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

[Snarf Zagyg]

To the best of my knowledge no such section is in the PHB, but I do not own a copy nor have I read one. That is just where I felt the advice belonged.

I agree 100% that DMs need a section on table management, including a bit on booting toxic players. I've been very outspoken on this issue in other threads. I truly believe most problems experienced in this game are social. The number of times I see what seems like an obvious social issue cited as a mechanical failing is kind of wild.

I hear you (and @overgeeked ) ... but I am not sure that a game book (like the DMG) is necessarily the best place for advice on social dynamics and issues. I know Gygax did it in the 1e DMG, but that advice is now ... kinda weird.

Like, should Monopoly rules have a section about how to deal with the person who always wants to be the banker so they can steal the money? That's not a rhetorical question. It's very much an actual question. DEREK!!!!!!

 

[Scribe]

I hear you (and @overgeeked ) ... but I am not sure that a game book (like the DMG) is necessarily the best place for advice on social dynamics and issues. I know Gygax did it in the 1e DMG, but that advice is now ... kinda weird.

Considering the number of issues certain folks bring up that are 100% unrelated to actual rules, and are completely tied up in mismatched social dynamics?

I think it likely should be in there. If Wizards is going to preach their morality at people via the text, they should at least make an effort to solve some of the actual problems that people encounter in the game.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Well, that’s a house rule then. If alignment shifts based on actions (that’s good), and divine magic is permanent (that’s stupid), then you can have a lawful evil cleric of Bahamut…which makes zero sense.

“Yes, Bahamut gave me this power decades ago, and it’s mine now forever and he can’t take it back, so I use Bahamut’s gift to undermine worship of Bahamut and there’s nothing the god who gave me this power can do about it. Ha ha ha.”

Eberron back in 3e had clerics who didn't match the alignment of their Gods, and Keith Baker explained that's just how things are. They're keeping things in line with how they've been in Eberron, and it makes things interesting at least with NPCs in that a Cleric of a Good aligned God might be the secret villain.

 

[Staffan]

Well, that’s a house rule then. If alignment shifts based on actions (that’s good), and divine magic is permanent (that’s stupid), then you can have a lawful evil cleric of Bahamut…which makes zero sense.

“Yes, Bahamut gave me this power decades ago, and it’s mine now forever and he can’t take it back, so I use Bahamut’s gift to undermine worship of Bahamut and there’s nothing the god who gave me this power can do about it. Ha ha ha.”

I'm sure the Watcher's Council on Buffy would have liked to take away Faith's power and give it to someone else. But once she was granted the powers of the Slayer, they are with her for life. Same thing with divine investiture.

That doesn't mean they can't use other means to stop her from misusing her powers. If she's invested with them for life, that's a problem with an obvious solution.

 

[Yaarel]

I completely agree. You don’t want to use a complex check for every shopkeeper, but negotiating with a dragon should be more than a single check.

This is DM style.

For me, when players negotiate with a Dragon, as a significant encounter, I have things in mind that are likely to influence a Dragon, and things that are less likely. Then the players engage the Dragon narrative, and I take into account what they say. Some player proposals will automatically work, some automatically fail, and so might work and require a skill check (sometimes with advantage or dis). The process of conversation is like to require several checks, each one for something narratively specific. It depends on what the players want and what the dragon wants.

 

[mamba]

Read back those two sentences you just wrote to yourself and tell me again how they don't contradict each other.

it’s really simple, someone picking a Fighter cannot later complain that the Wizard has Magic Missile and they do not.

Same with the Cleric or Paladin (and possibly Warlock) getting their powers from some supernatural beings that require something in return. You knew that when you chose the class, you could have chosen differently if you did not buy into it. Do not come running later because you repeatedly broke your covenant and now there are consequences. Same principle, you chose a class with certain features and conditions

 

[Yaarel]

Well, I would clarify that it goes against the archetype you're familiar with. It's fairly trivial to reshape the archetype to where the cleric is a servant of their god but ultimately not dependent on them for their powers.

This is the way I've been running clerics for 20 years, so it's not like I'm making stuff to be argumentative. When a god makes a cleric, they're essentially changing their soul to be more "god-like" and tap into the universal pool of divine energy. The gods and their churches obviously don't advertise this, and the few clerics who do figure it out are usually condemned as heretics and apostates.

And it can be the other way around. The Cleric character is unusually attuned to outer planar forces, already engages the divine magic, and happens to run into Immortals there while attuning.

Then the "gods" are encounters in a magic journey, and not necessarily the ones who initiated the journey.

 

[TwoSix]

And it can be the other way around. The character is unusually attuned to outer planar forces, already engages the divine magic, and happens to run into Immortals there while attuning.

Then the "gods" are encounters in a magic journey, and not necessarily the ones who initiated the journey.

It's amazing how easy it is to create a strong, compelling narrative when your first instinct upon hearing a new idea isn't "that's stupid."

 

[DinoInDisguise]

I hear you (and @overgeeked ) ... but I am not sure that a game book (like the DMG) is necessarily the best place for advice on social dynamics and issues. I know Gygax did it in the 1e DMG, but that advice is now ... kinda weird.

Like, should Monopoly rules have a section about how to deal with the person who always wants to be the banker so they can steal the money? That's not a rhetorical question. It's very much an actual question. DEREK!!!!!!

You can check various monopoly forums, if they are full of proposed rules changes to reign in bankers and their anti-social money counting schemes, maybe they do need such a section.

I think it's clear that a portion of the community is misdiagnosing social issues as mechanical issues. Just browsing this forum, that becomes pretty evident. Things such as advocating for punishment mechanics to solve behavior issues are clear indications of a misunderstanding. Psychology tells us such negative reinforcement, such as that, largely doesn't work.

And we see numerous discussions on rules to "reign in" problematic DMs. But it's clear those DMs are already ignoring rules and norms, and we have no reason to believe a new rule would have any effect. We know from the nightly news that anti-social behavior doesn't respect laws, much less game rules.

So I think the goal would be to educate both players and DMs about how to handle people who act as such. And hope that we give them to tools so that they leave that table and not the hobby. And I don't know that you can do that outside of the core books, because I don't know that you find your target audience as effectively.

It may not be the best. But what is the other solution?

 

[abirdcall]

To the best of my knowledge no such section is in the PHB, but I do not own a copy nor have I read one. That is just where I felt the advice belonged.

I agree 100% that DMs need a section on table management, including a bit on booting toxic players. I've been very outspoken on this issue in other threads. I truly believe most problems experienced in this game are social. The number of times I see what seems like an obvious social issue cited as a mechanical failing is kind of wild.

Yeah, there is the sort of player who wants to show off their strategic mastery of the game when the game really isn't about that.

Play a strategy game where people are signing up for it and rules are rules.

I've played a few games at a very high level and I just don't have the interest to play D&D like that.