D&D (2024) Take A Closer Look At The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide

Wizards of the Coast has just shared a video delving into the upcoming One D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, due for release in 2024.

​

Scroll down to post #4, below, for a more detailed text summary!

• Chapter 1 -- basic concepts
• Chapter 2 -- Advice, common issues
• Chapter 3 -- Rules cyclopedia
• Chapter 4 -- Adventure building
• Chapter 5 -- Campaign building
• Chapter 6 -- Cosmology
• Chapter 7 -- Magic items
• Chapter 8 -- 'A surprise'
• Appendices -- maps, lore glossary

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

I wish Chris would drop the goofy looking black baseball cap. It hides some of his face and just looks silly.

my pop wore a cap almost the whole time I was growing up. I never understood it. My nephew now has a thing for hats and hoodies, because at 15 he is losing his hair. I know my pop had thin to no hair and when I thought that through I was 30, and realized my pop was self conscience and so I asked my mom, and she told me yes, he wore it to hide his hair line. I wonder if this could be the same.

 

[Hussar]

@Reef Why assume that all problems stemming from badly set player expectations & poor GM support in an area occur simultaneously at a particular table or are all present in only a single player at that table? It's hardly a stretch to have a player or two with differing or even the same problems plus another player who decides they should be taking notes after them & still more who don't want to get involved in the GM's problem because they just want to play a game?


IME it's wider than just the random open AL game joining crowd. That group is heavily pressured against it because the GM is completely shielded from the social contract by the nature of AL itself if they simply say a more diplomatically worded form of "no that's a dead end & I don't care because the adventure being run is over here[the mayor hired you guys to do $thing or whatever]." When it's not just AL games though the GM has less shielding for that kind of "railroading" & quantum ogre[dungeon] adventure prep can only go so far if one or more players start off with bad expectations about "story".

Usually it's well intentioned but horribly mislead players who come to the table already having decided what story* they are there to tell that requires shaping the world beyond their character & folks who expect d&d to be a self insert kind of thing where their PC is an avatar for the player. "It'S wHaT mY ChArAcTeR WoUlD dO!" gets a pass from

Spoiler: this

and it can be very difficult to spot the worst of it because it can look like the group has decided on a direction they want to go until it's too late & the GM starts taking blame for the result of roleplay terrorists & dictators.

*Often a main character in some work of fiction like a novel/anime/online freeform roleplay thing/etc.

My question is how common is this?

Because I honestly almost never see anything close to what you’re talking about. It’s just way outside my experience so I’m wondering why you seem to be finding this so often? Where are you getting these players?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it's a collaborative team game.

The extreme levels of main character syndrome you are expressing here is pretty toxic to collaboration & teamwork too

Extreme levels of Main Character Syndrome by... wondering why my character's personality needs to be determined by committee? By asking why I can't pick first, then discuss, instead of discussing tabula rasa?

Trust me, my attitude is not toxic to teamwork. Unless you have some reason why I can't pre-write my character's personalty and goal before going and begging the DM for permission to make a character?

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Reef Why assume that all problems stemming from badly set player expectations & poor GM support in an area occur simultaneously at a particular table or are all present in only a single player at that table? It's hardly a stretch to have a player or two with differing or even the same problems plus another player who decides they should be taking notes after them & still more who don't want to get involved in the GM's problem because they just want to play a game?


IME it's wider than just the random open AL game joining crowd. That group is heavily pressured against it because the GM is completely shielded from the social contract by the nature of AL itself if they simply say a more diplomatically worded form of "no that's a dead end & I don't care because the adventure being run is over here[the mayor hired you guys to do $thing or whatever]." When it's not just AL games though the GM has less shielding for that kind of "railroading" & quantum ogre[dungeon] adventure prep can only go so far if one or more players start off with bad expectations about "story".

Usually it's well intentioned but horribly mislead players who come to the table already having decided what story* they are there to tell that requires shaping the world beyond their character & folks who expect d&d to be a self insert kind of thing where their PC is an avatar for the player. "It'S wHaT mY ChArAcTeR WoUlD dO!" gets a pass from

Spoiler: this

and it can be very difficult to spot the worst of it because it can look like the group has decided on a direction they want to go until it's too late & the GM starts taking blame for the result of roleplay terrorists & dictators.

*Often a main character in some work of fiction like a novel/anime/online freeform roleplay thing/etc.

It is interesting you think the DM needs to be shielded from the social contract. The social contract exists so that people aren't abused or abusing others, so that people are working together. That's the point of it. It is also strange that despite the constant talk you've had of the Players refusing to cooperate, you bring up accusations of railroading and the DM saying "no, I don't care what you want, this is the adventure", which is... well, like I said, a bit strange considering your insistence on the players being at fault.

