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

[TwoSix]

Unnecessary to whom? People who don't want what @Emerikol and those with similar preferences want? Who cares? People want different things, so games that want to embrace a wide group of gamers should support more than one style (even if business reasons require they set a default).

Unnecessary to people who want to play D&D.

It's like going to a restaurant that doesn't serve fish. You might want fish, and be unhappy that the restaurant doesn't serve fish, but that's entirely orthogonal to whether or not you can get dinner at that restaurant.

 

[darjr]

I gotta say using 2024 heroic inspiration as a reroll of any die was good, nice even. More like what I was doing anyway and better still.

Once a damage die was rerolled!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unnecessary to people who want to play D&D.

It's like going to a restaurant that doesn't serve fish. You might want fish, and be unhappy that the restaurant doesn't serve fish, but that's entirely orthogonal to whether or not you can get dinner at that restaurant.

If the restaurant stopped serving fish after 50 years in business, and fish was my favorite food and one I've enjoyed at that restaurant for more than half that time, I'm gonna be pretty darn irritated.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Well, you have a high tolerance for things I don't have a high tolerance for in my games. I've never made it to a second session with a DM I figured out was winging it. For me exploration is the heart of the game and I now know there is nothing to explore. And while I in theory believe there might be some improvisers who could pull it off on rare occasions, I don't think they can consistently and I think very few can do it at all.

On this point right here I have to suggest maybe you try DMing a bit. If you think there's a case where a DM isn't having to invent or think on the fly, you will be surprised. Even a rigid DM running a programmed module with loads of preset "read this" text likely has moments where he has to pull something out of the ether when the players deviate from the script. By definition, the DM, especially if they are both good at and enjoy being a DM, will have to invent something whole cloth to account for unexpected player direction (unless they are a railroad DM and have removed player agency). The goal of the DM is to make it feel like it was organic, and then note it down as it is now an official part of the game/world.

Don't confuse "I wrote this yesterday in prep," as somehow being more creative than "I wrote this down in response to your clever engagement with my module." The latter is actually where all the best stuff you have experienced came from if the DM knows what he is doing, and you never realized it.

Now that said: a DM who goes in with zero prep and no vision is just asking for trouble, so on that point I agree. But there's a very wide swathe of DM style between "I started reading the book five minutes ago and am just making stuff up," and "I have a vision and a plot but the players went left when I prepared for the path to the right, and I would like to continue gaming for a couple more hours instead of calling it tonight so I'll draw from other resources to build out that direction on the fly."

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Oh, this poll really needs a choice labeled, "I have it, I am running it with the new books, and my feelings about it are a mixed bag of screaming cats. I love cats, but these guys are freaking out on me and its very hard to carry this bag."

 

[Yaarel]

On this point right here I have to suggest maybe you try DMing a bit. If you think there's a case where a DM isn't having to invent or think on the fly, you will be surprised. Even a rigid DM running a programmed module with loads of preset "read this" text likely has moments where he has to pull something out of the ether when the players deviate from the script. By definition, the DM, especially if they are both good at and enjoy being a DM, will have to invent something whole cloth to account for unexpected player direction (unless they are a railroad DM and have removed player agency). The goal of the DM is to make it feel like it was organic, and then note it down as it is now an official part of the game/world.

Don't confuse "I wrote this yesterday in prep," as somehow being more creative than "I wrote this down in response to your clever engagement with my module." The latter is actually where all the best stuff you have experienced came from if the DM knows what he is doing, and you never realized it.

Now that said: a DM who goes in with zero prep and no vision is just asking for trouble, so on that point I agree. But there's a very wide swathe of DM style between "I started reading the book five minutes ago and am just making stuff up," and "I have a vision and a plot but the players went left when I prepared for the path to the right, and I would like to continue gaming for a couple more hours instead of calling it tonight so I'll draw from other resources to build out that direction on the fly."

This need for an in-real-time narrative adjudicator to make stuff up out of nowhere ... is why the game needs a DM in the first place.

Players can do whatever they what. The possibilities are virtually infinite. No amount of "preprogrammed" formulas can ever anticipate what a player might do.

This is why videogames have never replaced the D&D tabletop games − despite the allure of the visual glory and physical excitement. Even AI is currently unable to fulfill the role of a DM.

