D&D (2024) D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (2024)

[EzekielRaiden]

Gary himself was legendarily inconsistent on how strictly one must follow the official rules, so I count that as a wash. And I just don't see what you're talking about outside of 4e.

GP=XP is an insistence upon heist-centric play. It, all by itself, enforces a mercenary and even cutthroat worldview.

3e's skill points are another such insistence, though far less straightforward.

Not a fan of colorful phrasing, huh?

I rather like colorful phrasing (though people on this forum have repeatedly criticized me for using it). I was asking where the rules make you feel like you're forced into a corner like that. I get you aren't being literal. Please don't be condescending. I'm wanting to know what parts of the text are what cause this issue for you. The text is freely available in multiple places online (as noted, CC-BY 3.0), so it should be quite easy to cite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

GP=XP is an insistence upon heist-centric play. It, all by itself, enforces a mercenary and even cutthroat worldview.

3e's skill points are another such insistence, though far less straightforward.


I rather like colorful phrasing (though people on this forum have repeatedly criticized me for using it). I was asking where the rules make you feel like you're forced into a corner like that. I get you aren't being literal. Please don't be condescending. I'm wanting to know what parts of the text are what cause this issue for you. The text is freely available in multiple places online (as noted, CC-BY 3.0), so it should be quite easy to cite.

I'm not in a position to quote rules to you from my phone. I will say I never felt like changing what one needs to do to earn XP in 1e would break the game, and I have felt that way with similar rule-breaking on reading the PBtA games.

 

[pemerton]

I would. The procedures of play are very structured in PBtA games I know about, and the GM is functionally disallowed from changing them or you're not following the spirit of the game. That's never been the attitude in D&D in all the decades I've played it, not how I and my players played it (except maybe 4e. That game was pretty ironclad about its rules too).

I think if you read Gygax closely you'll find quite a bit of "insistent" language in which he sets out his account of the game. Just yesterday, after reading a review of Quests from the Infinite Staircase, I was looking over my copy of S4 Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, and enjoyed this concluding passage (p 30; Gygax's AD&D rulebooks are replete with similar sorts of commentary):

During the course of several game sessions, player characters may accumulate enough experience points to qualify for an increase in level. Because the caverns are so far from any place where characters can train, the DM may allow player characters to advance without prior training, provided that the quality of play has been very high. Regulating the amount of time and treasure needed to train is important in the proper handling of a campaign. If you choose to allow player characters to advance in level without training, it should be because of their playing skill, and the special circumstances of this module. Advancement without training should be regarded as a reward for excellence rather than as a normal part of the campaign.

Poor play does not merit special consideration. Players will not improve if the DM pampers rather than challenges them. If your players perform badly, do not allow their characters to increase in experience level. Be most judicious in how you handle awards to player characters. Allowing foolish and ignorant players to advance their characters to high levels reflects badly upon the game and even more so upon the Dungeon Master who allowed such a travesty to occur. In effect, it is the excellence of the DM which is judged when the caliber of play by any group is discussed. Keep yours high!​

Of course D&D players from the very beginning have ignored Gygax's account of how to play the game, and have retained its basic action resolution rules while completely abandoning Gygax's approach to framing and consequences (that is, the approach of dungeon-crawl or hex-crawl map-and-key plus random encounters) in favour of alternatives (most often, "GM decides"). But there's ample, and unsurprising, evidence that people do that with PbtA games too! For instance, a lot of the Dungeon World play that I see described, and perhaps most of it, seems closer to a type of shared storyteller approach than to the spirit of Apocalypse World.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not in a position to quote rules to you from my phone. I will say I never felt like changing what one needs to do to earn XP in 1e would break the game, and I have felt that way with similar rule-breaking on reading the PBtA games.

There's...nothing wrong with changing how people earn XP in DW. There are numerous rules options out there which do exactly that, e.g. altering Bonds (something I myself have done), or altering the specifics of the End of Session move.

As an example, when I do the End of Session move, my questions are as follows:

Did we learn something new and important about the world?
Did we overcome a notable monster, enemy, or obstacle?
Did we loot a memorable treasure or form a meaningful alliance?

Changes underlined. First question has not needed any changes, learning is a regular but not guaranteed occurrence and I haven't seen any need to alter it. Second question, we don't always fight enemies, but we do often have sessions that are about figuring out a way around some kind of significant obstacle or impediment, or resolving a major conflict, or otherwise doing something that isn't about overcoming a person or monster. Part of that is I wanted intrigue to matter a lot in this game, but part of it is that my players in general just prefer to resolve things peacefully when they can, or like helping people who aren't enemies but do have conflicts that need resolving. Third question, again, this is about the intrigue stuff--oftentimes, the most valuable thing in a heavily mercantile Arabian Nights inspired setting is not what you own, but who you know.

Hence why I actually quoted the text of the books where it discusses what changing the rules may do to the game, and why it is unwise to do so without forethought, care, and (in most cases) testing. I've been lucky in that the stuff I started with was already pretty good, that is, testing did not end up requiring much in the way of changes. Most of the time, when I need to change something, it's because I was either not generous enough or (more commonly) too generous to the players with a new magic item or class feature, and need to tweak it to fit, boosting it or pulling it back just a little.

 

[pemerton]

I never felt like changing what one needs to do to earn XP in 1e would break the game

And yet it does!

So there you go.

 

[mamba]

Well, criticising seems a bit pointless for a game that has been in print for 10 years, is now being reprinted in a revised form, and that has tens (? I believe) of millions of players.

if you expect your criticism to result in a change to the game, then yes, but then so would be nearly all criticism of basically anything

That doesn't mean you have to enjoy them or use them; but the appropriate response seems to be to explain their limitations, and why you do something different.
Coming up with a tool that does these three things, even passably, seems like a reasonable design achievement.