Like, for example, the players in your final paragraph decided on a direction (seemingly as a group) but then you say the GM takes blame for the results of role-playing terrorists and dictators.... but why are the players acting like terrorists and dictators? How did we make this jump?


Also, "who made the character?"
The Player. No one else made that character. And it is rather odd you take one of the most heroic scenes in super hero media, and present it as a bad thing. Or maybe you didn't make that meme, but it certainly is a poor example of the type of toxic behavior you are attempting to describe. Especially since, "its what my character would do" is almost never something that is a problem for the DM. It is almost always a problem for other players. So, again, how did we get from "no one works together" to "all the players working together against the DM"?


And the reason we are assuming all these things go wrong, is because if only one of them goes wrong... it isn't a big deal. There is no problem in a player making a character before session zero, if they are then willing to engage in discussion and revision. You need to have every step going wrong for anything to actually get to any degree of "problem"

 

[tetrasodium]

My question is how common is this?

Because I honestly almost never see anything close to what you’re talking about. It’s just way outside my experience so I’m wondering why you seem to be finding this so often? Where are you getting these players?

Fairly common & by not addressing it in the rules text at all while presenting the player->GM relationship as unidirectional in areas like chargen/s0 badly amplifies the problem into one of a righteous champion for true roleplayers. The player(Lets say it's "Alice") knows they are regularly stopping juuust shy of butting heads with the GM to avoid clear examples the gm could wtf about while building up a mountain over the campaign but often does so with the mindset that they are somehow defending everyone else's right to really let go & roleplay THEIR character while the group either feels they aren't qualified to be the therapist/life coach/whatever for Alice making the player think everyone is on their side. The GM confronting Alice makes them feel like they are finally succeeding in getting the GM to shape up or whatever so should keep ay it.... I've seen it both as GM and player. Problems compound because of the fact that Alice and everyone else can play a starfish alien with no basic needs no goals no connections & no desires in 5e leaving the GM very little in the way of solid footing to confront it without looking like they are singling someone out railroading or whatever unless they are willing to just fold up the GM screen on the group & rocks fall or something equally drastic that reflects poorly on the GM like yeeting players out of the campaign Gordon Ramsay/soup nazi style at the first sign of friction.

As to quantifying "how often".. often enough that all of these videos & blog posts I've been linking through the thread got made by various people to help GMs . On the how do I find them? I don't & just contact someone on the waiting list or run a table at a local FLGS till we pickup someone from the d&d night, it takes time to sort through the problem types & separate people like Alice doing it deliberately "because d&d is about telling YOUR story*" from Bob who just hasn't gotten the hang of things for whatever reasonable reason.

* Which is exactly the sort of unidirectional interaction that the the PHB chargen chapter1 TCoE session zero pages & even the how to play d&d videos from wotc present the Player/GM relationship.

Extreme levels of Main Character Syndrome by... wondering why my character's personality needs to be determined by committee? By asking why I can't pick first, then discuss, instead of discussing tabula rasa?

Trust me, my attitude is not toxic to teamwork. Unless you have some reason why I can't pre-write my character's personalty and goal before going and begging the DM for permission to make a character?

Spoiler: yes I have a reason

You as a single player do not get to dictate the setting, the region of the world where things will take place, potential themes & so on. That is a task left to the GM who is responsible for running & building those things.Plus the GM should not be expected to jump through hoops attempting to work with multiple players individually simply because those players refuse to work with anyone

AL stands for adventure league not Alabama Alberta or Algeria.
Also you clearly don't know the restrictions placed upon the gm in AL games. The GM is "shielded from the social contract by the nature of AL itself if they simply say a more diplomatically worded form of "no that's a dead end & I don't care because the adventure being run is over here[the mayor hired you guys to do $thing or whatever]." simply because AL itself largely forbids the GM from making up a new adventure to accomidate a player dead set on telling a story the player has already chosen to be told.

 

[mamba]

As to quantifying "how often".. often enough that all of these videos & blog posts I've been linking through the thread got made by various people to help GMs .

so almost never, given that there are several million players and a handful of posts you referenced… some of which were not even really about your issue

 

[tetrasodium]

so almost never, given that there are several million players and a handful of posts you referenced… some of which were not even really about your issue

You run games for several million players? I bow to your ability to coordinate such large conference hall & stadium sized gatherings. Here I am a total n00b with too small of an interaction to even see true GM's like you when I'm over here merely running biweekly AL games.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Fairly common & by not addressing it in the rules text at all while presenting the player->GM relationship as unidirectional in areas like chargen/s0 badly amplifies the problem into one of a righteous champion for true roleplayers.

"Fairly Common" yet no one else in this thread of DMs has ever said that they have this same issue, and multiple have said they have no idea what you are talking about, because it is so far outside their experience as DMs.

Either we are all unicorns, or maybe it isn't actually fairly common and your perception that the game is enforcing a uni-directional power dynamic is flawed.

