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

[Lanefan]

I'm with you - I think rolling dice is fun, and I don't understand this "fear" around it that is spoken of a lot around here.

In some aspects, I think I do.

There's some players (and maybe even DMs) who simply don't like it when characters fail, and rolling dice allows failure an opportunity to rear its ugly head.

There's some players (and some DMs) who just want to get on with it and skip anything mundane that's not driving the plot forward at the speed of movie, and rolling dice allows the opportunity for things to take longer and-or become more complicated.

And there's some who just don't like randomness.

I have approaching-zero sympathy for any of these. To the first, I say [crap] happens, deal with it. To the second, I say slow down and smell the roses, it's not a race. To the third, I ask why they're playing a game that uses dice in the first place.

I think FAILURE is fun - it's especially fun when it's a "fail-forward" type thing, but it can be fun as just failure, here-and-there, in particular when it allows someone else to step up, or new ideas to be introduced to the game.

Indeed; and I'll add that a series of failures and frustrations usually makes success feel all the sweeter.

 

[Lanefan]

I would say both of those are telling a story together. The only difference is whether you set a potential endgame up first or not.

Yeah, I think there's a bigger difference than that; and it's one of intent and the timing of said intent.

If the specific intent before starting play is to tell or craft a story, play wil be quite different than if the specific intent is to just do stuff and only in hindsight see what (if any) story emerged from doing so.

How will play be different? The tell-a-story table will see little if any in-character deviation from the story yet won't have to spend time deciding what to do next, while the just-do-stuff table might zig-zag all over the place and spend lots of time deciding what comes next. The tell-a-story table may also have a preconceived end point for the campaign while the just-do-stuff campaign is likely more open-ended, and play would reflect this as well.

The big long campaigns I'm used to tend to end up as a mix of the two: tell-a-story sequences, much like mini adventure paths, sometimes get embedded within a bigger just-do-stuff campaign.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

In some aspects, I think I do.

There's some players (and maybe even DMs) who simply don't like it when characters fail, and rolling dice allows failure an opportunity to rear its ugly head.

There's some players (and some DMs) who just want to get on with it and skip anything mundane that's not driving the plot forward at the speed of movie, and rolling dice allows the opportunity for things to take longer and-or become more complicated.

And there's some who just don't like randomness.

I have approaching-zero sympathy for any of these. To the first, I say [crap] happens, deal with it. To the second, I say slow down and smell the roses, it's not a race. To the third, I ask why they're playing a game that uses dice in the first place.

Indeed; and I'll add that a series of failures and frustrations usually makes success feel all the sweeter.

Give me a belly full of beer and fistful of dice! Live by the dice die by the dice!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm with you - I think rolling dice is fun, and I don't understand this "fear" around it that is spoken of a lot around here. I think FAILURE is fun - it's especially fun when it's a "fail-forward" type thing, but it can be fun as just failure, here-and-there, in particular when it allows someone else to step up, or new ideas to be introduced to the game.

Indeed; and I'll add that a series of failures and frustrations usually makes success feel all the sweeter.

Hear hear!

While I approach DMing as a fan of the PCs, that just means I'm not "out to get them" and certainly doesn't mean I'm teeing up their victories. I try my best to present challenges that are location-appropriate - sometimes that results in a cakewalk, sometimes that results in "cut-and-run" or otherwise necessitates finding some other way through, sometimes that results in a balanced see-saw of an encounter. When the swingy d20 comes out, though, nothing is guaranteed and, without a doubt, some of the best moments at our table are when failure inserts itself into the narrative.

 

[Hussar]

In some aspects, I think I do.

There's some players (and maybe even DMs) who simply don't like it when characters fail, and rolling dice allows failure an opportunity to rear its ugly head.

There's some players (and some DMs) who just want to get on with it and skip anything mundane that's not driving the plot forward at the speed of movie, and rolling dice allows the opportunity for things to take longer and-or become more complicated.

And there's some who just don't like randomness.

I have approaching-zero sympathy for any of these. To the first, I say [crap] happens, deal with it. To the second, I say slow down and smell the roses, it's not a race. To the third, I ask why they're playing a game that uses dice in the first place.

Indeed; and I'll add that a series of failures and frustrations usually makes success feel all the sweeter.

As someone who is very much in your second group I can point to exactly why with your ravine example.

Firstly, I’ve smelled the roses fifteen times before and they’ve smelled the same every time. Maybe just once we can skip them?

