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

[Micah Sweet]

Setting logic is different from novel-writing, how?

PCs still get to make their own choices and affect the setting my way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Double post.

It is fair. Every player gets to make their own choices for their PCs, and deal with the consequences.

 

[pemerton]

Setting logic is different from novel-writing, how?

Because you think about what the players have said before you write the next page or two of your novel!

 

[pemerton]

It is fair. Every player gets to make their own choices for their PCs, and deal with the consequences.

The consequences here isn't something handed down by impersonal forces. It's decision-making by the GM.

I think this is what @TiQuinn has in mind in referring to fairness - as in, it's not fair that some players are exposed to the risk of the GM deciding that they should lose their class features while others are not.

 

[Belen]

Fine. You win. The whole "sets your speed to 30 feet" is still pretty useless now that all PC species have a base speed of 30 feet anyway.

And now for something completely different: Madness is still in the DMG, but it's been renamed Mental Stress and has been greatly simplified. Mostly it deals psychic damage, but you can still do short-term, long-term, or indefinite effects. Instead of the nifty tables to roll on, short-term just imposes the Frightened, Incapacitated, or Stunned condition for 1d10 minutes, while long-term imposes Disadvantage on "some or all" ability checks for 1d10 x 10 hours, and indefinite is just a long-term effect that lasts until removed by the Greater Restoration spell.

Why rename Madness to Mental Stress? Madness sounds cooler and is more in line with playing a fantasy game.

 

[TiQuinn]

The consequences here isn't something handed down by impersonal forces. It's decision-making by the GM.

I think this is what @TiQuinn has in mind in referring to fairness - as in, it's not fair that some players are exposed to the risk of the GM deciding that they should lose their class features while others are not.

That's exactly it. I can buy into the idea that abilities can come and go in a game, but I can't do it if that's not a chance for the player next to me simply because they decided to be a fighter or a rogue and I opted to be a paladin.

 

[Cruentus]

Setting logic is different from novel-writing, how?

The table has agreed to the setting logic in session 0. At least mine does.

If I I decide that in my campaign world that wizard spells are inked on a wizard’s skin, rather than kept in spell books, and the only way to get new wizard spells is to access other wizard’s skins somehow, and the group agrees to that setting logic, then that’s the way it works.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The consequences here isn't something handed down by impersonal forces. It's decision-making by the GM.

I think this is what @TiQuinn has in mind in referring to fairness - as in, it's not fair that some players are exposed to the risk of the GM deciding that they should lose their class features while others are not.

Oh, I know what they mean. I simply disagree. Some class concepts run that risk IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's exactly it. I can buy into the idea that abilities can come and go in a game, but I can't do it if that's not a chance for the player next to me simply because they decided to be a fighter or a rogue and I opted to be a paladin.

Fighters and rogues don't derive their abilities from an outside entity.

 

[TiQuinn]

Oh, I know what they mean. I simply disagree. Some class concepts run that risk IMO.

And we're back to fairness. So yeah, we don't agree on this.