D&D (2024) Did you make up your mind about 5.24?

[TwoSix]

It just doesn't start with the "build your world/build your multiverse" nonsense of the 2014 DMG that tells the DM that in order to DM they first need to spend hours and hours doing something that has very little direct impact on actual play.

Exactly. Detailed worldbuilding is its own subculture within the hobby, but not necessary for play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I didn't feel any of the options fit right for me, I've played in a '24 game with '24 PCs.. was unimpressed & much of what I've seen of the DMG actively spotlights or exacerbates the reasons for that in concerning ways. There needs to be an option like "No I'm undecided but it's not catching me" or similar.

I'd be willing to play it or give it consideration down the line if there was strong evidence that wotc had recognized & published stuff that significantly raises the bar in ways I care for. As it is that bar wotc needs to meet seems to be pretty high after "frustrating for dungeon masters" & "off limits to DMs" comments made in hype of PHB & DMG set it much higher than I would have expected possible during the playtest a year or so back

Same, more or less. I'd be willing to play 5.5 if someone provided the books, but I see no value in running it over other games, Level Up in particular. Why would I run a game that so clearly states its lack of interest in parts of gameplay and design I really care about, when I have an alternative?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm in the "not much different" camp, at least not yet. The classes I do think are improved, but there are other areas that feel like a step back. I think its a "one and a half steps forward, one step back" kind of thing.

The MM might change my mind though, as I do think monster design is a weakness of 5e (especially compared to 4e), so I await to see what they cook up.

I hope the MM is strong, for the sake of those sticking with WotC, but for me there are too many superior 5e monster books to bother with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To me it is pretty similar to 2014, but definitely moving in the wrong direction. Organization better, rest not so much

This. It's 5.0 with added emphasis on the parts of that game I don't like. Why would I spend money on that?

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is no Culture rules container in any way, and Backgrounds are not cultures.

We have been over this.

The 2024 rules, and the shallow extent that any kind of guidance is provided, does nothing from what I can see to aid or teach, world building at all.

Are the Gods detailed? What of their faiths? Are there actual cultural differences outlined, and how are those mechanically represented if every culture has the same Charlatan, Farmer, and Hermit.

Those are your Backgrounds. Capital B. That is a Rules Container.

Tell me, as a 'I just got my first D&D Book, 2024 PHB' who is Gruumsh, and what does he believe and ask of his followers?

Go to your Index. You'll find 'background' on page 378, first page of the index.

You will not find culture. Its not a thing, you are making it up as you have before.

A real problem, but a solved one if you're willing to go outside WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree with you there. WoTC has made no attempt to inject culture into 5.5. It doesn't want to carry any cultural baggage around.

And in my opinion the game really suffers for that choice.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I didn't feel any of the options fit right for me, I've played in a '24 game with '24 PCs.. was unimpressed & much of what I've seen of the DMG actively spotlights or exacerbates the reasons for that in concerning ways. There needs to be an option like "No I'm undecided but it's not catching me" or similar.

Might one inquire as to what those reasons for being unimpressed may be? Particularly the ones exacerbated "in concerning ways"?

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I like the Bastion rules, which surprised me. It's because they provide tables and procedures for Domain management, random stuff, etc .. turns out I missed that stuff, and afaik the other stronghold supplements I have don't provide that.

I like the simplicity of the Bastion rules. I'm not particularly impressed by the events system, however. I feel like there should be more risk or at least a chance of greater penalties to the owner. Plus some of them like "Extraordinary Opportunity" (which gives the owner the "opportunity" to pay a full 500 gold....just to roll on the event table again; at a 50% chance of nothing happening) are just badly thought out.

Still, all easily houseruled or adjusted.

 

[Emerikol]

There's more than one way to build a world - and the "grow it around the PCs" approach works, especially for shorter campaigns. Which is why the 2024 DMG spends significant time on that. It's the approach that lets them get down to the business of DMing. And it also suggests using a prebuilt setting and includes Greyhawk for that purpose.

That is a way but not everyone has the genius of Gygax to do that well. Some do.

I would hope in almost all cases the DM comes from the ranks of players. Play the game and see how a good DM does it and then carry on. I am not at all against inside out designs. To some degree even the outside in people do that somewhat.

And you don't actually need a predefined pantheon to have the PCs get gods and can just add them as needed with the base pantheon coming with the DM's world. If one PC wants to be a follower of Pelor, one Neptune, and one Loki this isn't a problem. There's a reason that although most of the Critical Role deities are from 4e there are also one or two that are from Pathfinder. If it's good enough for Matt Mercer it's not an invalid approach even if it's not your favoured way.

I think that just having the players bring their own gods might work for you but it would not for a lot of us. I don't really know much about Matt Mercer but if he agrees with you on this then I disagree with him.

It just doesn't start with the "build your world/build your multiverse" nonsense of the 2014 DMG that tells the DM that in order to DM they first need to spend hours and hours doing something that has very little direct impact on actual play.

Well for me it has a tremendous amount of impact on play. In fact as a player I must insist on it. I don't want to play a campaign were the DM is just one step ahead of me making it up as he goes. The world will lack verisimilitude and flavor. That doesn't mean I would insist on every detail being done but I want enough detail that the DM knows generally what to expect should be veer in one direction or another.

And I'm not saying it needs to be chapter 1. I guess it never affronted me that it was early in the book though. I think general table management, how to write up a session 0 (which would include the DM giving out details players must know), and how to write adventures and build encounters is important too. Not more important as both are essential but equally important.

 

[Distracted DM]

I like the simplicity of the Bastion rules. I'm not particularly impressed by the events system, however. I feel like there should be more risk or at least a chance of greater penalties to the owner. Plus some of them like "Extraordinary Opportunity" (which gives the owner the "opportunity" to pay a full 500 gold....just to roll on the event table again; at a 50% chance of nothing happening) are just badly thought out.

Still, all easily houseruled or adjusted.

I can't disagree with any of that- I actually don't think just being able to house-rule it is an excuse for some of the things you mentioned, BUT I guess I'm just more glad to have seen it and been inspired by it. Like I said, it was a hole in Stronghold rules that I didn't realize was there.