D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (2024)

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

Gygax was a mass of contradictions and his rules and the way they actually played reflected that. I’m not really interested in quoting him as if he was writing scripture.
I'm not quoting him as if he was writing scripture. I'm quoting the rules that he wrote. They define a game with a clear goal (collect gp to earn XP) and a clear structure of play.

Remove the goal, and how to players know what they are supposed to be doing, what counts as successful play? In non-classic D&D, which became predominant in the mid-80s and "official" with AD&D 2nd ed, only the GM can answer that question. The GM tells the players what they are expected to do, to play well.

This idea of “skilled dungeon play” was a Gygax term that really didn’t mean much.
It has much the same meaning, in the context of classic D&D play, as it does in relation to any other game - it means having the skill and experience to play the game well, that is, to succeed in play.

Gygax, in the passages from pp 107 and 109 of his PHB, tells us what some of the key skills are: knowing how to plan and prepare (including, especially, how to choose an effective spell load out); during play, being able to make judicious choices about how to navigate through the dungeon, respond to wandering monsters, and the like; after an expedition, ensuring that treasure (especially magical treasure) is sensibly distributed, arranging the raising of dead party members where possible, etc.

Someone may or may not care for this game and its concomitant skills, just the same as someone may or may not care for bridge or backgammon. But the game is a coherent and fairly straightforward one, and the skills are not all that opaque. Probably the hardest one, at least for me personally, is patience. For me, that undermines my planning and even moreseo my judicious choices. Hence why I'm not a particularly good dungeon-crawler, and don't particularly enjoy that sort of RPGing.

Tell me: if monsters were all waiting behind doors for the party to find them, why did the monster manual have a percentage chance to encounter monsters in their lair? Where were they the rest of the time?
The % in lair is for wilderness encounters, as part of the hexcrawl procedure; it is the chance that a wilderness encounter with such a creature is an encounter with it in its lair (where its treasure will be, and where there are likely to be larger numbers). If you look at the DMG Appendix C dungeon encounter tables, you will see that the "number appearing" is different form the MM numbers. The Appendix C numbers are the ones for dungeons.

the DM is still the one creating the site just as it is the DM creating the story.

<snip>

There’s no game without the DM to adjudicate and create or run the dungeon.
I've already posted a response to @mamba's similar point, not far upthread.

A dungeon is, at its core, a map and key. The players navigate the map by declaring actions for their PCs. They trigger encounters by opening doors, and by having wandering monster dice come up 6. The GM writes the map and key; but the GM does not control where the players go, nor how long they stay in the dungeon. Hence the GM does not control the triggering of encounters (= the framing of scenes).

The players don't have complete control either, but they are able to exercise a degree of control by skilled play, as per my posts upthread.

Once the GM decides what the goal of play is, and what scenes will be framed, and - often, given the very limited scope of AD&D's action resolution rule - the outcomes of declared actions, we are talking about a completely different game. It moves from a skill-play-oriented dungeon crawl, to a GM-driven, GM decides game.

_what may be written in the 1e PHB or DMG is not necessarily what was put into practice.
Yes. This is well known, as per my reply to @mamba just upthread.

_the DM has the ability to “frame the scene” by having monsters act intelligently, a concept that goes back to modules like Dark Tower, Caverns of Thracia, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Against the Giants. None of those assumed the monsters sat around waiting for PCs to slaughter whatever was in the room.
And as I have already posted, the more that the GM does this, the more the game becomes one of GM decides.

For clarity, classic D&D skilled-play dungeon-crawling and GM decides are not the only two possibilities in RPGing. They are not even the only two possibilities in D&D play (see eg this approach to 4e D&D, also discussed a bit in this thread). But they are the two best known in D&D play, at least as best I can tell; and GM decides seems to be the most mainstream approach.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9466230, member: 42582".]
Remove XP for gp, and that game no longer exists - colloquially, it is broken. Instead of a game with a win-condition known to the players, with a framework that the players can interact with and significantly influence (despite not having total control), what takes its place is a completely different game, in which the GM sets the win conditions, and controls scene-framing as they desire, and controls much of action resolution as they desire.

I didn't say anything about validity. I said that XP for gp is fundamental to the game presented by Gygax in the AD&D books. Get rid of it, and you get a completely different game. (More on this below, as well as in my posts upthread.)
.[/QUOTE]

So AD&D, as Gygax intended, is Gauntlet. You wander around endless mazes, fighting or avoiding monsters and collecting treasure that adds to your high score (XP) until you die. In essence, it's about collecting the highest score you can before your luck runs out.

Yeah, I can see why the game moved away from that.
 

And as I have already posted, the more that the GM does this, the more the game becomes one of GM decides.
And as I have already posted, the game was always this. The very fact that the GM creates the dungeon, selects the monsters, chooses the treasure, places traps, and sets NPC motivations means that the “GM decides” how the game is going to be engaged with to a large degree. The players still decide how they actually engage with all of that, just as they do in a story based game where they choose which goals to pursue and which not to.

