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

 

[mamba]

Exactly. So, when you are announcing a new edition, you can coin and use words like 'Next'. But when you're just announcing revisions to an existing edition -- revisions which are allegedly minor enough that there is full backwards compatibility, and revisions which are so minor that you are specifically asking people NOT to call it 5.5e -- then you should not be branding it with a new name

The final product does not have a new name, the playtest has a new name (One D&D), so it can be discussed in a reasonable manner. If that distinction is too much for you to handle, then I do not know what to tell you

That is just marketing bulls#!t, and trying to have it both ways.

sure, avoiding the term edition is in part marketing, but as long as it is compatible it is also accurate.

Calling it a new edition in order to get people to switch would be at least as dishonest as saying it is compatible

If you enjoy that crap, all power to you. But I'll continue to call it out.

I do not see those ‘calling it out’ as having less of an agenda when doing so than WotC has with calling it compatible

You are not calling things out, you twist things around to fit your agenda

 

[Gorck]

So when WotC says they're creating the 'next generation' of D&D, people will naturally think that means a new edition.

Thank you so much for speaking on behalf of the “people.” Personally, I have never once thought of OneD&D as a new edition precisely because the explicitly said it wasn’t.

Add to that the fact that we now know we cannot trust WotC and its PR/Marketing speak, and I think you have a lot of confusion..

What you’ve stated as a “fact” is merely only your “opinion.” There seems to be a trust issue going on here, and not even about something that is important to life in the grand scheme of things. Some people are grabbing their pitchforks and torches over a game.

 

[Hurin70]

sure, avoiding the term edition is in part marketing, but as long as it is compatible it is also accurate.

Yes, and it is also the source of the confusion.

Calling it a new edition in order to get people to switch would be at least as dishonest as saying it is compatible

But calling it 'revised 5e' would have been even more accurate and transparent. They didn't want to stress that, though, because that wouldn't have had quite the splash. So we got more marketing spin like 'One D&D' and the 'next generation of D&D', and that contributed to the confusion.

You are not calling things out, you twist things around to fit your agenda

Can you take it down a notch? Virtually every reply you make to me ends with insults or one-sentence statements to the effect that I am stupid, dishonest, or have an agenda. You've got an agenda too, so let's just admit we have different perspectives and stop the 'You have an agenda' stuff. It will make for a better discussion for everyone.

 

[Hurin70]

Thank you so much for speaking on behalf of the “people.”

Please read what I read. I never said I was speaking for 'the' people. You added that.

I was simply pointing out the fact that some people have been confused by the nomenclature. That's why there are so many threads about it. I hope we don't have to dispute that simple fact?

What you’ve stated as a “fact” is merely only your “opinion.” There seems to be a trust issue going on here...

Yes, and the OGL issue was what destroyed that trust. Let's not forget how evil they were, and what they wanted to do if they could have gotten away with it. So yes, I have a low tolerance right now for WotC marketing/PR bulls#!t.

 

[doctorhook]

The things is, WotC made pretty cool dragons if you include the lair actions. Just make the lair actions as legendary actions and they are 90% of the way there

For what it’s worth, nobody seems to be talking about the most mechanically interesting dragons that WotC published in D&D: the (chromatic dragons from 2011’s Monster Vault (a core product 4E’s Essentials product line). By 2011, WotC had finally nailed down their monster math for 4E, and they were trying to revise key pieces of 4E that players found boring or overly similar. Unfortunately by 2011, 4E was losing the big Edition War, so the Essentials line was totally overlooked—and the fact that it was revised intro/core content in a digest format meant that even lots of 4E players skipped it. It’s a real shame, because Essentials was peak 4E for sure. If I ever play 4E again, it’ll be Essentials.

For these dragons in particular, the designs leaned hard into 4E’s monster roles. All of these dragons were also “solo” monsters, meaning they were designed to fight alone against a party, but the specific roles gave each one vastly different tactics and mechanics to support those tactics. A red dragon was a “solo soldier”, so it stayed in melee and got a freebie claw or bite attack on initiative 10, regardless of what other actions it took. A blue dragon was a “solo artillery”, so on initiative 10 it would fly a short distance (without provoking opportunity attacks) and then breathe a “lightning burst” area attack at some distant foes. In addition to their classic breath weapons, most of those dragons also had another form breath weapon that recharged separately and supported the dragon’s role (the blue dragon’s lightning burst is one example). There were many more unique features that protected these dragons’ action economy too. I highly recommend folks at least review these designs directly—they’re really fun to play.

