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

[Vaalingrade]

Then we know what settings you'd rather play in and run. Hurray!

I'd rather the game just back off that concept by default and add it back in where they actually mean to shut off paths to story.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Does it talk about different styles of play, or give examples of variant rules? Or is it limited to worldbuilding? I love worldbuilding more than anything else in the hobby, but many feel differently and there are plenty of other aspects of play to consider.

On the page I have open right in front of me (page 49) the top of the right hand column is "Variant: Training To Gain Levels" and then gives a suggested time and cost in days. Below it is "Level Advancement Without XP". So that's a yes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And I told you that is the case for any in-setting authority.

In-setting authorities can't arbitrarily do mechanical harm to the character with no roll or recourse.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd rather the game just back off that concept by default and add it back in where they actually mean to shut off paths to story.

I'd rather both options (and more!) are presented in the text. If they want one to be emphasized that's fine.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd rather both options (and more!) are presented in the text. If they want one to be emphasized that's fine.

And I'd rather the option that gives DMs this kind of punitive power not be presented to new, impressionable DMs. Just like I don't want the kind of 'DM is the last word' language to be included either.

Not all options are good to have endorsed by the designers.

 

[TwoSix]

I've never had any interest in wrestling, sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about. Just a solid example of how one person's conversational speech can be another person's indecipherable jargon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In-setting authorities can't arbitrarily do mechanical harm to the character with no roll or recourse.

For me, that's just a risk of playing a divinely-powered character: dealing with a deity. There's nothing wrong with wanting something else of course.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I'd rather the option that gives DMs this kind of punitive power not be presented to new, impressionable DMs. Just like I don't want the kind of 'DM is the last word' language to be included either.

Not all options are good to have endorsed by the designers.

Fair enough. We just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't agree with your interpretation. Who's altering any contract? The DM isn't changing anything the player didn't agree to when they made their PC. This is all setting level. At no point does the DM take control of the PCs actions.

It's been over 15 years since gods cutting off access to spells has been part of the current PHB or DMG. It is therefore emphatically not part of the default and is therefore either (a) something the DM needs to explicitly pitch in advance, (b) hidden well within the small print of the setting material (which the players may not have read), or (c) the DM changing the contract. It has not been a part of the default social contract since 3.5 had paladins falling - and even that wasn't clerics losing spells.

 

[Vaalingrade]

For me, that's just a risk of playing a divinely-powered character: dealing with a deity.

And that's what kept me from playing... well Paladins and Monks, because clerics already had prep-casting to keep me away from them.

I think things that keep players from playing classes they might otherwise like is a huge detriment to the game.