Secondly, I know exactly how that ravine example will play out and to me that’s got nothing to do with challenges or roleplay. Five characters will make their checks and the dc will be at least a 30% fail. Meaning that failure is effectively guaranteed. Doesn’t matter what I say or do. We will fail.

Might as well just roll randomly, pick a character, declare X damage and move on. Same result. Same “challenge “.

I really need to bookmark posts in this thread for the next time people tell me I’m being unreasonable in judging DMs.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm not so sure. There seems to be an awful lot you are willing to shake a finger at while admitting that you don't understand or don't follow things

No, it's just your posts that I often don't understand for whatever reason. I don't mean that as much of a criticism, and I don't ever mean to look like I'm "shaking a finger" at anyone. I'm not some sort of authority on anything (except maybe if we're talking about selling D&D, I think I could qualify as having expertise in that.) I've DMed a LONG time, but so have many others here, and we don't always agree, and that's great. I'm just here to chat, and to learn things.

Wow... point one percent is enough to cast aside all doubt & give zealous benefit of the doubt?

Zealots? I think that's a bit extreme to call anyone here.

It's kinda noteworthy that you only extend that to only one side of the discussion while calling for the other to work together with players "significantly more".

Nah, I think that it goes without saying that Both Sides of Anything when it comes to this game have got to Play Nicely With Others. I absolutely DON'T think any the onus is on only one side, not even in this discussion! If I seemed like I was on one side more than another, it's because of some specific arguments being made that I objected to - the idea that they "Don't Make Sense" or are "Illogical" comes to mind as the thing that got me involved in the first place. The only point I was ever trying to make in opposition to that is "they don't have to not make sense or be illogical if you come up with logical stories that make sense - and I don't think that doing that is all that difficult". If you CAN'T or DO NOT WANT TO come up with logical stories that make sense, then that's fine, don't - Play How You Like! But please, don't tell us that it can't be done, or that we play Illogical or Senseless games if we feel differently. That's it.

That however is the root of the problem and has literally been covered more than once in the thread because the background feature does not require the player to put any effort into making it work while using a RAW & plain reading that gives the expectation of both guaranteed success as well as the extent of that success. You can't just say "work together" directed to GMs alone while giving a pass to the fact that posters are pinning 100% of the responsibility for finding a way to make them work on the GM when a player says "I use my contact/book passage/position of privilege/etc". In your zeal to push back against hypothetical overbearing GM overstepping you are ignoring the fact that the imagined overstep is simply sometimes it doesn't make sense to have it work and the player needs to roll up their sleeves to do something through actual play.

I never made any secret that I think the background features suck as written. I sympathized with some of @Hriston's position (mostly in that I'm sympathetic to anyone who likes a feature and finds it useful when that feature goes away) and somewhat in some of the details of his discussion. But not in EVERY part of his discussion. We're not the same people. I disagreed with some of the things that @Oofta and @mamba said in their discussions, but not with EVERYTHING that they ever said! In fact, I gained a greater respect for both of them and for their games in "listening" to what they had to say. I actually probably use Backgrounds very similarly to @Oofta in my actual games.

I don't actually use the background features in my games! That we're probably more alike than we think, is the lesson I learned.

Sure, but "a group" involves both sides of the GM screen and you as well as quite a few posters only seem concerned with the GM finding a solution even when it doesn't make sense

Of course it involves both! I think you'll find that I took the time to point that out several times. But either way, I agree. I believe that it is a misunderstanding to think that anyone ever meant to suggest that a GM must allow a solution that didn't make sense.

You don't have to agree, but when you call for compromise & collaboration to find a middle ground between sometimes no and always yes but direct those calls exclusively towards one side of the discussion it absolutely provides support for always yes.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I still do not believe that anyone advocates for "always yes" with no room whatsoever for "making sense" - the argument on that side was that it's not hard to make it make sense (most of the time). And if it doesn't actually make sense, then a player who is playing the game in good faith would not actually USE it.

If a "side" actually exists that is advocating for a background feature to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS work, even to the point of stupidity, then I AM NOT ON THAT SIDE.

As do I. Coincidentally some of those things I object to are unreasonable extremes and the reply would necessarily need to be one discussing that unreasonable extreme.

Agreed.

"jealously guard that authority. It's a two-way street"... That street goes both ways as you note. In the case of many background features along with much of this discussion the trouble is that the RAW is written in a way that paves it as a one way street that some posters are defending to maintain it as such.

