D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[Micah Sweet]

Who cares if it's the "same game"?

You had your 5E14 campaign game. You decide to turn it into and continue it as a 5E24 campaign game. There are some rules you used in the 5E14 version that don't have a matching rule in 5E24. Thus... you continue to use and adapt the 5E14 rules that you already know and bring them into the 5E24 campaign game you are continuing.

Is that the "same game"? I don't know... is it? It's your game! Call it whatever you want! No one but you cares how you identify it. If you want to call it the "same game" or now a "different game"... it doesn't matter. Does it affect this campaign game of yours (now using the 5E24 rules) what you call it? No. So identify it however the heck you wish.

The company that made it have called and are calling it the same game, but in a lot of ways that is misleading.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't see that any of this has changed. But they seem to have removed both the suggestion for the number of combats, so the GMs don't even know what the assumption are, and the only tool for altering this pacing whilst maintaining the balance which is altering the rest lengths. So a lot of new people will end up having these problems, but they will lack both the information to help them understand why this is and the tools for fixing it. I don't think this is good.

I think others of us have more belief in the capabilities of DMs (old and new) to figure out and learn what they want to get out of combat in their D&D game and how to create fights that play to that score.

You seem to have no faith in people's ability to learn, and thus think they need their hands held.

Why don't we wait to see what the actual new DMs say about their needs for creating interesting fights and stories before we try to head things off at the past by assuming we know what is best for them and demanding WotC fix it pre-emptively?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The company that made it have called and are calling it the same game, but in a lot of ways that is misleading.

To a few people. But too bad. Use (general) your brain and figure it out. WotC does not treat to everybody like they are all idiots.

 

[Emerikol]

How many of those events require day to day tracking? If the Duke is going to be assassinated a month or 3 months from now, why not figure out after the fact how long the PCs spent on a particular adventure rather than track mornings and evenings? That seems like a lot of extra bookkeeping that doesn’t have relevance to the party. It’s more for your cognitive understanding of the world, and it seems there’s a less onerous way of doing it.

Well that would be a form of tracking. I keep the current date in hand but my tracking of it is loose sometimes (typically outside the dungeon) and close sometimes (typically inside the dungeons) with an outdoor style adventure falling somewhere in between.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And therefore don't know there are any other ways to do things than WotC's. Removing variants from WotC itself just makes that experience for new players even more narrow mechanically.

That's actually to WotC's advantage. Commerce is commerce, an a company's responsibility is to it's shareholders, not it's customers.

 

[mamba]

If they were popular, they would have been in the core rules. There is no reason to expect WotC will publish a book of unpopular rules.

there are page restrictions too. Do you expect all the subclasses that did not make the PHB to never be published again in a future book?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

there are page restrictions too. Do you expect all the subclasses that did not make the PHB to never be published again in a future book?

I expect the upcoming supplement will be mostly subclasses and backgrounds, yes. Maybe a little testing the waters with new rules, but not much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but it will focus on rules for currently popular playstyles, and pilot new ideas for the future. It’s not going to be a retrogaming book.

The point is that the game used to encourage making it your own. That's what the variant rules were for: to suggest that it's ok and even good to change the game to suit you and your table. Removing them at this point, again while maintaining the game is the same, has the opposite effect. New players will no longer be taught that anything other than their official line doesn't exist.

 

[mamba]

Experienced DMs KNOW OLD RULES. This is why they are Experienced DMs

experienced DMs do not need a new DMG, but new DMs need exposure to variants / alternatives

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The point is that the game used to encourage making it your own. That's what the variant rules were for: to suggest that it's ok and even good to change the game to suit you and your table. Removing them at this point, again while maintaining the game is the same, has the opposite effect. New players will no longer be taught that anything other than their official line doesn't exist.

Which, from a commercial perspective, is a benefit.

But you are woefully underestimating the creativity of the young. No one ever needed “permission” to make their own rules (apart from some boring old farts maybe).