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

[Oofta]

I don't know what you mean by narrative control over the world. So I'm saying if it's established in the fiction absolutely none of the ships are familiar to the sailor in the port at which the party finds themselves, then it would be dysfunctional play on the part of the player of the sailor to disregard that fiction and say anyways they try to secure free passage on the Comox which they know is in port because they served with members of her crew.

Narrative control means that the player controls the narrative; the player makes design decisions about the world outside of their character. In the case of the sailor, there is no way I can list everywhere they have not been or do not have contacts, that's a nearly infinite list which would include things I hadn't even thought of ahead of time. As a DM if I know they are sailors from the Seer Sea, I have a general idea of what trade routes they were on and where they may have contacts.

My players and I discuss their background, and they are free to add to that background. I just want editorial control which means big changes are done offline, not during gameplay. As always everyone is free to ask about details of their current situation, things they may or may not know. In my example of someone from the Seer Sea, there is a very slight possibility they'd know someone halfway across the world in which case I'll have them roll a percentile die. When in doubt, roll for it. But the player can't just declare that while they're in Jotunheim that they happen to know someone who sails the Sea of Fire. Before you protest that no one would do that, I've absolutely encountered people over the years who would.

 

[Hriston]

Stunned. I do confess - it takes work - if the DM has already done their work! Put my quote in context please.

Your post in which you said this didn't say anything about the timing of when the DM was making up the apparently secret backstory about the port that you said they could use to justify shutting down the player's feature, but If the work has already been done then how can it be "extra work"?

It is true, if you are the type of DM that writes, works, and tries to keep a consistent world for your players; yet, at the same time, a player can ad-whim anything they want and you accept it - then it doesn't matter. If you feel your consistency matters to you and the players that care about it... Well then, it matters.
You make it sound like it can't matter. As if it is some arguing point that allows you to win. It matters to some, and doesn't matter to others. And when it matters to others - then it matters.

This doesn't answer the question why when DM-authored fiction is made up matters, unless you're saying consistency doesn't matter unless when the fiction is made up matters, and I don't believe that's true.

 

[Hriston]

I'm simply discussing the standard guidance of how D&D works and how I run my game. In D&D the player is responsible for their PC and the DM is responsible for everything else.

And I'm not suggesting anything that contradicts this. A player stating their PC uses their sword to attack an orc with the goal of there being a dead orc, or a player stating their PC looks for a crewmember of a certain ship they think frequents the harbor in which the party finds itself with the goal of obtaining free passage for the party, are not examples of a player doing anything but roleplaying their character.

As always, run your game however it makes sense to you. No amount of typing on your part is going to change my opinion or the guidance given repeatedly in the books.

You can have your opinion of whatever you want. I'm not trying to change that or anything that's in the books. In fact, I'm saying I like something in the books, namely the background features in the 2014 PHB, and no amount of misrepresentation on your part is going to change my mind about that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Hmm. Double post. Strange.

 

[Hriston]

the character can think what they want, but that does not change the world. If a character thinks a ship stops here, it does not alter the world and make that ship stop here, they are simply either correct or mistaken.

I don't know what you mean by "change the world". It's a joke to say a player can decide what their PC thinks as long as they're okay with the DM deciding their PC is delusional.

eh, of course your PC can know things, like ‘if I stick this Orc with my sword, it will die’, to stick with your example, but if you find yourself on a plane you have never been to and then tell me about the local ship routes, I can only question your sanity…

Because only an insane person can have knowledge of ship routes on other planes?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It seems that it's possible that one of the reasons that the background feature is being objected to is the idea that the player will just make up a contact (or a ship) on the fly and then force it into the DM's established setting.

There are DMs and tables that allow that sort of thing (and in which case, those DMs don't usually establish the details of the setting beyond a loose framework) but it's far from the usual way that D&D is played. I don't think @Faolyn or @Hriston was ever advocating for this sort of play.

 

[James Gasik]

There's this fantasy series I like where every time the protagonist needs a ship to go someplace, the same captain happens to be in port, forcing him to continuously elaborate on the (fake) backstory he gave the guy the first time they met.

It eventually turns out this massive coincidence is actually the result of divine meddling.

Now obviously that's campaign dependent, but there are gods in D&D who canonically do meddle on that level, so it's certainly not out of the question for such things to happen.

 

[Hriston]

a problem does arise, namely that the feature working is nonsensical. If that is no problem for you, knock yourself out, it is one for me.

I am with @Oofta on this

In actual gameplay. What actual game or campaign are you talking about?

 

[Hriston]

With the bolded, I disagree.

Many a problem can be seen coming ahead of time and averted before it actually arises in play via pre-emptive rulings and-or changes to the RAW. Here, for example, having been made aware of this headache with some background features I'd pre-emptively change the word "will" to "could" or "might" in those features were I ever to adopt them, in order to nip this problem in the bud.

Doesn't mean the problem never existed, though.

Prove it.

 

[Hriston]

I am puzzled by your response. I was consistent in saying the background features need to be removed from the PHB. I said instead there should be hooks for backgrounds in the adventure.

The player does not need to know that the coffinmaker is helpful. But the DM does, because it is part of the adventure.

The choice of the player is the same as always. They try to find help. And it does not matter if they are actually commoners or not. If they look like commoners, then the coffinmaker will be helpful.

So it's a blind choice, and there's no point in the players having this type of background on their character sheet because they can't use them.