Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 9337953" data-attributes="member: 59816"><p>No, it's just <em>your</em> 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 <em>anyone</em>. I'm not some sort of authority on anything (except maybe if we're talking about <em>selling</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Zealots? I think that's a bit extreme to call anyone here.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>can't be done</em>, or that we play Illogical or Senseless games if we feel differently. That's it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I never made any secret that I think the background features suck as written. I sympathized with <em>some</em> of [USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER]'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 [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] and [USER=7034611]@mamba[/USER] 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 [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] in my actual games.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>brief</em>. I think [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] goes way, way too far though.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p></p><p>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 <em>I</em> do!). Internet communication is <em>terrible</em>. As I've said before - I don't even <em>understand</em> you much of the time, and I'm <em>trying</em> to, because I think that you have interesting things to say!</p><p></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FitzTheRuke, post: 9337953, member: 59816"] No, it's just [I]your[/I] 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 [I]anyone[/I]. I'm not some sort of authority on anything (except maybe if we're talking about [I]selling[/I] 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 [I]can't be done[/I], 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 [I]some[/I] of [USER=6787503]@Hriston[/USER]'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 [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] and [USER=7034611]@mamba[/USER] 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 [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] 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 [I]brief[/I]. I think [USER=22779]@Hussar[/USER] 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]I[/I] do!). Internet communication is [I]terrible[/I]. As I've said before - I don't even [I]understand[/I] you much of the time, and I'm [I]trying[/I] to, because I think that you have interesting things to say! 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
Top