Mmm. I think they're saying that you can get close to it without throwing it out, but I don't think anyone wants to play it by any kind of purest RAW - at least not without also using other parts of the game, like DM/Player back-and-forth, checks, Role-playing... though I think a case could be made for all of that being brief. I think @Hussar goes way, way too far though.

It's another point to these "sides" we're talking about (as if they're actually a thing): If we break it down further, there's as many sides as there are posters!

It pretty severely undercuts the ability to actually use that DM-authority when people are quick to say off the cuff benefit of the doubt things like this and direct it at people who are pointing out the two way nature conflict with that one way defense ....

I simply don't agree with you that that is happening here. I think both sides actually have points, and have the occasional foolish wording (I know I do!). Internet communication is terrible. As I've said before - I don't even understand you much of the time, and I'm trying to, because I think that you have interesting things to say!

Unfortunately part of why it's so easy to justify leaping in to defend player agency even when something clearly unreasonable is being defended can be traced back to the way 2014 5e turned its back on rules structures & wording that gave the GM solid footing when they used that DM-Authority, you can see a good example of what once was in 3.5phb pg65 where taking 10/20 have multiple hurdles that must be overcome baked right in on top of some blockers the GM can point at while positioning those two on the same page as a rule that allows for wishy washy time to complete as well as "practically" impossible checks with examples of dc80 & dc90 that are a far cry from 5e's "fairly trivial nearly impossible". We don't yet know if 2024 will do a good or even better job in providing the GM with solid footing when they use that DM-authority.

What is your base of comparison? I honestly think that 5e is much better for DM-Authority than, say, 3e was - I've never seen more players argue with their DMs than I did during the 3.5 era. And the rules usually backed them up!

But I'm happy to say that I don't see that kind of thing anymore, but then, I also play with either people who are learning to play (and are open-minded) or people who are grown-ups that know how to Play Nice With Others.

I'd be happy for the new PHB and DMG to have wordings that clarify the situation in a way that would satisfy you, though! I think that what you're looking for, if I understand it correctly, is something that I would be onboard with.

 

[Hussar]

No, it's just your posts that I often don't understand for whatever reason

Dude, you are most certainly not alone here.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, it's just your posts that I often don't understand for whatever reason. I don't mean that as much of a criticism, and I don't ever mean to look like I'm "shaking a finger" at anyone. I'm not some sort of authority on anything (except maybe if we're talking about selling D&D, I think I could qualify as having expertise in that.) I've DMed a LONG time, but so have many others here, and we don't always agree, and that's great. I'm just here to chat, and to learn things.


Zealots? I think that's a bit extreme to call anyone here.


Nah, I think that it goes without saying that Both Sides of Anything when it comes to this game have got to Play Nicely With Others. I absolutely DON'T think any the onus is on only one side, not even in this discussion! If I seemed like I was on one side more than another, it's because of some specific arguments being made that I objected to - the idea that they "Don't Make Sense" or are "Illogical" comes to mind as the thing that got me involved in the first place. The only point I was ever trying to make in opposition to that is "they don't have to not make sense or be illogical if you come up with logical stories that make sense - and I don't think that doing that is all that difficult". If you CAN'T or DO NOT WANT TO come up with logical stories that make sense, then that's fine, don't - Play How You Like! But please, don't tell us that it can't be done, or that we play Illogical or Senseless games if we feel differently. That's it.


I never made any secret that I think the background features suck as written. I sympathized with some of @Hriston's position (mostly in that I'm sympathetic to anyone who likes a feature and finds it useful when that feature goes away) and somewhat in some of the details of his discussion. But not in EVERY part of his discussion. We're not the same people. I disagreed with some of the things that @Oofta and @mamba said in their discussions, but not with EVERYTHING that they ever said! In fact, I gained a greater respect for both of them and for their games in "listening" to what they had to say. I actually probably use Backgrounds very similarly to @Oofta in my actual games.

I don't actually use the background features in my games! That we're probably more alike than we think, is the lesson I learned.


Of course it involves both! I think you'll find that I took the time to point that out several times. But either way, I agree. I believe that it is a misunderstanding to think that anyone ever meant to suggest that a GM must allow a solution that didn't make sense.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I still do not believe that anyone advocates for "always yes" with no room whatsoever for "making sense" - the argument on that side was that it's not hard to make it make sense (most of the time). And if it doesn't actually make sense, then a player who is playing the game in good faith would not actually USE it.

