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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with the dimensions, I consider the impact much smaller however


the players never knew the rewards, you do not know what treasure is where in the dungeon and how to get to it. You do not know the risks / danger either, they can proceed cautiously, but there is no real risk vs reward decision the players are aware of and can use to determine a best course of action.

The dungeon is still designed and set up by the DM too, I see little difference between doing that and a module like Ravenloft or DL1.

You know exactly what the risks and rewards are. On dungeon level 1 you will face level one monsters and recover level 1 treasure, it's spelled out clearly in the MM and DMG! The details are left to the DM to draw up, but the exploration rules, schema of rooms, corridors, etc. is clearly delineated in multiple ways, etc.

And there are all sorts of conventions and rules of thumb, all explicated in the rules and associated materials about what sorts of things are acceptable material for a dungeon and which are not.

Tomb of Horrors literally rests on all of this, its conceptual basis is breaking those rules! It even says so, explicitly in the module, and then suggests the use of pregens, which are even supplied, due to the unusual nature of the material in this respect.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That’s fine but it consistently ranks highly for others. Both the original module and Curse of Strahd are highly regarded.

I don't think the concept of Ravenloft is bad. I think D&D is simply an abysmal system for running something like that. There are some other issues with parts of it that are not really germane here, but all of them boil down to a fundamental lack of game 'tools' to deal with open-ended story driven play.

All I need do is imagine how this would work if translated into, say, a PbtA game structure. I'm not here to go down into that subject, but I think people here who are familiar with that genre of games can see how that might work.

 

[Remathilis]

You know exactly what the risks and rewards are. On dungeon level 1 you will face level one monsters and recover level 1 treasure, it's spelled out clearly in the MM and DMG! The details are left to the DM to draw up, but the exploration rules, schema of rooms, corridors, etc. is clearly delineated in multiple ways, etc.
.

So I assume you make sure all challenges are balanced for level 1 PCs and never use creatures of a higher CR and that PCs always have appropriate wealth per level, right?

Right?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That may have been true in the games you played. Your experience is far from universal.

I'm referencing simply the plain text of 1e in Gary's own words, which @pemerton kindly quoted a good chunk of here. Yes, we played that game, it's called Dungeons and Dragons! Sure, the open ended nature of it allows for crazy unexpected stuff, etc. but the main structure of the game is right there! If it's not, then what the heck was Gary talking about? 90% of the text of 1e makes almost no sense otherwise!

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree with the dimensions, I consider the impact much smaller however

That is almost certainly due to a wide range of other changes cuts and areas in the rules that now design against the styles of play once aided by xp for gold and the assorted rules that fell victim to the tyranny of fun. Ironically 5e's defenders will often claim that these kinds of changes were made to support those kinds of adventures as if "you're the gm, you figure it out & make it work" without rules support is somehow empowering those old adventure styles.

the players never knew the rewards, you do not know what treasure is where in the dungeon and how to get to it. You do not know the risks / danger either, they can proceed cautiously, but there is no real risk vs reward decision the players are aware of and can use to determine a best course of action.

The dungeon is still designed and set up by the DM too, I see little difference between doing that and a module like Ravenloft or DL1.

It was extremely rare for players to run into an inappropriately scaled dungeon like you are describing for a few reasons. Firstly is the fact that barring stuff like tomb of horrors or dcc funnels where the goals were very different it simply was not fun slaughtering players or designing dungeons that the players effortlessly smash while bored to tears. Secondly is the fact that a GM who did find that fun was likely to find themselves without players fairly quick. The only other time you really ever saw is was when an adventure was prepped but players wanted to go off in some random direction that the gm tried to wing it with on the fly

 

[dave2008]

In my experience, milestone leveling means the party levels when the DM wants them too.

Obviously, your experience is not all inclusive and we should not make judgements based solely on our own experience. If you can't see or create value with complex milestone advancement, then use the simple one: XP (a set # XP per level is a milestone after all).

 

[TiQuinn]

If it's not, then what the heck was Gary talking about? 90% of the text of 1e makes almost no sense otherwise!

I think there’s a reason when OSR folk say they’re going back to 1e, they don’t mean the 1e PHB/DMG. They usually mean something like OSRIC or OSE Advanced Fantasy.

 

[dave2008]

Or when the players have ignored "yo, quest is that way" in service of "WeLl My ChArEcTEr WaNtS tO..." Long enough for the group to start complaining that the gm is being too tight about letting them level since it's been since [whenever] and there hasn't been any advancement or indication of progress.

Milestone robs the gm of any reason for the other players to push back against Bob when he wants to tell a specific story by being difficult

I am not really understanding your argument, can you clarify? Are you suggesting the milestone leveling some how prevents a group from controlling another player going of on a tangent? What does that have to do with leveling, XP, and milestones?

 

[dave2008]

Well, I do like it quite a bit (because I prefer that PCs not be mechanically pushed towards heroism),...

How does XP for treasure prevent pushing PCs mechanically to heroism vs XP for monsters or milestone leveling? They seem mostly neutral to me. I can run an evil group just as easily with XP for treasure, XP for monsters, or milestone leveling. I am not seeing the correlation, can you clarify?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

In my experience, milestone leveling means the party levels when the DM wants them too.

That sounds like lazy milestone.

Or when the players have ignored "yo, quest is that way" in service of "WeLl My ChArEcTEr WaNtS tO..." Long enough for the group to start complaining that the gm is being too tight about letting them level since it's been since [whenever] and there hasn't been any advancement or indication of progress.

Milestone robs the gm of any reason for the other players to push back against Bob when he wants to tell a specific story by being difficult

And that sounds like bully milestone.

What about actual milestone XP? Where you level when beating the boss or sub boss or grabbing the mcguffin or after reaching the ruins or any of a myriad of other story-based goals?