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="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9337686" data-attributes="member: 93670"><p>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 </p><p></p><p>Wow... point one percent is enough to cast aside all doubt & give zealous benefit of the doubt? 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". 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 <em>any</em> 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 <em>sometimes</em> it doesn't make sense to have it work and the player needs to roll up their sleeves to do something through actual play.</p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>You don't have to agree, but when you call for compromise & collaboration to find a middle ground between <em>sometimes</em> no and <em>always</em> yes but direct those calls exclusively towards one side of the discussion it absolutely provides support for always yes.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"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 <em>are</em> defending to maintain it as such. 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 .... </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9337686, member: 93670"] 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 Wow... point one percent is enough to cast aside all doubt & give zealous benefit of the doubt? 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". 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 [I]any[/I] 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 [I]sometimes[/I] it doesn't make sense to have it work and the player needs to roll up their sleeves to do something through actual play. 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 You don't have to agree, but when you call for compromise & collaboration to find a middle ground between [I]sometimes[/I] no and [I]always[/I] yes but direct those calls exclusively towards one side of the discussion it absolutely provides support for always yes. 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. "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 [I]are[/I] defending to maintain it as such. 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 .... 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
Top