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

[MonsterEnvy]

Why is there pushback over the mere idea that milestone leveling being weak to players like bob in ways that experience for deeds & gold for experience are more resilient to. Don't forget that same sort of "exaggerated hypothetical" behavior described for Bob was also described by the linked dndshorts & alexandrian video/blogpost.

Because for one I don't agree with it. I also don't agree with DnDshorts or Alexandrian, and have a good deal of distaste for their styles.

I just can't see how Milestone Leveling would make Bob more problematic than EXP leveling. He's going to be problematic in either case.

 

[Oofta]

The game that some people are describing, fat lootz, risk and reward, finding maps and/or using scrying, hands chopped off "just because" bear little resemblance to the games we played. Maybe it was because we had grown up reading stories like Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, LotR or Conan.

Meanwhile unless I was playing an elf*, most of the PCs survived for pretty much as long as we wanted to play them. There was no "don't bother naming a PC before they've hit level 5", no hireling fodder. If we had hirelings they were just an excuse to play multiple PCs with one as the primary.

Just another example that the game is what you make it. For us, it was about exploring dungeons initially but soon became more about story than anything. If the DMG was telling us to do something different, we just ignored it.

*Every time I attempt to play an elf in any edition they die quickly. Typically before they hit 3rd level. It's a curse.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The PCs don’t know how many XPs the diamond is worth until they appraise it. They don’t know how many XPs the dragon is worth til they kill or subdue it. There’s no difference.

And in the case of a story based adventure, as I’ve said repeatedly, no one playing Ravenloft doesn’t know that the goal is to kill the vampire. It’s self-evident.



I disagree. There’s no difference. The players make their own choices in story-based adventures as well.



Railroading is a separate, undiscussed topic.



I mean…you had no problem using that word.



The game is imaginary. There is not really a dungeon. There is no Mr. Boddy. There is no Park Place and Boardwalk.


@AbdulAlhazred described a situation where a PC stuck their hand in a chest and it was sliced off. Where’s the mechanic for that? Where’s the reasonable risk/reward cue for the PCs there? How was that not “GM Decides?” How was that not completely arbitrary?



And yet, games exist that do this all the time. You just like games with an extremely fixed set of rules and actions (even though that doesn’t prevent silly results like the aforementioned hand chopping trap). As I’ve said several times, the differences in the editions produce different motivations from the players, but I think you’ve reached a set of conclusions about the game that don’t really hold water.

And I noticed you didn’t answer my last question.

I disagree, the dwarf knew it was a treasure chest and could see there was treasure in it. I don't recall why my sister chose the highly risky action of sticking her hand in, maybe speed was required, or more likely the character had a 4 INT and very low WIS. Anyway, I DEFINITELY remember we all considered it a bad move and the resulting amputation got some laughs. Players were fully aware of "how things are" in this type of play.

 

[TiQuinn]

2e is just as obtuse as 1e, and really barely different at a mechanical system level, combat, magic, classes, items, etc. is all just minor tweaks. You can argue it's more tightly written but there's not a big difference.

It’s a much better organized and playable game so that’s a big difference right there

 

[TiQuinn]

The point is, only the GM really knows how story goals work and what they're worth. The GM is almost unconstrained here, and there can be huge variation and lack of agreement. Just take the swamp of alignment for example: XP award is now highly dependent on the interpretation of actions WRT it. I carry out actions fully expecting a reward only to be told no, the GM thinks my actions contravene my alignment (class goals can be equally murky).

Things like the consequences of actions in story terms are also highly subject to circumstances that most GMs do not fully explicate and which are not discoverable in any realistically practical way within D&D's structure of play.

Examples of all these issues are rife! Goal/story XP just makes all of this much worse. I know, I played AD&D from 1979, parts of it even earlier, through to the late '90s. Both editions. 2e XP was horrible, we ditched the entire idea pretty quickly. It didn't accomplish what it set out to do, and just disempowered players IME.

You improve upon the standards for setting story goals and awards. The game evolves, and you take the things that work and build on it.

 

[TiQuinn]

I disagree, the dwarf knew it was a treasure chest and could see there was treasure in it. I don't recall why my sister chose the highly risky action of sticking her hand in, maybe speed was required, or more likely the character had a 4 INT and very low WIS. Anyway, I DEFINITELY remember we all considered it a bad move and the resulting amputation got some laughs. Players were fully aware of "how things are" in this type of play.

We perceive the game differently I guess.

 

[pemerton]

that is no different from the game telling you ‘what you have to do is get the gold out of the dungeon'

It's very different! It means that what counts as success is being decided by one of the game participants (the same one who is making all the decisions about whether or not my play takes me towards success), rather than being a participant-independent thing.

It makes the players dependent on the ideas and decisions of that participant - the GM - in a way that is very very different.

 

[mamba]

It's very different! It means that what counts as success is being decided by one of the game participants (the same one who is making all the decisions about whether or not my play takes me towards success), rather than being a participant-independent thing.

I guess we have a very different idea of what is important and what is not, for me that barely registers. The player has a goal that was set externally either way, the ‘course’ has been set by the DM in either case, and the player operates within it, with limited information.

I can see a case where you can say that the DM has too much control in general in 1e / all of D&D, but 1e dungeon crawl vs 1e Ravenloft, that is a wash to me

 

[pemerton]

Why does the player in your non story based game continue adventuring? The PCs clear out Dungeon Level 1 of all of its gold and find the stairs to Dungeon Level 2 where the monsters and traps are deadlier but the gold is higher. But instead, they say no…”we want you to generate another dungeon because surely there are more. We want to keep clearing out Dungeon Level 1s because we prefer safety. After all, it’s just the gold that matters. There’s nothing in the rules that say we need to accept greater risk.” Would you accept that rather absurd argument from the players?

I don't see that it's absurd. But the structure of the XP charts means that those characters will struggle to reach higher level.

Ultimately, though, Gygax's game takes as a premise that players will enjoy the experience, and the "bragging rights", of getting their PCs to higher levels. It's as I quoted from his epilogue to module S4 of the Lost Caverns, somewhere upthread:

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!​

One might take exception to the tone, but the sentiment is clear: this is a game of skill, and its built around that premise. If the players don't want to engage in that game, then the obvious answer is to play a different one. I mean, in a different field of games - traditional boardgames - chess demands more skill than backgammon. Or in yet another different field, bridge demands more skill than five hundred. I prefer backgammon to chess, and five hundred to bridge, because they are lighter and breezier to play.

When it comes to RPGing I also tend to prefer breezier games - Burning Wheel being an exception in this respect - but that doesn't mean I can't see the clear differences between the sorts of RPGing I enjoy, the sort of RPGing that Gygax propounded in his rulebooks (which I engage in for a session or two ever few years), and the sort of RPGing that results from using the AD&D PC build and action resolution vehicle removed from its context - the GM decides game that I personally find pretty unappealing.

You just like games with an extremely fixed set of rules and actions

I don't think you know what games I like, or at least know much about them, if you think this is a good description of Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel, Torchbearer, Classic Traveller, In A Wicked Age, and the other RPGs that I play and enjoy.

 

[SkidAce]

Now if you telegraphed any of this info prior to the encounter (a nearby lab has notes on a failed experiment, the golem is damaged, the room prior to it has a wand of magic missiles next to pulverized wizard) I MIGHT accept that the golem isn't what it appears to be and is quite defeatable at the level I'm currently at). But I don't see anything that implies the fight is winnable or fair.

I know its a game and supposed to be fun...but does that mean every fight must be winnable or fair?