These were the last core dragons released before 5E… and 5E’s monster design in 2014 was a major step backward.

I think WotC clearly feels other companies and creators breathing down their necks with their improved bestiaries. I would be shocked if the 2024 Monster Manual didn't look a lot more like Tome of Beasts and Monster Manual Expanded, to name two examples that should make them sweat a bit.

What, no Monstrous Menagerie by Paul Hughes??

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

What makes those so special? Dragonshards? The Dragon? Progenitor Dragons? Overlords? Sorcerer Kings? Dragonmarked Houses? Darklords? The Dark Powers? the creation forge? Vvaraak & Ourelonastrix? Perkins mentioned waterdeep & some other FR locations iirc, what about Sharn & so on?


since 2014 though it's pretty much always been one specific setting(FR) & very occasionally namedrops of other settings (mostly greyhawk) when they very heavily share a particular thing or bit of lore.

I totally love every one of your references.

 

[mamba]

Yes, and it is also the source of the confusion.

you are starting to go in circles. I already addressed that. There is no confusion, only people deliberately ignoring what WotC is saying and cherry picking a few words to twist it

But calling it 'revised 5e' would have been even more accurate and transparent.

no official name has been announced yet. They do call One D&D a revision of 5e in the announcement

They didn't want to stress that, though, because that wouldn't have had quite the splash. So we got more marketing spin like 'One D&D' and the 'next generation of D&D', and that contributed to the confusion.

again, there is no confusion, WotC is very clear about what they are doing, there simply are people (like you..) who do not accept that

Can you take it down a notch? Virtually every reply you make to me ends with insults or one-sentence statements to the effect that I have an agenda. You've got one too,

oh, so I have one by telling you what WotC is saying but you do not by disregarding it, got it

so let's just admit we have different perspectives and stop the 'You have an agenda' stuff. It will make for a better discussion for everyone.

this would be more convincing without the part above it

Does One D&D have changes, sure, otherwise it would not be a revision. Are these changes compatible with 5e, as far as I can tell yes. So where does that leave us wrt it being a new edition? It’s closer to not being one than to being one, and since TSR / WotC have used the term in different ways over the years, depending on whether they wanted to stress the changes or not, them calling this a revision and not an edition is perfectly ok

 

[Hurin70]

again, there is no confusion, WotC is very clear about what they are doing, there simply are people (like you..) who do not accept that

Again, page after page of threads on this would argue otherwise.

I will also ask again: please stop the personal attacks and the suggestions that I'm twisting words and acting in bad faith and my perspective doesn't matter. It will make for a better discussion.

 

[Remathilis]

Exactly. So, when you are announcing a new edition, you can coin and use words like 'Next'. But when you're just announcing revisions to an existing edition -- revisions which are allegedly minor enough that there is full backwards compatibility, and revisions which are so minor that you are specifically asking people NOT to call it 5.5e -- then you should not be branding it with a new name (indeed, one that has a number in it!), and then blaming people when they try to understand it in the numerical terms they've always used to define editions.

That is just marketing bulls#!t, and trying to have it both ways.

If you enjoy that crap, all power to you. But I'll continue to call it out.

What does it matter?

No seriously. WotC can call it the 10th edition, D&D '24, or D&D 5.11 for Workgroups. The following is still true.

• It is backwards compatible with the current 5e material.
• It is a revision of elements from said edition that either the devs or the community has asked for.
• Older material will work with it, but obviously people will need to decide which version of a given mechanic they will use.
• Older stuff will be revised and reprinted, which was the case during the lifespan of 5e (the SCAG -> Tasha's and Monsters of the Multiverse being 5e mid-edition versions of material updating).
• It will be assumed you are playing using the most recent version of the books going forward.

The above is indisputably true. Now whether what WotC and what the community calls it the same thing is irrelevant. A nomenclature will arise. (TSR never recognized the Holmes/BX/BECMI/Cyclopedia split, to them it was only ever D&D opposed to AD&D).

Which makes this sort of conspiracy that WotC has ulterior motives for not calling it an edition ultimately pointless. The community will eventually settle on what to call it. WotC will release new books in 24. Whether that constitutes a new edition or not is irrelevant.

 

[Echohawk]

no official name has been announced yet. They do call One D&D a revision of 5e in the announcement

They also refer to it as an "update", an "evolution", something "built on top of" the current core rules and even "the next generation".

One might easily imagine the team was told "you can call it whatever you want, as long as you never utter the word edition"