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

Hriston · May 19, 2024

Lanefan said:
Groan as they may, the player is not in the wrong for doing this; because the rules give that player ironclad backing.

To a point; with the bulk of that contract saying the game will be played using the rules given, including house rules. Unfortunately, it's the DM who has to make those house rules who gets put in a bad spot by crap RAW like this; and while the early editions can be cut some slack due to their designers breaking new ground and learning lessons by trial and error on the fly, later editions have no such excuse.

I disagree. The rules aren't an excuse for behaving like an ass-hat, and it isn't the job of the rules or houserules to correct such behavior.

CreamCloud0 · May 19, 2024

Hriston said:
But do you? Does this weirdness happen in your actual games? If not, then why are you complaining about it?

i don't get to play so what happens to me is entirely irrelevant, but i still care about the principle of it, there are different kinds of weirdness, and just because some kinds of weirdness are given a pass that doesn't mean all kinds should be, i want a fantasy game, but i want a fantasy game with a world that feels consistent and logical.

Oofta · May 19, 2024

So the background feature has fallen into a familiar trend

Poster 1: I don't like how several of the background feature work [possibly insert what I do instead]
Poster 2: There is no problem
Poster 1: it's illogical to me, which is a problem when I play the game [you have to know someone, your reputation has to precede you wherever you go, etc..]
Poster 2: it's not a problem because [I know someone in a random location so therefore I just know someone where we are, it clearly says local which means local to wherever I happen to be]
Poster 1: but that's illogical
Poster 2: the book says...
go to step 1

Has anything new been added in the past few hundred pages? Follow the background features if you want. Personally I don't want to use several of them as written in my games for some of them and no amount of explanation of how some people decide it works will change that.

Do we really need to keep repeating the same posts, slightly reworded?

Faolyn · May 19, 2024

Scott Christian said:
Of course they ferry people, I never said they didn't. I said it would be ridiculous for the player to establish the lore that they, through their background feature, can get passage. They can get passage, but that passage is through payment. Not a background feature. I even stated in my example that the player declared themselves using their background feature - not payment to the merraenolths.

I addressed that. The feature states that the part doesn't have to pay the fare, but they do have to work for their passage. Hence the whole suggestion about mutilating souls.

mamba · May 19, 2024

Hriston said:
You seem to be using the rule as a source of potential fiction. I.e. an in-world "physics engine". It wasn’t designed for that purpose. Thus the user error you’re experiencing. There’s no reason to think the rule creates fiction on its own when not being used by the player in-game to actually establish fiction at the table.

no, my ‘problem’ is that when the player ‘establishes fiction’ as you call it, I expect it to make sense / be explainable in the world by something other than a one in a million chance

If I did not care about that, then sure, why not know someone wherever you are and search for them. If you do not think about it, you can almost pretend that it makes sense. Just do not expect me to buy that.

Hriston said:
again, when you're evaluating what's "realistic / probable", you seem to be taking into account a range of potential fiction, but that's not how the rule works. If you look at the actual fiction created when using the rule in-game versus your "knowing them everywhere", you can see it isn't the same at all. In one, you know the local messengers in certain places where it makes sense for you to have that knowledge, and in the other, you know them everywhere you go.

if I only know them in places where it makes sense for me to know them, can I ever find myself in a place where I do not know anyone?

My answer to that is ‘yes, and this includes most places you could potentially find yourself in’ while yours seems to be ‘no, such places do not exist’, and your only explanation for why there aren’t any seems to be ‘you yet again beat the crazy odds and find someone’. That is just not enough for me, that is just nonsense

Faolyn · May 19, 2024

Lanefan said:
Great if you're visiting Barcelona, but how much does it help if you're visiting Rome?

Every time I see this bit, I'm reminded of a bit from the Terry Pratchett novel Moving Pictures: “Reality is not digital, an on-off state, but analog. Something gradual. In other words, reality is a quality that things possess in the same way that they possess, say, weight. Some people are more real than others, for example. It has been estimated that there are only about five hundred real people on any given planet, which is why they keep unexpectedly running into one another all the time.”

But anyway. While it's not required, in D&D, for the characters to be super-duper special or world-recognized heroes, the game is, in fact, about them. It's their stories, which they are in the process of writing through play. (If the PCs are just there to be spectators to the DM's story, then the DM should just go write a book. I didn't sign up for that.)

So I have no problem occasionally saying that yes, they meet a sailor they knew in another port; or yes, they meet a shady caravan driver they knew on on the far end of their newly-expanded caravan route. Neither of those concepts is ridiculous or illogical. And if it were, well, I've already given lots of examples of how I can handle it.

And if the PCs are actually on another plane or somewhere else where it beggars the imagination of how they could know someone there? Well, I'll deal with that if it comes up. I don't need hard and fast rules about that vanishingly rare case ahead of time.

FitzTheRuke · May 19, 2024

UngeheuerLich said:
I have the feeling 50 dollars is too cheap in 2024.

I have a feeling that it might wind up being a first-print loss-leader for the 50th Anniversary, with the following printings (which will probably also lose the 50th Logo) being $59.99. We shall see.

FitzTheRuke · May 19, 2024

UngeheuerLich said:
No they are not terrible. I don't want them to sell them too cheap, because it eventually forces them to have too high prices on other books later. But I misremembered 2014 bools to be 50 dollars too. They were only 40 dollars. So all is good.

No, 2014 books were absolutely $49.99.

Parmandur · May 19, 2024

FitzTheRuke said:
I have a feeling that it might wind up being a first-print loss-leader for the 50th Anniversary, with the following printings (which will probably also lose the 50th Logo) being $59.99. We shall see.

I mean, also a different price consideration than Eliminster's Guide to Doodads or what ot: WotC will sell like ten times. Ore PHBs than any other book, so they can make more money on thinner margins (stores, too!).

Parmandur · May 19, 2024

FitzTheRuke said:
No, 2014 books were absolutely $49.99.

Yes, quite: Hoard of the Dragon Queen was less expensice, because it was small.

Though it is worth noting that, adjusted for inflation, $49.99 in 2024 would come to $37.74 USD in 2014 terms. So these books do effectively cost like 25% less in comparison despite being much bigger.

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

Plan to adopt the new core rules?

Yep

Nope

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.

Oofta

Legend

Faolyn

(she/her)

mamba

Legend

Faolyn

(she/her)

FitzTheRuke

Legend

FitzTheRuke

Legend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Parmandur

Book-Friend

Similar Threads