If a "side" actually exists that is advocating for a background feature to ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS work, even to the point of stupidity, then I AM NOT ON THAT SIDE.


Agreed.


Mmm. I think they're saying that you can get close to it without throwing it out, but I don't think anyone wants to play it by any kind of purest RAW - at least not without also using other parts of the game, like DM/Player back-and-forth, checks, Role-playing... though I think a case could be made for all of that being brief. I think @Hussar goes way, way too far though.

It's another point to these "sides" we're talking about (as if they're actually a thing): If we break it down further, there's as many sides as there are posters!


I simply don't agree with you that that is happening here. I think both sides actually have points, and have the occasional foolish wording (I know I do!). Internet communication is terrible. As I've said before - I don't even understand you much of the time, and I'm trying to, because I think that you have interesting things to say!

The word I used was

Spoiler: zealous

adjective​

1. full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent.
   Synonyms: warm, passionate, intense, fervent, fervid, eager, enthusiastic
   Antonyms: lackadaisical, apathetic

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

You questioned my word choice over a word I didn't use.

Spoiler: Zealot is a completely different word

zealot​

noun​

zeal·ot ˈze-lət

Synonyms of zealot
1
: a zealous person
especially : a fanatical partisan
a religious zealot


2
capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine

Definition of ZEALOT

a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan; a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

If you are regularly making those sort of word substitutions when reading my posts it would explain the root cause of that lack of understanding you keep noting. We are now quite a few posts deep into protestation & support over your tone policing but there has been precious little devoted to discussing my actual positions put forward.

What is your base of comparison? I honestly think that 5e is much better for DM-Authority than, say, 3e was - I've never seen more players argue with their DMs than I did during the 3.5 era. And the rules usually backed them up!

But I'm happy to say that I don't see that kind of thing anymore, but then, I also play with either people who are learning to play (and are open-minded) or people who are grown-ups that know how to Play Nice With Others.

I'd be happy for the new PHB and DMG to have wordings that clarify the situation in a way that would satisfy you, though! I think that what you're looking for, if I understand it correctly, is something that I would be onboard with.

taking 10/20& impossible checks/variable time for checks out of randomness. It was an example that came up this morning upthread in 3028 & the post I quoted and a noteworthy enough section to quote from the same page turned out to be relevant in providing solid GM footing for sone of the concerns raised in what I quoted a few posts later in 3050. I think that makes it a reasonably solid example of the solid footing 5e denies GM's while setting the stage to criticize guilty until proven otherwise GM's as the default assumption.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The word I used was

Spoiler: zealous

adjective​

1. full of, characterized by, or due to zeal; ardently active, devoted, or diligent.
   Synonyms: warm, passionate, intense, fervent, fervid, eager, enthusiastic
   Antonyms: lackadaisical, apathetic

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

You questioned my word choice over a word I didn't use.

Spoiler: Zealot is a completely different word

zealot​

noun​

zeal·ot ˈze-lət

Synonyms of zealot
1
: a zealous person
especially : a fanatical partisan
a religious zealot


2
capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine

Definition of ZEALOT

a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan; a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Sorry, you are correct, I used the wrong word. They are related, though - in that a zealot is zealous. Either way, I think that it is a strong characterization of anyone's posts.

If you are regularly making those sort of word substitutions when reading my posts it would explain the root cause of that lack of understanding you keep noting.

Maybe. I'm not sure that's it

We are now quite a few posts deep into protestation & support over your tone policing

I do not mean to "tone police". You are free to do what you like. I just think that we are not as far apart as this argument might suggest. But I could be wrong.

but there has been precious little devoted to discussing my actual positions put forward.

Maybe I didn't understand your position? If you want to discuss something, I'm happy to do it. Can you keep it simple?

taking 10/20& impossible checks/variable time for checks out of randomness. It was an example that came up this morning upthread in 3028 & the post I quoted and a noteworthy enough section to quote from the same page turned out to be relevant in providing solid GM footing for sone of the concerns raised in what I quoted a few posts later in 3050. I think that makes it a reasonably solid example of the solid footing 5e denies GM's while setting the stage to criticize guilty until proven otherwise GM's as the default assumption.

Uh... not following. Does What you've said here contradict what I said regarding 3e? If so, I acknowledge that you feel that way, and may well be right. I couldn't say.

 

[mamba]

You questioned my word choice over a word I didn't use.

you do realize that the definition you posted says ‘zealot: a zealous person’, right?