The job of a DM is to make stuff up ... in response to whatever the players choose to do.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

It doesn't fix anything in 5e for me so its still an edition I have no interest in playing or running.

 

[Emerikol]

On this point right here I have to suggest maybe you try DMing a bit. If you think there's a case where a DM isn't having to invent or think on the fly, you will be surprised. Even a rigid DM running a programmed module with loads of preset "read this" text likely has moments where he has to pull something out of the ether when the players deviate from the script. By definition, the DM, especially if they are both good at and enjoy being a DM, will have to invent something whole cloth to account for unexpected player direction (unless they are a railroad DM and have removed player agency). The goal of the DM is to make it feel like it was organic, and then note it down as it is now an official part of the game/world.

You obviously don't know me. I am a very long running DM from the 80's who many successful campaigns of my playstyle under my belt. I could run as many games as my tired mind could run if I wanted.

I'm not talking about minor improvisations within a a structure. We are talking about a DM that basically has little to nothing prepped and just improves his way through the session.

Don't confuse "I wrote this yesterday in prep," as somehow being more creative than "I wrote this down in response to your clever engagement with my module." The latter is actually where all the best stuff you have experienced came from if the DM knows what he is doing, and you never realized it.

And I do think "in general" that stuff prepared ahead of time is better but I make an effort at it. Maybe some don't. Again we aren't talking about what a guy ordered for dinner. We are talking about making up the entire tavern and all of it's residents. Let alone God forbid an entire dungeon. A good structure will keep the DM on the rails and able to improvise minor things. He will know the backstory of the people in that tavern and can thus roleplay their reactions far better than if he's just making it up at that moment.

Now that said: a DM who goes in with zero prep and no vision is just asking for trouble, so on that point I agree. But there's a very wide swathe of DM style between "I started reading the book five minutes ago and am just making stuff up," and "I have a vision and a plot but the players went left when I prepared for the path to the right, and I would like to continue gaming for a couple more hours instead of calling it tonight so I'll draw from other resources to build out that direction on the fly."

Well the context of what we were talking about was a DM who was improvising a LOT. Your example for me is problematic. If it is wilderness I have a random monster encounter table. I have a map of that region. What I may not have is an adventure but given it is a sandbox there are a lot of adventures around. For me, a good way to handle this would be to have some prepared encounters with a lot of flavor that fit the setting. Like a traveling caravan or a group of bandits. That is the sorts of things I like on my random encounter tables anyway. It isn't that hard to add flavor to an encounter but it's hard to be convincing making it up completely.

 

[Emerikol]

This need for an in-real-time narrative adjudicator to make stuff up out of nowhere ... is why the game needs a DM in the first place.

Players can do whatever they what. The possibilities are virtually infinite. No amount of "preprogrammed" formulas can ever anticipate what a player might do.

This is why videogames have never replaced the D&D tabletop games − despite the allure of the visual glory and physical excitement. Even AI is currently unable to fulfill the role of a DM.

The job of a DM is to make stuff up ... in response to whatever the players choose to do.

It's not preprogramming. The players can do anything and the DM adjudicates it. He can though have a sandbox, with lots of prepared random encounters that add to the story of the sandbox. He can have a variety of adventures and subplots going on in the world. If you have a rich sandbox, with a lot of backstory for the people who live there, it is easy to handle players going off in some random direction. Now if they show up and tell me right off they are sailing for some faraway country totally unexpectedly, then I'd probably just say "I will see you next week as I have nothing for that at the moment".

 

[Clint_L]

D&D's official setting is monotheist; the faiths are in general a really weird type of competing monotheisms.

I read tons of insightful ideas on this forum, but every now and then one is like a lightbulb going off, and I feel like I really get something that I had never fully appreciated. This is one such comment.

The way D&D typically handles multiple deities is really odd. It's kind of polytheistic, in that there are tons of different gods and no one really denies that they exist. But it is treated more like competing churches in, say, Wisconsin, where each person is exclusive to one particular faith. That's not how polytheistic religions typically work; usually folks in a polytheistic society follow all the available gods, focusing on the ones that are particularly relevant to their lives at that moment. Even the holy people, though perhaps aligned with a particular deity aren't necessarily in an exclusive relationship, so to speak.

I've been running polytheism more like competing monotheisms. I'm going to change that.