The player(Lets say it's "Alice") knows they are regularly stopping juuust shy of butting heads with the GM to avoid clear examples the gm could wtf about while building up a mountain over the campaign but often does so with the mindset that they are somehow defending everyone else's right to really let go & roleplay THEIR character while the group either feels they aren't qualified to be the therapist/life coach/whatever for Alice making the player think everyone is on their side. The GM confronting Alice makes them feel like they are finally succeeding in getting the GM to shape up or whatever so should keep ay it.... I've seen it both as GM and player. Problems compound because of the fact that Alice and everyone else can play a starfish alien with no basic needs no goals no connections & no desires in 5e leaving the GM very little in the way of solid footing to confront it without looking like they are singling someone out railroading or whatever unless they are willing to just fold up the GM screen on the group & rocks fall or something equally drastic that reflects poorly on the GM like yeeting players out of the campaign Gordon Ramsay/soup nazi style at the first sign of friction.

Holy run on sentences Batman! Okay, Let's break this down.

1) Alice is almost butting heads with the GM. (Why? What is going on)
2) They avoid clear examples (huh?) the GM could WTF while building a mountain (mountains aren't built by people, what is this mountain?)
3) Alice thinks they are defending the rigts of players to play their characters (okay, against what? What is the DM doing to make Alice defensive here?)
4) The other players don't feel comfortable being Alice's Therapist (Huh? Why does she need therapy? What is happening at this table that her friends are going "well, I'd get involved, but I'm not a licensed therapist"? And you think this is normal??!!)
5) Being confronted by the GM makes Alice think she is making progress in improving the situation. (What situation? What is going on here? And, is she wrong? Is getting the DM to be honest with her not leading to a resolution of the situation?)
6) Alice and the other players, who specifically want to role play their character have the option to play alien starfish without personalities or needs... (Huh? Is the issue that she wanted to RP an alien starfish, or are you just injecting this into the scenario as a possibility?)
7) Because it is possible to play alien starfish, the DM has no tools to confront the players without railroading or singling someone out (Wait, isn't this all about Alice and her need for therapy? How does railroading play into this? And if it is a single problem, then isn't talking to her outside of the game a tool? Why does the DM need to solve this in game, by pressuring the character? Also, what if Alice isn't playing an alien starfish?)
8) So without tools the DM can do nothing but quit or banish all the players, because of Alice.


...

What are you even talking about? Alice is attacking the DM for some reason, but not a reason you ever state, but the DM is the victim, and he has to yeet the entire group because Alice's friends aren't licensed therapists? This is just a word salad that sounds vaguely like "the players are the problem and I need ways to punish their characters so I can solve their problem without therapy"

yes I have a reason

You as a single player do not get to dictate the setting, the region of the world where things will take place, potential themes & so on. That is a task left to the GM who is responsible for running & building those things.Plus the GM should not be expected to jump through hoops attempting to work with multiple players individually simply because those players refuse to work with anyone

I asked "why my character's personality needs to be determined by committee?"

Your response is that as a player I do not get to dictate the setting, the region of the world potential themes "and so on"

The setting =/= My character's personality
The region of the world =/= My character's personality
Themes of the adventure =/= My character's personality
"And so on" is... vague and unhelpful.

You also say the GM shouldn't need to jump through hoops.... but what hoops are involved in my character's personality? Also, how is my picking a personality, but being willing to talk about it "refusing to work with anyone"?

So, you didn't answer the question at all, and talked about completely unrelated things. Care to try again? This time answering the question?

AL stands for adventure league not Alabama Alberta or Algeria.
Also you clearly don't know the restrictions placed upon the gm in AL games. The GM is "shielded from the social contract by the nature of AL itself if they simply say a more diplomatically worded form of "no that's a dead end & I don't care because the adventure being run is over here[the mayor hired you guys to do $thing or whatever]." simply because AL itself largely forbids the GM from making up a new adventure to accomidate a player dead set on telling a story the player has already chosen to be told.

I know what AL stood for. My point was wondering why you feel the need to be "protected" from the social contract. It seems you are more concerned about being "protected" from accommodating players in telling the story they want to tell?

I can't say I agree with that. As a DM I WANT to accommodate my players, not be able to hide behind "well, I would change things, but I'm not allowed" That's part of why I don't run Adventure League, I don't like being limited in the game I run for my players.

 

[Hussar]

Snip

I'm over here merely running biweekly AL games.

Ahh. That might explain a lot.

 

[mamba]

You run games for several million players? I bow to your ability to coordinate such large conference hall & stadium sized gatherings. Here I am a total n00b with too small of an interaction to even see true GM's like you when I'm over here merely running biweekly AL games.

not sure how you concluded that I do given what I wrote. Maybe that is the communication issue you seem to have with your players