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

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I was about to say the same thing. I've been a huge supporter of @Nixlord and his Monster Manual Expanded books since he started working on them, and, while I hope that WotC doesn't steal too much of his thunder should they give us more variant/improved monsters like those in his books, it is a good thing overall for the game if WotC uses similar ideas to up their game as you said.

I also like some of the monster innovations in LevelUp, as well.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Is more effort being put into having functional (and coherent) indexes in the books?

Allegedly yes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I was about to say the same thing. I've been a huge supporter of @Nixlord and his Monster Manual Expanded books since he started working on them, and, while I hope that WotC doesn't steal too much of his thunder should they give us more variant/improved monsters like those in his books, it is a good thing overall for the game if WotC uses similar ideas to up their game as you said.

The MME line is probably safe, because even if they put in variant orcs, giants, etc., they're unlikely to be the same variants and most probably won't even have the same names. And in that case, people who want a lot of choices in their monsters of a given society will be reaping the benefits of both books.

The later MME titles include some of the more obscure TSR and WotC monsters, but very few of them seem to be the kind that WotC is going to kick themselves over. And in the latest volume, Nix has gone for more creatures from mythology from outside of the UK, which WotC historically has shown relatively little interest in. (And again, at worst, he just renames them and then DMs get variant tikbalangs, or whatever.)

I see very little downside for monster-lovers in WotC stepping up its game in response to outside creators putting out amazing bestiaries of their own.

 

[Parmandur]

Is more effort being put into having functional (and coherent) indexes in the books?

Most 5E books have not had an Index, I could see them skipping it.

 

[overgeeked]

That is the beauty of opening the SRD to 3rd parties! 3rd parties are supposed to kick ass, innovate, and make Wizards up their game in turn! I am so looking forward to the arms race of awesome design.

That’s the theory. They’ve had a decade to innovate and iterate and…not so much. Here’s to hoping the “not a new edition” is the excuse they need to finally step things up.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they used a pre-existing campaign setting, wouldn't it be much more likely that it'd be part of the Forgotten Realms, as an on-ramp to buying most of their existing and announced adventure books?

2014 DMG had the Dawn War pantheon as an example pantheon. Maybe they’ll use PoLand as the example setting this time.

…A girl can dream, anyway

 

[Hurin70]

Wizards has always been clear with their messaging. People saying otherwise are not listening/reading and are creating their own narrative. Or are listening to others with their own narrative, and that is confusing them. There are Wizards-haters who are trying to confuse the community on purpose as a way to stick it to the man.

It's right here: One D&D

I read that, and they talk about creating the 'next generation' of D&D. You don't think that naturally gets people thinking about a new edition?

They seem to want to have their cake ('It's the next generation!') and eat it too ('It's the same game!').

I'm just going to call them the 2024 rulebooks and 2014 rulebooks, and I can totally see them using the Anniversary Edition to differentiate the books themselves. But they don't have that pinned down yet, as it is essentially marketing, not design.

Yes, that's the problem. It all sounds like marketing and PR speak.

 

[Clint_L]

I have not had any trouble understanding their intent. I have found them to be very clear from the beginning. This is not a new edition in the sense that the word "edition" is normally used in D&D (i.e. a new chassis for the game). It is 5e with minor corrections and changes - slightly evolved, but not in any way that makes it hard to keep using the stuff that you've purchased since 2014.

This is consistent with what we've seen of it so far. Monsters of the Multiverse is a bit different from Volo's/Mordenkainen's, but not in any way that makes it difficult to swap in or out. The test stuff has mostly been small potatoes. This doesn't compare to any of the old edition changes; even 2e pretty radically changed the class structures, for example (even eliminating some).

It's also a very logical strategy - build on your most successful version of the game instead of replacing it.

I think most of the confusion comes from folks insisting that this cannot be anything other than a new edition like we've seen before, and refusing to accept WotC's core premise. Or cynical ploys, like Kobold Press's blatant attempt to position themselves as the true guardians of 5e.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I have not had any trouble understanding their intent. I have found them to be very clear from the beginning. This is not a new edition in the sense that the word "edition" is normally used in D&D (i.e. a new chassis for the game). It is 5e with minor corrections and changes - slightly evolved, but not in any way that makes it hard to keep using the stuff that you've purchased since 2014.

This is consistent with what we've seen of it so far. Monsters of the Multiverse is a bit different from Volo's/Mordenkainen's, but not in any way that makes it difficult to swap in or out. The test stuff has mostly been small potatoes. This doesn't compare to any of the old edition changes; even 2e pretty radically changed the class structures, for example (even eliminating some).

It's also a very logical strategy - build on your most successful version of the game instead of replacing it.

I think most of the confusion comes from folks insisting that this cannot be anything other than a new edition like we've seen before, and refusing to accept WotC's core premise. Or cynical ploys, like Kobold Press's blatant attempt to position themselves as the true guardians of 5e.

Heck, in the end, it seems that it will probably be less of a change than 3e to 3.5e.

 

[mamba]

I read that, and they talk about creating the 'next generation' of D&D. You don't think that naturally gets people thinking about a new edition?

only if you insist on ignoring all context and focus on the one word over everything else. Not sure that is generally understood as thinking however