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

 

[Scott Christian]

Right, but remember the claim. The claim is that this situation is fundamental to the ruleset. This isn't a problem with specific players, or specific tables, this is a RULES problem according to them.

Yet I've never seen it at any table I'm at. No one in this thread has said "yes this is a problem" except Tetrasodium. No livestream group has ever seemed to have this problem.

If this is a RULES problem, then why didn't the Drakenheim livestream have this problem? Why don't Dungeon Daddies have this problem? Why doesn't Dimension 20 have this problem? They are using the same rule set as the rest of us. So what is happening? My opinion? It isn't a rules problem.

And, as such, if we are going to find solutions for it, they can't be rules solutions.

I will admit, I was kind of skimming. I thought the claim was it was the rules combined with the players. But if that is the claim, then I agree with everything you just said.

 

[tetrasodium]

I will admit, I was kind of skimming. I thought the claim was it was the rules combined with the players. But if that is the claim, then I agree with everything you just said.

Not quite to either & the thread as recent as 454 & 458 if not more recent has demonstrated the exact problem. Both RAW and plain reading of the text presented allow a player being challenged on bad assumptions or bad expectations don't need to justify or defend them to dismiss the challenge. All the player needs to do is say the GM is presenting something too extreme & isn't being reasonable or needs to make a better case for such an unbelievable problem. "I'm not making a case for anything, we all know the truth & here is what it is" type thing.

A: It's an objective fact that steps 1-5 of the "chapter 1 step by step character creation" will result in a fully completed character before step6 for the first time in chapter 1 step by step character creation" mentions working with anyone or even admits the existence of the gm/other players.

B: It's an objective fact that TcoE139-141 where the session zero & related text are found is written towards the GM as the reader to the point that they switch from words like you & the DM to words like they/them & players when talking about player responsibilities. Perkins praised it in the video & mentioned it as an example of something to include in the new DMG

---

In that session zero & related section the players are given virtually no responsibilities beyond "respect" the GM & "allow" the GM to do a couple things. They are not encouraged to take an active part in any of them, simply allow the GM to do it.

In any disagreement or sticking point caused by bad assumptions or bad expectations, even things like "well actually on page 5 &6 in the introduction it says some stuff that applies to this" are subject to the same dismissals because both RAW & plain reading of the chargen & session zero stuff is very one sided in supporting why should MY character "& "why should I be railroaded into THAT setting?" because A doesn't even mention anyone but ME & MY character in steps one through five while B simply says that the GM should get the character information from players then go make something.

The player doesn't need to put in even the slightest hint of effort to avoid crossing the line because the text has set such a low bar for the player & been pretty explicit in describing the GM as a passive sponge with no say in S0 or character creation before characters are fully created that was worthy enough to mention.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not quite to either & the thread as recent as 454 & 458 if not more recent has demonstrated the exact problem. Both RAW and plain reading of the text presented allow a player being challenged on bad assumptions or bad expectations don't need to justify or defend them to dismiss the challenge. All the player needs to do is say the GM is presenting something too extreme & isn't being reasonable or needs to make a better case for such an unbelievable problem. "I'm not making a case for anything, we all know the truth & here is what it is" type thing.

A: It's an objective fact that steps 1-5 of the "chapter 1 step by step character creation" will result in a fully completed character before step6 for the first time in chapter 1 step by step character creation" mentions working with anyone or even admits the existence of the gm/other players.

B: It's an objective fact that TcoE139-141 where the session zero & related text are found is written towards the GM as the reader to the point that they switch from words like you & the DM to words like they/them & players when talking about player responsibilities. Perkins praised it in the video & mentioned it as an example of something to include in the new DMG

---

In that session zero & related section the players are given virtually no responsibilities beyond "respect" the GM & "allow" the GM to do a couple things. They are not encouraged to take an active part in any of them, simply allow the GM to do it.

In any disagreement or sticking point caused by bad assumptions or bad expectations, even things like "well actually on page 5 &6 in the introduction it says some stuff that applies to this" are subject to the same dismissals because both RAW & plain reading of the chargen & session zero stuff is very one sided in supporting why should MY character "& "why should I be railroaded into THAT setting?" because A doesn't even mention anyone but ME & MY character in steps one through five while B simply says that the GM should get the character information from players then go make something.

The player doesn't need to put in even the slightest hint of effort to avoid crossing the line because the text has set such a low bar for the player & been pretty explicit in describing the GM as a passive sponge with no say in S0 or character creation before characters are fully created that was worthy enough to mention.

I am sorry. I understand what you are saying, but this is not a problem that actually exists. Nor will it become one. Anyone sitting down with friends, or acquaintances that some future day one hopes to become friends, will ever have this problem. Maybe if your twelve or thirteen. But in the normal world, a world where people can talk, and discuss, and understand the game, this will never be a problem.

 

[tetrasodium]

I am sorry. I understand what you are saying, but this is not a problem that actually exists. Nor will it become one. Anyone sitting down with friends, or acquaintances that some future day one hopes to become friends, will ever have this problem. Maybe if your twelve or thirteen. But in the normal world, a world where people can talk, and discuss, and understand the game, this will never be a problem.

by that logic the session zero section is entirely without purpose because anyone sitting down with friends, or acquaintances that some future day one hopes to become friends, will ever have this problem. Maybe if your twelve or thirteen you might need it.

 

[mamba]

A: It's an objective fact that steps 1-5 of the "chapter 1 step by step character creation" will result in a fully completed character before step6 for the first time in chapter 1 step by step character creation" mentions working with anyone or even admits the existence of the gm/other players.

this assumes that

• the player completes each step in order without ever having read any of the next steps
• the player is unwilling to go back and rework the char once they reach step 6
• the player does not listen to any input and is actively hostile to it

I have no objection to mentioning step 6 earlier, but it will have no impact on this, esp. since the real problem is the last one, and that applies to the rephrased rules too

 

[tetrasodium]

this assumes that

• the player completes each step in order without ever having read any of the next steps
• the player is unwilling to go back and rework the char once they reach step 6
• the player does not listen to any input and is actively hostile to it

I have not anyone who meets even one of these three criteria.

I have no objection to mentioning step 6 earlier, but it will have no impact on this.

Do you not own a PHB to reference? "A" was an accurate description of how a particular section of text was written in a book.

 

[Reef]

If this is an AL problem (which would make sense, since where else would you be gaming with complete strangers), wouldn’t it make sense for it to be an AL solution, not a core book one?

I know nothing about AL (which is probably why this potential issue baffles me), but isn’t there a set of AL rules? How to make a legal AL character, which books are allowed, etc? Wouldn’t that be the best place to emphasize and address the issues tetrasodium is seeing? At the very least, wouldn’t gameshops have sign up sheets or flyers where it could be called out?

 

[Incenjucar]

Gaming with complete strangers happens outside of AL. There's always a first time you meet people. A lot of my current friends are people I met because I was running an open-to-anyone game at the local game store. I've also nearly gotten into a fist fight in the same game store.

 

[mamba]

Do you not own a PHB to reference? "A" was an accurate description of how a particular section of text was written in a book.

yes, I know, but I know no one who did what I said, i.e. complete each step without knowing the next one, and refusing to go back when anyone pointed out how the party (or even just the char) could be improved

 

[Reef]

Gaming with complete strangers happens outside of AL. There's always a first time you meet people. A lot of my current friends are people I met because I was running an open-to-anyone game at the local game store. I've also nearly gotten into a fist fight in the same game store.

Fair enough. But then we’re back to the question of whether an extra paragraph in the PHB would be enough to stop someone inclined to fist fight…