm talking to this NPC is because the DM is forcing me to. I didn't choose to. I chose to exercise my character ribbon - I get free passage and off we go. Boom done. The whole "talking to random NPC's" is entirely the DM's idea. I showed zero interest in it beforehand. I made it clear that I didn't want to talk to this NPC. But, I have to jump through the DM's hoops in order to get to where I actually WANT to be, so, dance monkey player dance for the DM.
Just out of curiosity, since the other players are also getting use of that ribbon, what if they want and enjoy NPC interactions like that? Do you talk to the NPC or not in that circumstance?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Dude, what are you talking about? @Lanefan RIGHT THERE stated exactly what I was talking about. @Maxperson is insisting that everyone MUST ROLEPLAY no matter what. Several others have flat out stated that "there must always be a chance of failure".

It's not like I'm pulling this out of thin air here.
Everyone needs to roleplay in MY game. I don't care what you do in yours. As I've said many, many times, it's important to play with a group that feels the way you do. I run a roleplaying game, so if you don't want to roleplay or only want to roleplay occasionally, my game is not the game for you.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Look, I hate how Backgrounds are marginalized, it's a damn shame that they don't fit with some people's view about how the game should be played.

But this isn't a matter of saying people MUST roleplay. It's more that they SHOULD WANT TO ROLEPLAY. That's a base expectation of the game. I mean, look at the cover of the PHB:
View attachment 361686
Huh, imagine that. This is a game about roleplaying.

So I'm perfectly on board with the idea that, just as you have to use an action and a spell slot to cast a magic missile that always hits, absolutely you should have to roleplay to use a background feature that always works.*

*Within reason, I mean, how much roleplay is involved in saying "I, a Con Artist, forge fake documents"?
I've known people who will say,

"I go to an inn near the edge of town and get the room that is highest and farthest away from other people so I won't be disturbed by people or noise. Then I take a deep calming breath before I pull out a piece of parchment, my inkwell and my quill. Then I begin to forge an invitation to the lord's ball tonight so that we can investigate the rumors that he is the one leading the cult involved in the abductions and murders of the local pigs."

If you set your mind to it, you can roleplay just about anything reasonably well.
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I've known people who will say,

"I go to an inn near the edge of town and get the room that is highest and farthest away from other people so I won't be disturbed by people or noise. Then I take a deep calming breath before I pull out a piece of parchment, my inkwell and my quill. Then I begin to forge an invitation to the lord's ball tonight so that we can investigate the rumors that he is the one leading the cult involved in the abductions and murders of the local pigs."

If you set your mind to it, you can roleplay just about anything reasonably well.
I mean that's fair, but it's not something I would think needs to be as involved as "I go hang out at the local Sailor's pub to find out what ships are going where, and to see if we can get passage working on a ship". It can be! But it might not need to be.

I'm also not saying you have to roleplay every time you use a background- sometimes, there are reasons to keep the game moving along. I used to dread going to cities in D&D games because the party would inevitably split up to go shopping, slowing the game to a crawl (you could lose whole sessions that way!).

It's definitely a case by case scenario in my opinion. But if there's time to get some roleplay in, someone not wanting to roleplay at all in a roleplaying game seems pretty odd to me.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
There is a meaningful consequence for failing to get a message out or secure passage on a ship, though.

Which is why we should retire 'meaningful consequence' in place of 'interesting consequence'.

Because yes, missing your boat can be a meaningful consequence, that consequence is sitting around looking stupid until another means of transportation comes around.
 

Hussar

Legend
You're literally arguing that the ability has to work when you are in a landlocked desert town with no water or ships.
Yes, because ridiculous strawmen hyptheticals are so conducive to actually carrying forward a conversation.

Sure, every player is out to screw over your campaign, so, better keep that DM pimp hand strong to make sure that the players aren't exploiting the game.

And I'm getting questioned over why I think that DM's are only doing this to exercise authority over the game? When every example of players in this thread is players being completely unreasonable and every poor, put upon DM is only trying their level best to bring an interesting game.
 

Remove ads

Top