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

[Micah Sweet]

How so?

Just because it doesn't advocate for Viking Hat DM With Unlimited Power and crippling PCs doesn't mean the 2024 DMG doesn't present multiple approaches - it does (I have a copy, picked up at MCM Comic Con). It just doesn't present all possible options.

What options does it present, other than the default you are so happy to advocate for because it happens to align with your preferences?

 

[Vaalingrade]

They were clerics with powers. At first.

And to me setting logic and class fantasy, and especially fiction first, mechanics second, is very good for the game.

I'd argue making players not want to play the game because they don't want to be left with a useless character is not good for the longevity of the game.

 

[Remathilis]

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).

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

It absolutely was AD&D, and as stated, it was almost 10 years (and 1.5 editions) before he eased up somewhat on this. (He still had a nasty habit of telling people he didn't like their PCs after they were approved).

 

[Emerikol]

How do you square that with people who didn't play D&D for the thirty-preceding years or who stopped playing in various editions?

Or the simple fact that most of the playerbase has ONLY known 5e and now 5.5? As in there's really no data to support this hypothesis.

I agree most traditional players have abandoned D&D and most players only know 5e and 5.5e. 65% ongoing just aren't that worried about rules. That was true in 1978, 1990, and 2001. I think 4e woke a few of them up but still most of that mass of players are just along for the ride. They like D&D and play D&D.

I think tons of people are playing other games now. C&C, OSE, DCC, and on and on. All of them probably played D&D at one time.

Really? Second Wind was the straw there? Why? It's a full 30% of the class before subclasses. What would there even be left of the fighter?

They could have provided something different. Something that didn't force your hand. I was all for even having a Warlord in 5e as long as I could avoid it. The key for me is the ability to avoid the bad elements easily. Thus making things more modular would help. When you embed a controversial element right in the core class, it tells me you don't care a flying fig about my playstyle. You knew I'd hate it. You could have easily included it in other classes or made it a feat but you didn't. You just don't care. I actually spoke with Mike Mearls and he said they did care about that sort of thing but apparently they didn't.

Again, if people don't want to deal with the mechanic at all, why devote page space to it?

If they were wanting to keep more players in the game, that would be why but sure if they are assuming the older players will always slide off into some retroclone of their particular edition and all that matters is the newbs that is fine.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What is fun and engaging varies between people is all I can say. The fear the undead invoked in my PCs cannot be easily duplicated without those rules.

Yes it can. Or rather the fear comes from the interesting part - the long term consequences. What it doesn't come from is the boring part - the consequences being a simple numerical change. If you were to e.g. have an Undead Marks of Corruption meter that only went one way or you e.g. recovered one point a year instead of level drain (and that might eventually have PCs half in this realm and half in the etherial realm before they die) they would be as scared and still talk about it.

And while you may or may not be in this group so don't take it as I'm saying you are but there exists a group of what I would call entitled players who want inviolate protections from what they'd view as DM interference. Those people I save the trouble. I tell them they are eternally protected and send them out the door.

I've only ever seen one of those and that in a Pathfinder game in about 2011. I don't think I ever have in 4e or 5e although they were a problem in 3.X and PF1e

 

[mamba]

See, I view this is a huge violation of the player's agency on par with 'your character wouldn't do that'.

I see it as giving them a reminder because players miss at least half of the hints, even if their characters wouldn’t

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you actually have a 2024 DMG? Because it does show multiple options. For example it shows you how to create your own setting - and shows you Greyhawk as an example setting.

It doesn't show all possible options but to say it only gives one choice is simply false.

What other options does it show? Not just allow, but show?

 

[TwoSix]

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.

The constraints on paladins made much more sense in an AD&D, dungeon crawling environment. Paladins got a substantial boost in baseline power; in exchange, they were locked out of several very efficacious actions, like using poisons, recruiting non-good henchmen, and carrying around a slew of magic items (magic items, especially consumables, being much more prevalent and useful in AD&D play).

The only way to enforce this "balance" was to make sure that the constraints on action were actively policed and enforced.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, I engage in this kind of kayfabe too.

"Kayfabe" is the perfect word for it, but maybe it's too jargony.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because it isn't a question of "style of game". It's about choosing to embrace a particular detail of setting cosmology.

You can play a hard trad, setting first, no plot coupon game in a world where divine magic does not emanate completely and under the total control of the deities. You're choosing to make that one detail a pillar of your entire play.

And really, you're just using deity control over a cleric as a synecdoche for a play style where DMs can choose to invoke mechanical consequences for failing to meet a particular narrative conceit.

Apprecuate the embedded definition. I am concerned, however, that you are using that word because you want to show off you know it.