I don’t think I agree beyond your three items

No RPG can do what you describe as the alternative to rulings

of course not, that is why I considered eliminating rulings futile and certainly not a reasonable goal

But D&D has never aspired to anything like this level of completeness. It has always permitted open-ended resolution, relying on the participants to extrapolate the fiction within the limits that the game rules establish.

I did not say they tried, I said attempting to do so in an effort to remove DM empowerment is futile

I don't agree with this claim about D&D: presumably a GM can adjudicate actions for their monsters that the rules don't expressly address, just the same as they would such action declarations from a player for their PC.

what attacks a monster has and what their results are is described in the stat block, at a minimum DW does not describe the results

That a DM can change the monster to have additional abilities or can come up with out of combat ‘actions’ is besides the point

And thinking beyond combat: can a NPC/creature willingly leave its home to go on a trek, or to offer itself as a hostage, or even if that means leaving its beloved(s) behind? A D&D statblock doesn't answer any of those questions.

which still means it answers more questions than a DW one. I never claimed it answers all questions, only that it is more prescriptive than the DW one and the latter is more open to ‘DM empowerment’ (which was described as having vague / incomplete rules to allow for rulings by the DM) as a consequence

 

[mamba]

I would. The procedures of play are very structured in PBtA games I know about, and the GM is functionally disallowed from changing them or you're not following the spirit of the game.

if you look at the quote from DW, I’d say you can pretty much take it and say that is how people play D&D as well, its just that it does not tell you to do so outright and at best gives you an example / at worst leaves you to figure that part out on your own (either by being a player in a group with a DM that does, or by trial and error)

 

[mamba]

Did I say it NEVER happens? No. I said that if everyone is participating in good faith, a compromise is always possible

I think it is too reductive to say that if a compromise is not reached then at least one person must have acted in bad faith. Sometimes people just have very different preferences that are too far apart for a compromise.

Why don't marriages have dungeon master equivalents?

for the longest time they did, many still do

How can people POSSIBLY resolve disagreements without a single person always calling the shots that everyone else must bow to forever and ever?!?!

no one is talking about always calling the shots, and no one can force anyone into a ‘compromise’ they do not like, so at some point either the player accepts what the DM is offering or it is time to find a different DM

Not sure why you call that the DM calling the shots or why you expect the DM to always cave in order to not be accused of it

But then it must in fact ACTUALLY go both ways. That's the problem I have with this rebuttal. It doesn't actually go both ways. It instead means, "Okay, so now we go back to players being absolutely subservient to DMs, or being summarily kicked out."

no, it means it usually goes both ways and an actual compromise is found, but in those cases where it is not, what do you expect to happen? Are you forcing the DM to accept something they are not willing to accept? How is that any different from the players calling the shots at that point?

Also, good luck with that, so yes, if no compromise is reached, that player is out since they cannot very well force the DM to accept their wish regardless

 

[pemerton]

if no compromise is reached, that player is out since they cannot very well force the DM to accept their wish regardless

Well, my most dramatic experience in this respect saw the GM being out. The GM could hardly force the players to accept his wish regardless, and we abandoned the GM and started our own game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think it is too reductive to say that if a compromise is not reached then at least one person must have acted in bad faith. Sometimes people just have very different preferences that are too far apart for a compromise.


for the longest time they did, many still do

So every marriage that doesn't have one is guaranteed to eventually hit irreconcilable conflicts?

no one is talking about always calling the shots,

They literally are.

Not sure why you call that the DM calling the shots or why you expect the DM to always cave in order to not be accused of it

For the umpteen-millionth time,

I DON'T AND NEVER HAVE.​

Will you please stop putting words in my mouth? It'd be really nice.

no, it means it usually goes both ways and an actual compromise is found, but in those cases where it is not, what do you expect to happen?

Such cases are rare in the extreme. It then becomes "rare in the extreme" squared that such a thing happens where absolutely no one is behaving fully in good faith.

Since folks have spoken so derisively of hypothetical and theory: When does this actually happen? What are these alleged incredibly common utterly irreconcilable conflicts?

Are you forcing the DM to accept something they are not willing to accept?

Nope! Because both sides have to be willing to meet somewhere in the middle.

How is that any different from the players calling the shots at that point?

Because nobody is calling any shots. That's the point. You talk it out like reasonable people.

Also, good luck with that, so yes, if no compromise is reached, that player is out since they cannot very well force the DM to accept their wish regardless

So we're exactly back to where we were before: The DM forces their will on everyone else. Because that's somehow wonderful and beautiful and awesome. But a player hoping for even the tiniest bit of reciprocity is an offense, an enemy, something to be driven out like the horrible awful monster it oh so obviously is.

Do you not see this? As soon as someone asks for reciprocity, for the DM to compromise too, they're immediately told, "OH, SO NOW THE DM IS THE PLAYERS' SLAVE HUH? HOW IS THAT FAIR?"

It's not fair. Because that's not what they're asking for. They're asking for EVERYONE to approach the table expecting to talk things out. Expecting to be heard fairly, and to hear fairly. Expecting to get perhaps not 100% perfectly exactly what they originally wanted, but to get something they can happily work with.

Instead, the only alternatives you offer are "DM dogmatically forcing their will on everyone else" or "DM sitting alone at their table because all the players left." How is that good? How is that helpful? How is that even remotely better than being reasonable people and having a real conversation where you expect to listen AND be listened to?