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

[Xenolith234]

Did they actually say that???

In a video about the PHB, yes.

 

[Laurefindel]

I had a DM start a campaign on a different world (Mystara, but more of a janky Known World homebrew variant) before deciding to move his game back to his own personal homebrew world. At the time, he had two clerics in the game (myself and another player) and upon entering his world, we could no longer cast magic until we converted to one of HIS deities. (He was a fan of Dragonlance, so he copied the heathen priests rule). Neither of us wanted to change deities, so we were basically screwed. I'm pretty sure we both ended up rolling up new characters because of it.

The experience so soured our group to playing divine PC it was several years and a new player before we ever saw a cleric again.

Not sure how it really went, but this looks to me like a good example of a respectful comment/disapprobation on the DM's world-building. I hope the DM was able to be a good sport about it and either a) change his views or b) accept that there won't be cleric PCs (and not punish the players for it).

...but that sounds like AD&D days, and "not punishing players for their choices" wasn't always considered a DM virtue back then...

 

[Vaalingrade]

If this was not an accident but the player intentionally following some arc, then maybe they should discuss that arc with their DM instead of going rogue, hoping for the best, and complaining about tyrannical DMs when the DM is not a mind reader

I feel like exploring their character via roleplay isn't going rogue.

While working with the DM on planning character arcs is a good idea, it shouldn't be mandatory or punished.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe it is being presented in the new books in an adversarial way, to always fall on the side of giving players (and their PCs) what they want.

On the contrary. It's presented in an explicitly collaborative way. Adversarial is pitting the DM against the players and having punishment mechanics. The DM gets to control the entire world outside the PCs. It's a lot less adversarial than it was before 2008 (and DMs are not as weighed down as they were in the 3.X era).

 

[mamba]

You can - but you do not get to claim that the reason you want to be able to rip the powers away from a cleric and leave them crippled has anything to do with versimilitude or actually being part of a religion when many of the most popular ones work the other way. It is entirely an arbitrary decision you have made.

given that no real-world religion grants any supernatural powers I don’t think you can use real world religions as examples of how it is supposed to work. Mythology seems to be far better suited for that.

A god granting and revoking powers is perfectly fine, even if no real world religion managed to ever get any powers to begin with and claims without evidence that their sacrament cannot be revoked.

 

[Xenolith234]

And yet I'm on the "the world can affect player mechanics" side. Emphatically so. Like I have said I am an advocate for changing subclasses - and if that isn't impacting player mechanics I don't know what is.

What I'm not an advocate for is crippling the player character. Change isn't the same as crippling. That which doesn't kill you makes you stranger.

And the problem with just about all these is that they are boring. The problem is that literally all the consequences you have named there fit into one of two categories:

• Taking away someone's toys and crippling them until they get them back (removal of spells, level drain, ability score drain)
• Changing around numbers (magical ageing, ability score drain)

It's not the fact that they have an impact that's the problem. It's that they are all crippling and strictly negative.

What I like are consequences. I recently gave someone a homebrew Hand of Vecna and the way it worked was through a corruption mechanic; whenever they used one of the major powers they marked off a Mark of Corruption. And each time they used a major power they had to fill in a circle - fill them all and they become an NPC. Just a Taste and Megalomania went fast. How fast he got corrupted was up to him.

Marks of Corruption​

O Just a taste: The first time you reduce a foe to 0hp after a long rest they return as a zombie under your control​

OOO A touch of death: At the first level you look as if you haven’t slept for a week. At the second you look gaunt and haggard, and at the third like a lich​

O Blight: Small plants die and larger ones wither in your presence​

O Megalomania: Gain a tendency to speechify. You have everything under control. So you think.​

Far far more interesting than "You just took level drain. You lose your best toys and take -1 to rolls". I'm on the "we want this removing things trash out of the way because it's clogging up where interesting things could be as well as making things less fun". And you know what this does? It makes the PCs far more likely to risk the consequences because they know they will be interesting. And their character will get stranger, not just crippled.

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen alternate level drain represented as raising the XP threshold to hit the next level, which I prefer as being less clunky and not requiring recalculation.

 

[Emerikol]

Fall as in Paladin fall.

Well I admit the falling rules for Paladin are pretty harsh. The class was intended to be that way but I'd probably be easier than the standard rules. I'd allow for atonement in some way though it might still be somewhat costly mechanically.

I think it's more that they don't want to support that sort of play style anymore as it's not what the target audience wants. The window of target audience always moves on and we all eventually stop being in it.

I have theorized why they like or dislike things. I'm not sure there are a mass of players who will play almost anything put out by WOTC and called D&D. I estimate it is close to 65% of the playerbase. None are probably here or very few.

It was the opposite for me.

It does seem a truism that some of my greatest arguments are with people who liked that edition.

This is something we can agree on.

I was liking the Next playtest, I was liking the promise of modularity, and then neither materialized.

By putting second wind in the base fighter, they sent a very direct message to me. Get lost! I was all for a multitude of fighter choices and assuming the champion would be the one I'd pick and mandate for my games.

IMO (let's see if that keeps people from feeling they need to tell me this is an opinion), some of those roots needs to be cut off for the health of the tree. Modern players largely don't want to deal with this kind of stuff and at that point there's no reason to devote page space to supporting it.

Well and that is what we are debating. If that mechanic can't work well in a game, someone in that group is not someone I want to play D&D with. Whether it is the DM or the player.

 

[Neonchameleon]

given that no real-world religion grants any supernatural powers I don’t think you can use real world religions as examples of how it is supposed to work. Mythology seems to be far better suited for that.

A god granting and revoking powers is perfect fine, even if no real world religion managed to ever get any powers to begin with and claims without evidence that their sacrament cannot be revoked.

This started by someone claiming that they needed to be able to revoke powers for verisimilitude and religious integrity. I'm not saying that gods can't - but allowing Gods to do this in setting is an explicit worldbuilding choice by that DM if they can and one that works against the real world religions we have. It's not a choice made for either verisimilitude or religion - but strictly for the DM's or setting designer's aesthetic preferences.

 

[Neonchameleon]

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen alternate level drain represented as raising the XP threshold to hit the next level, which I prefer as being less clunky and not requiring recalculation.

So ... it basically wastes the PCs time and is something they overcome and then never have to mention again. Like I say boring.

When my things alter the character sheet this isn't going to be something they can ignore ... and isn't going to be entirely negative.

 

[mamba]

Realisation:

It's is possible that some DMs see a cleric going against tenets be somewhat disrespectful of their world building? Like if it was the player somehow commenting/disapproving on this particular cosmology element?

no idea, maybe it exists, I never would interpret it that way, just like it does not really matter to me which of the multiple hooks they choose to follow. I do not see that as a rejection of world building