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

[tetrasodium]

I think it pivoted from site based adventures which is just a fancier name for dungeon delving to story based adventures which is much broader in scope. When I think about dungeon delving though, I think about the act of exploring a dungeon room by room, having to map it out, having to find its secrets, etc. There aren’t as many story based reasons to get players to want to do this. If you give players a story goal, their objective becomes that and the act of exploring becomes a time suck, a bottomless pit that they waste resources on.

Finding gold for XP is more conducive to site based adventures where the story is less important - the story is simply that you are exploring THE Tomb of Horrors, THE Temple of Elemental Evil, etc. The location itself is the most important thing, not the NPCs inside it, or the fact that you have to rescue or retrieve some item to prevent some BBEG from taking over the land. Exploring is the juice because exploring is how you find the gold that gets you the XP.

It also works well in adventures where the "site" is a home base city that the party needs to care about because that's where they keep all their stuff and it would be terribly inconvenient to lose it should the town burn down and even more difficult to move it.

Where it works less well is mindless murderhobos with less ties than frank Castle and a thinner moral fiber than Venom when it comes to murder in broad daylight

 

[mamba]

I think it pivoted from site based adventures which is just a fancier name for dungeon delving to story based adventures which is much broader in scope.

I agree, it opens up the scope, but it does not make dungeon hauls impossible / nonsensical. Removing Gold as XP just means you get your XP for other things you do along the way to finding that gold

 

[Nikosandros]

It's an example of an interpersonal relationship where there is no assumed hierarchy. Neither party is entitled to their will being done.

But if you want a better metaphor, try this one: the power the DM is given is based on the consent of governed, not a divine right bestowed by the DMG.

But when I picked the DMG I clearly heard a voice saying: "Whosoever pulleth this book of this shelf and library, is rightwise king born of all Grognrardia!"

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree, it opens up the scope, but it does not make dungeon hauls impossible / nonsensical. Removing Gold as XP just means you get your XP for other things you do along the way to finding that gold

I'd say that poor/incomplete carry capacity/container rules more than completed the job of designing against it. Having an edition where it's trivial to walk around daily adventuring loadout with regional/national GDP levels of coin with an inbuilt design expectation that PCs will never feel that they need to upgrade gear with any regularity certainly puts quite the mail in it.

 

[Remathilis]

But when I picked the DMG I clearly heard a voice saying: "Whosoever pulleth this book of this shelf and library, is rightwise king born of all Grognrardia!"

Lol.

I have a real problem with DM as God-Emperor that gets pushed by OS games and their DMs. DMing is thankless but you do it because you like creating stories (planned or emergent) for others to enjoy. You're a host making sure your party goers are satisfied. The DMs word is final in all matters of game disputes, but as the full story goes "in matters of taste, the customer is always right."

Now that doesn't mean your voice matters any less than the other players, but I don't think it matters much more. Hence the idea of creating compromise. Unfortunately, too many DMs get set in their ways and use their power as facilitator to control all aspects of taste, from what the players can play to what they can do to how they are allowed to play (see the argument about declaring action vs asking for dice rolls).

DMing is simultaneously a difficult role and an important one. And a DM who abuses that power finds a day where every player conveniently can't make their game that session, or next, or the one after that. A DM with no players is not a DM anymore. And there are lots of things that can be done before it reaches that point. But the DM has final say in ALL matters surrounding their game is an antiquated notion that can't die soon enough.

 

[mamba]

I'd say that poor/incomplete carry capacity/container rules more than completed the job of designing against it.

eh, there is a reason why a mage invented a floating disc to store the haul on or a bag that holds a lot more than its size. It’s not like people always followed the encumbrance rules in the 80s either. If it was not broken in 1e already, it isn’t now either

 

[mamba]

But the DM has final say in ALL matters surrounding their game is an antiquated notion that can't die soon enough.

having the final say is not the same as never agreeing to or compromising on anything.

What matters do you believe the DM does not have the final say on (and we can take out what the players decide their characters are attempting in game for this)? Also, that implies the player has the final say, doesn’t it?

 

[tetrasodium]

eh, there is a reason why a mage invented a floating disc to store the haul on or a bag that holds a lot more than its size. It’s not like people always followed the encumbrance rules in the 80s either. If it was not broken in 1e already, it isn’t now either

Agreed, but that disk was a notable opportunity cost for a caster who was now even more vulnerable. by being tethered to a slow☆ moving easy to see treasure platform. The value was not in the inability to trivially get the treasure out, it was in the inability to effortlessly get it out without cost planning & balancing greed vrs risk. That was quite a bit different from not even needing the disk & not even feeling a pinch when you might have a need for it

☆I just checked the oldest book I have (adnd2e), tenser's floating disk has a speed of 6, human elf & half elf a speed of 12 & I don't remember many gnome dwarf or halfling magic users aside from the rare illusionist.

 

[Remathilis]

having the final say is not the same as never agreeing to or compromising on anything.

What matters do you believe the DM does not have the final say on (and we can take out what the players decide their characters are attempting in game for this)? Also, that implies the player has the final say, doesn’t it?

No, it implies that neither camp has the final word.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A DM and their players sit down to play a game of D&D. The players want bog standard D&D as the PHB presents it. The DM wants a low-magic grim and gritty style game with only humans and no full casters. The players balk at this for various reasons (one player likes elves, one likes their wizards, etc). The two sides are at a stalemate. How do we resolve this?

The God Emperor DM declares they are running their LMGaG game and you either play it or get to stepping. Maybe they browbeat some players into staying (those who didn't protest as hard or feel they don't have a choice). Others leave. Assuming the ratio of quitters to stayers is high, the game ends up dying while the DM tries to find new players.

Likewise, if the players veto the game and the DM acquiesces, then the DM has a miserable time and eventually drops. Maybe a different player steps up, but barring that, game dies.

So total victory is bad on either side. But if the DM is open to making his game a little more open and less grim dark while the players are willing to accept some restrictions on options, you can negotiate a truce. It requires both sides to be flexible in their expectations, willing to change elements, and open to accepting they won't get 100% of what they want.

But most DMing advice often comes down to the idea that the DM never needs to compromise their vision and the players must make the compromise in order to experience the joy of said vision. That, in my experience, ends with DMs finding their play groups have found better things to do on game night. Seen it, been part of it. And yes, entitled players are just as bad faith as entitled DMs. No side is without flaws, but one side gets told by people on the Internet that its flaw isn't bad, is a right given by their title. And that needs to change.

 

[g00se99994]

having the final say is not the same as never agreeing to or compromising on anything.

What matters do you believe the DM does not have the final say on (and we can take out what the players decide their characters are attempting in game for this)? Also, that implies the player has the final say, doesn’t it?

The DM has the final say