• 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: 257 53.4%
  • Nope

    Votes: 224 46.6%

What gets me about the idea that noble recognizes noble is that rogues/conmen can impersonate nobles and often get away with it, so it can't be something inherent to the title. It also means that anyone with decent deception/persuasion would be able to use the noble background ability.
They can. They just need to roll for it. The noble doesn't, as they are not pretending to be a noble, they're a noble.

I'm just trying to imagine this noble
View attachment 361946
being automatically accepted and invited to have an audience with this one
View attachment 361949

because they knock on the castle door and claim to be nobility.
Yeah, and those guys are at least both humans. This is the real issue with noble and many other backgrounds.
They assume a world with high cultural homogeneity, and all worlds simply are not like that.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Xamnam

Loves Your Favorite Game
But in those cases there were political and trade ties. potential influence, etc.. If you are from an important enough noble family that has that kind of pull, you could get accommodations. But you can also be the 5th child of a fallen noble house and still qualify.

As an example if the king of the Maya showed up in Kiev in the 14th century dressed in commoners clothes he might be treated as an oddity. But automatically get an audience with the Czar? Nah. A prince from Germany visiting Australia? Of course they'd be invited right in.

But there is nothing inherently special about being noble. The only influence nobles have is the influence garnered by their reputation and political influence.
The way I concieve of the ability in a way that satisfies my understanding of the world is about experience (plus instincts derived from that) and knowledge, not family resources/expectations or inherent quality of the person.
 




Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah. Only "occasionally" seems to mean "every single time, because the DM is going to manipulate the math until the every action is an exercise in punishment.

Good grief, I've climbed out of more than a few ravines. I've never broken any bones. I've never suffered more than a skinned knee. Yet, here we are, with a fairly significant chance that climbing out of a ravine will damage the party enough to be actually noticed.

Again, I just have zero interest in this @Lanefan. I'm sorry but I don't. The ravine is pointless. Getting out of the ravine is pointless. We're going to get out. The ravine has nothing to do with the adventure.
This last is where we disagree: the ravine is just as much a part of "the adventure" as is fighting the BBEG or sneaking past her gate guards.
It's pointless die rolling for no reason other than the DM feels this bizarre need to roll dice. I mean, good grief, in our session last night I declared that I stabbed a dagger into a door. Not to break the door. Just stab a dagger into the door.

And the DM insisted that I roll an attack. After all, I might roll a 1 and critical fumble. FFS. It's so frustratingly pointless.
It's not pointless at all. Sure, the odds of something going wrong in that case are very low, but - and this is the important point - they are not zero; and if you get unlucky and hit a metal stud in the door (i.e. fumble) and break your dagger, now you don't have a dagger any more.

Even more relevant if that poor dagger happened to be enchanted. :)
It should come as no surprise that we probably would not enjoy each other's games. :D We are not going to see eye to eye here. For me, in my perfect world, The Lord of the Rings is 90 pages long and starts in Mordor. I am simply not interested in "the journey" very much any more. We have a goal - go there. I don't want fifteen different sidebars going on. I will happily ignore every single side quest you put in front of me. I will gleefully ignore 90% of things in a campaign that aren't directly related to the main plot of the campaign. I simply do not care anymore. I've had all caring beaten out of me by an endless stream of DM's who seem to think that every single trivial, pointless exercise needs to be played out in excruciating detail.
And when the journey IS the adventure? What then?

Because, in LotR most of the adventure is the journey...along with all the character interaction and development that takes place during said journey.

Your version sounds analagous to those condensed half-hour recaps of 2-hour hockey games, where they show they key moments but don't show all the play between. Great if you just want to know what happened, not so great if you actually want to watch the whole game and catch all the nuances and minor plays.

By your posts, you remind me of a guy in our crew who both in real life and game play has zero patience for anything that isn't flat-out action. When watching an action movie, for example, the moment the fighting stops and the characters start talking, he tunes out; and in the game (both as player and DM) he just wants to get to the combats and-or key moments and skip everything else. Meaningful character interaction? Good luck with that.

When everything's a highlight, nothing is.
So, no. I no longer care. As a DM, I would never in a million years have five different ships going to the same destination. You'd get one. And, unless there was something particularly interesting that needed to be doing on the way from A to B, I'm simply going to redline the journey and get to the next thing that actually advances the plot story of the game. You want to put me in the drivers seat? Great. I'll do that too. But, that means when I give you a goal, I expect that the campaign will be about that goal until that goal is achieved. And, again, I will ignore to the best of my ability anything that isn't part of that goal. Linear or sandbox, I'm pretty content so long as we're not spending endless time on pointless, meaningless play.
And what do you do - particularly in sandbox play - when one or more players want to spend more time on everything? When their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to deep-dive into the setting and-or each other's characters, with the adventures merely a distraction from these pursuits? Or when their (perhaps unspoken) goal is to do a bunch of other non-adventuring or downtime stuff e.g. fight or prank each other, get involved in local politics, spend time on deep info-gathering and research, develop new spells, etc.?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I can't see who you are arguing against but, if we're debating about the Criminal background, I think we should revisit the wording of the Feature (PHB p. 129):

You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you.


As a PC with the Criminal Background, you have a contact and you know how to get messages to and from your contact. Doesn't mean the contact always has an answer or a way to help you if it doesn't make sense in the fiction and it doesn't necessarily mean that the delivery of said message happens in a timeframe that is immediate or useful.

You also know the local messengers (etc) that can help you achieve this delivery of said message. Your Background has to do with where you came from - what you did before you started adventuring (PHB p125). You know the folks in the area where you were a criminal - maybe that's a village or a town or a city or even a region where you were a criminal. You don't (necessarily) know the messengers (etc) all over the world. Point is to clarify that with the DM during character creation - neither the player nor the DM should be making assumptions.
Exactly.

People are (mis)taking "local" to mean "local to wherever the character happens to be at the time" rather than the more reasonable "local to where the character was a criminal before adventuring".
 

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I'm just trying to imagine this noble
View attachment 361946
being automatically accepted and invited to have an audience with this one
View attachment 361949

because they knock on the castle door and claim to be nobility.
Well, the noble could have been Ahmad ibn Fadlan (though I guess being a Court Poet is stretching the term "noble" a bit) but even he had to teach himself the language first!
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
OK, I would say that was a bit pedantic. On the other hand, why did you decide to stab a door? Did you have an in-character reason, or were you being lolrandom? If it's the latter, what the DM should have done is talk to you out of character rather than try to deal with it in-game. In-game solutions for out-of-game problems never work.
Even though I 'like'd this post and agree with most of it, I take great issue with this piece.

Why would I ever want to talk a player out of being, to use your term, 'lolrandom'? Those crazy out-of-nowhere actions are often where a lot of the unexpected fun comes from!

I'm a big proponent of "what happens in-game stays in-game" and of separation of character actions from player actions, and so yes; if there an-in-game problem it'll get dealt with in-game (more often by the other players than by me-as-DM).
So I have to ask: why do you even play TTRPGs? Why not just play non-RPG video games, or board games? It's not for the journey and it doesn't sound like it's for the "roleplaying with your friends" part of it either. So what do you get out of it?
A highly valid series of questions.
 

Remove ads

Top