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

[TwoSix]

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, I think that's a pretty good illustration of a core division between gamers.

A large contingent of gamers will read that example and say "Yes, that's exactly what kind of game play I want during my sessions!" An equally large contingent will be banging their heads against the table begging for the pain to stop and saying "Can we actually play the game now?!"

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, I think that's a pretty good illustration of a core division between gamers.

A large contingent of gamers will read that example and say "Yes, that's exactly what kind of game play I want during my sessions!" An equally large contingent will be banging their heads against the table begging for the pain to stop and saying "Can we actually play the game now?!"

Yep. I've understood that for decades.

That's why, again, people need to find other like minded players and a like minded DM. Mixing those two types of players doesn't work well at all.

 

[Faolyn]

Because your examples are all pointless? They have nothing to do with the actual adventure that I sat down to play? That adventure is at Point B. We KNOW that it's at Point B because that's the whole point in going to Point B. A bunch of random encounters? Who cares. Stop wasting the group's time. The ONLY reason you're dragging this crap in is because the player apparently cannot just simply use their ability.

The players don't know that Point B is where the adventure is. They only know that it's a point of interest. It could just be a secondary location before the actual adventure. It could also be that there's an encounter on the road that will provide information about Point B.

See, when I play a roleplaying game, I don't do so knowing what the end goal is. Except for those rare times I've been in a pre-written adventure, I won't know more than just a general theme at most--and I'd guess that about 95% of the games I've been in over the last 35 years have used completely homebrew adventures.

Does this mean that you won't play any adventure that doesn't state outright "The goal of this adventure is to defeat Lord Evilton and his Minions of Evil"?

Again, no wonder players simply abandon backgrounds and whatnot in favor of spells as soon as they can. Oh goodie - we know we want to go to point B. We've TOLD the DM that we want to go to Point B. We all agree that the adventure that we'Re all really excited about is at POint B.

No, we don't agree with that. Point B may be my table's goal, but at no point that I can recall has anyone ever said "We don't care about anything other than Point B." Not even those of us with Super-Bad ADHD (waves hand) have wanted to skip all the adventuring and RP possibilities between Point A and Point B.

But instead of going to Point B, we're going to have a bunch of random encounters that are utterly pointless and meaningless. Wow. Be still my beating heart. Also no wonder that people's games fall apart all the time. Remember that? Remember how virtually no one actually manages to complete a campaign?

And I already showed you how encounters (random or not) can be made meaningful. But you're so convinced that they must automatically be meaningless that you're not even willing to try one even when it would benefit your character.

I've done the "journey" a million times. You know what I haven'T done? Completed a campaign very often. Forty years of gaming and I've seen campaigns come to an actual conclusion maybe, maybe six or seven times. And I know I'm not alone here. The hobby is littered with the corpses of dead campaigns that died without crossing the finish line.

Maybe if DM's learned to pull their thumb out and get going once in a while, campaigns would actually conclude regularly instead of once in a blue moon.

Or maybe RPGs aren't things that need to be completed to still be successful. I've been in games that have gone to a conclusion. I've been in games that have petered out. The only failures among them were the games in which we didn't have fun.

If stripping out everything but the events leading up to the Boss Fights is the way to go, then that also strips out everything that makes the game enjoyable to me. No thank you.

 

[Hriston]

Yes, that's how I'd read it; but then how do you know them?

And it's not "you might know the local messengers"*, it's straight-up "you know the local messengers"; which makes it automatic.

* - if that key word 'might' was in there, all this discussion would be moot.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I mean, how does anyone know anyone?

I guess the obvious go to would be they're part of your network and you've had previous contact or heard about them, but the possibilities are wide open.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think what a lot of you aren't getting is that for a lot of us, it's not a diversion or mucking around with the integrity of the world. Roleplaying is what the game is about. All of it. You're talking apples to our oranges. And really, what lack of integrity?

"Tritons guard the ocean depths, building small settlements beside deep trenches, portals to the elemental planes, and other dangerous spots far from the eyes of land-bound folk. Long-established guardians of the deep ocean floor, in recent years the noble tritons have become increasingly active in the world above."

It's not a stretch or lack of integrity to use that as saying that in recent years the xenophobia has waned a bit and they have an embassy in this town.

It's also not a lack of integrity to say there's a tabaxi enclave out there somewhere so a player who wants to play one to do so, but that's always too far. But it's not too far to whip up some tritons to justify denying a player some core-approved mechanical agency.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

 

[Maxperson]

It's also not a lack of integrity to say there's a tabaxi enclave out there somewhere so a player who wants to play one to do so, but that's always too far. But it's not too far to whip up some tritons to justify denying a player some core-approved mechanical agency.

Rules for thee, but not for me.

My son who just started playing D&D at 10 made a tabaxi. Don't paint us with broad brushes like that. Tabaxi(and tritons) may be too far for some, but will not be for others. And this is a general discussion on ways to go about things, so saying that some specific DM somewhere won't do it isn't helpful.

 

[Vaalingrade]

My son who just started playing D&D at 10 made a tabaxi. Don't paint us with broad brushes like that.

Did anything I've said in this thread mention you specifically?

 

[Maxperson]

Did anything I've said in this thread mention you specifically?

What part of general did you not get. You generally said, "It's also not a lack of integrity to say there's a tabaxi enclave out there somewhere so a player who wants to play one to do so, but that's always too far." and "Rules for thee, but not for me."

General statements include me. You are painting our side with broad brushes that just don't apply. They would apply to some specific individuals, but would not apply to even a majority of those arguing my side of things.

 

[tetrasodium]

So when the DM says no, you specifically feel like you need to challenge the DM? That sounds like a way to not play the game according to the rules. And I know that is a no-no. Somehow, somewhere, people find this not aligned with the spirit of the game. But it is not.

The game clearly states, for both characters, classes, and backgrounds, that you need to check-in with your DM. And that is okay. Because, in the end, the DM, and you, are on the same side. This antagonist approach needs to stop. It was a rare occurrence back in the day, and it is an even more rare occurrence today.

While I agree with everything else, but that bolded but isn;t quite so accurate. 5e has done a lot that encourages players to take that antagonist mindset from video games & apply it to the meat computer across the GM screen. First you have a lot of stuff designed to give players a "no it doesn't" veto if the GM points out a problem (ie see the hundreds of pages filled with discussion over background features) Then there is the way they spent so much effort binding the GM's hands with AL & shifting things* that are traditionally a GM's discretion to players themselves. Players who come in from video games through AL who once might have rules lawyered a bit before backing off so the game could continue wind up maintaining that adversarial antagonist mindset in order avoid rules lawyering & force the GM on the defense trying to justify their GM calls instead. Players who might not have cared enough to get involved get roped in by the plain reading & maintain a wary shield ready to support any player being wronged by an unfavorable GM call or houserul not covered in sessionzero

* IE download the AL plyers guide & the DM equivalent sometime & check out what they have to say about choosing magic items& treasure. TL;DR version of it is the ALPG pretty much grants players the ability to choose them & likewise can level their PC (or not) whenever they want while the DM equivalent is explicit about how the game needs to take RAW to a whole new level for the rules themselves & for a long time the adventures too but any gold & treasure in the adventure is not awarded to players.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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".

You were the one insisting that DMs only ask for roleplaying to screw the players.
Which I find very sad. This is why I said I am sorry for you that this is your experience with DMs. This in my opinion sounds like an abusive relationship. Someone trying to screw you over and over again and then you still come back every week (or whatever frequency you play). If I got that wrong, I am sorry.