The only point we agree upon is that 1e’s game is driven by gold for experience and that has a fundamental difference in how players approach the game. The game changed as it switched from site based adventures to story based adventures, but not along the lines you are describing. As I’ve said, players motivations shifted but they still remained in control of whether they snuck into dungeons vs charged in, and whether they engaged with an encounter or avoided it. There were elements of class and race abilities that were phased out: it became less important to detect slopes as an ability or determine your depth underground. Encumbrance became more common to be handwaved at some tables. So yes, there were changes.

However, all the talk of skilled play, successful play, “GM decides” - these are distinctions that I’m not seeing as very important, if they really exist as distinctions at all - players are driven by multiple goals: having a good role playing experience, killing monsters, creating powerful characters, leveling up. It’s a very antiquated notion that the game needs to tell the players what constitutes successful and particularly “skilled” play, as if that’s something the author is authoritatively able to say, and feels ripped from the pages of one person, who has we’ve said, was a pretty unreliable source of information about the game to start with. You can phrase successful play another way - when your character’s hit points reach zero, you’ve lost. I don’t see any of this as particularly earthshaking. 🤷‍♂️
 

So AD&D, as Gygax intended, is Gauntlet. You wander around endless mazes, fighting or avoiding monsters and collecting treasure that adds to your high score (XP) until you die. In essence, it's about collecting the highest score you can before your luck runs out.
Which is what Castle Greyhawk essentially was…players beat the last level? Add a new hidden staircase, and create a new level!

Where’s the win condition in that?

Don’t like that PCs beat your last dungeon? Create an uber-punishing dungeon called the Tomb of Horrors and teach the PCs a lesson!

“GM decides”, indeed.
 

All this talk of gold for exp switching to other stuff for exp has been going on a long time to gloss over the fact that the experience didn't come until players found a way to spend that gold and successfully did so.
 

Which is what Castle Greyhawk essentially was…players beat the last level? Add a new hidden staircase, and create a new level!

Where’s the win condition in that?

Don’t like that PCs beat your last dungeon? Create an uber-punishing dungeon called the Tomb of Horrors and teach the PCs a lesson!

“GM decides”, indeed.
I think that ToH was less about feelings about players beating it so much as dealing with a specific behavior and calls for specific content after beating stuff that was designed to lose fairly to players as expected.
 

All this talk of gold for exp switching to other stuff for exp has been going on a long time to gloss over the fact that the experience didn't come until players found a way to spend that gold and successfully did so.
And get it out of the dungeon, which informed so many things from Tenser’s Floating Disk to Bags of Holding to why there are porters and mules in the equipment list to why having a high Strength and your carrying capacity was so important.
 

I think that ToH was less about feelings about players beating it so much as dealing with a specific behavior and calls for specific content after beating stuff that was designed to lose fairly to players as expected.
nbc brooklyn 99 GIF by Brooklyn Nine-Nine


😁
 

No it didn't.

It started with me posting this:
ok, so with it breaking the game. It does not break it though, it alters it.

Does it break the loop that Gary was describing, sure, but so did the Hickman modules for 1e and others. That loop was broken by DMs and players shortly after it was put in writing (before there was a 1e) and yet the game kept chugging along

I didn't say anything about what does or doesn't make sense. My remark was about the play of the game. Gygax's PHB and core parts of his DMG set out a style of play, which is coherent, for which the game provides rules for scene-framing, for which the game provides rules for action resolution. And XP for gp is a core element of that game.
gaining XP through dungeon delves and getting rich doing so was, XP for gold is kinda optional as long as that part stays intact

Remove XP for gp, and that game no longer exists - colloquially, it is broken. Instead of a game with a win-condition known to the players, with a framework that the players can interact with and significantly influence (despite not having total control), what takes its place is a completely different game, in which the GM sets the win conditions, and controls scene-framing as they desire, and controls much of action resolution as they desire.
the GM may not have set the win condition itself (find gold) but they still set the parameters to succeed.

Now the win condition is ‘get XP and find gold’, the parameters are still squarely with the DM

I didn't say anything about validity. I said that XP for gp is fundamental to the game presented by Gygax in the AD&D books. Get rid of it, and you get a completely different game.
I disagree on the word ‘completely’

For me, there are two issues.

One is about acknowledging that not all RPGing is GM decides, and that Gygax presented a game in which the GM did not decide the focus of play.
the focus was decided by the rules, no disagreement on that. But making the focus more variable does not mean it has to be ‘GM decides’ it can also be ‘Players decide what they pursue in a sandbox’

The second is that I, personally, think that GM decides makes for bad RPGing, and therefore have an interest in pointing out the first point, ie that there are other possibilities and some of them were foundational in the design and publication and play of D&D.
point taken
 
Last edited:

The other point I’d like to make about players not knowing what successful play means without an XP for gold system is it completely ignores the existence of one of the most famous 1e adventures of all time: Ravenloft.

Whats the goal? Kill the vampire. No one needs to explain slay the monster to the players. It’s intuitive.

How do you do it? Oh there’s some items that will help you.

Where are they? Let’s let some randomness determine that.

And through it all, Strahd doesn’t stay locked in his starting location waiting for the PCs to show up. He’s out hunting the PCs before they can find the items.

The result: the adventure that perennially takes top spot on many people’s list of best D&D adventures of all time.
 

Remove ads

Top