D&D (2024) Dungeon Master's Guide Bastion System Lets You Build A Stronghold

The Dungeon Master's Guide's brand new Bastion System has been previewed in a new video from Wizards of the Coast.

Characters can acquire a bastion at 5th-level. Each week, the bastion takes a turn, with actions including crafting, recruiting, research, trade, and more.

A bastion also contains a number of special facilties, starting with two at 5th-level up to 6 at 17th-level. These facilities include things like armories, workshops, laboratories, stables, menageries, and more. In total there are nearly thirty such facilities to choose from.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Totally, especially since we this is about rules we have not yet seen. What it reinforces to me is how conservative the play community is. Even after many years of encouraging Dm to "..yes, and" the first reaction of many people to a proposed new subsystem from WoTC is "Hell, no, not at my table".

No, wonder we only see significant rules innovation attempts from third parties, since they can toss the system out there and see what sticks.

I think its mostly insecurity regarding the place of the DM anytime new rules come out. People tends to get defensive if they see something new stepping on their turf, even if that new thing is a tool that supposed to help them.

Just a pretty human thing. They'll get over it and make peace, maybe continue argumenting pros and cons just for the social interaction part of argumenting about a hobby.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

There is no way to write a rule that won't cause a problem for someone. If it causes a problem for a significant number of players, then it deserves criticism. If it's only a few players who are affected, then the rules are doing well, although discussion about how to adjust the rules to different playstyles is worthwhile.

I can't see the bastion rules causing me any problems, I'm pretty sure my players wouldn't want one for a start. It would be nice if they created some stuff rather than letting me do it all though.

But if they do cause problems for players, we had multiple people here saying that is entierly failt of pkayers or the gm. This doublethink is shielding rules from all criticism and shifts the blame, which is frustrating.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

There seems to be an awful lot of "problem", "duty", "blame", "fault" for something that's only supposed to be a fun game night with friends.

I would not tolerate this kind of load at an actual paying job!

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think its mostly insecurity regarding the place of the DM anytime new rules come out. People tends to get defensive if they see something new stepping on their turf, even if that new thing is a tool that supposed to help them.

Just a pretty human thing. They'll get over it and make peace, maybe continue argumenting pros and cons just for the social interaction part of argumenting about a hobby.

You are of course correct, a large proportion of "conservative" politics over the last couple of hundred years or so (at least in the English speaking world) has had an element of "Stop the World!, I want to get off" to it.
The big unfortunate thing is that it drowns out any discussion of what this thing (not speaking about bastions in particular here) might be useful for.
I would like to encourage people that feel inclined to reject a new thing proposed by WoTC or whoever to instead to point to an alternative that does it better. It might be a useful way to get some traction for third party material.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Totally, especially since we this is about rules we have not yet seen. What it reinforces to me is how conservative the play community is. Even after many years of encouraging Dm to "..yes, and" the first reaction of many people to a proposed new subsystem from WoTC is "Hell, no, not at my table".

No, wonder we only see significant rules innovation attempts from third parties, since they can toss the system out there and see what sticks.

I spent entire thread explaining why I think these rules will make DM's life harder, if they aren't there to oitright supplant us entierly.

Furthermore, I do not consider "yes, and" a sacred rule to begin with, merely one option on a spectrum beginning at "yes, and", going through "yes", "yes, but", "no, but", "no" and ending at "no, and".

Finally, if D&D was a more player-facing game like another game I run, Blades in the Dark, I'd maybe be more opne-minded. But ut is not and this system feels tacked on, a token attempt to have pkayer-facing rules.

Also, third party additions are usually, you know, better. Like, actually thought out and put a care into.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

You are of course correct, a large proportion of "conservative" politics over the last couple of hundred years or so (at least in the English speaking world) has had an element of "Stop the World!, I want to get off" to it.
The big unfortunate thing is that it drowns out any discussion of what this thing (not speaking about bastions in particular here) might be useful for.
I would like to encourage people that feel inclined to reject a new thing proposed by WoTC or whoever to instead to point to an alternative that does it better. It might be a useful way to get some traction for third party material.

Strongholds & Followers by MCDM publishing, you're welcome.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Strongholds & Followers by MCDM publishing, you're welcome.

So...if you have already a great option that fits your style and does not provoke anger, why are you still gripping about the lackluster system in the DMG?

It's not like tearing it appart and boiling your blood over it will change anything nor convince anybody that would already be inclined to appreciate those rules.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

So...if you have already a great option that fits your style and does not provoke anger, why are you still gripping about the lackluster system in the DMG?

It's not like tearing it appart and boiling your blood over it will change anything nor convince anybody that would already be inclined to appreciate those rules.

Again, just because a rule doesn't affect me personally does not mean I'm not allowed to point problems with i or be concerned about the direction, said rule indicates the game is going.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Again, just because a rule doesn't affect me personally does not mean I'm not allowed to ooint problems with i or be concerned about the direction, said rule indicates the game is going.

Agreed.

But if I may before I stop this tangent: it may be your posting style, but the way you express your opinion may look to most readers wayyyyyy past "pointing problems and be concerned".

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Agreed.

But if I may before I stop this tangent: it may be your posting style, but the way you express your opinion may look to most readers wayyyyyy past "pointing problems and be concerned".

Because, in response to my concerns, people started making assumptions about my table and that pissed me off