D&D (2024) Experienced DMs, how useful is the 2024 DMG to you?

[Micah Sweet]

I find it a profoundly disappointing book. It's not that it's all bad - but a lot of it is superficial, and I feel the style is incredibly handwavy. There's stuff I think is fantastic and I turn the page hoping for a continuation of this usefulness, only to be disappointed.

The stuff on chases, for instance. Let's reprint the (not working) rules from the 2014 rules, and include fewer options!

But it has a section on reactive tactics - on having monsters react to what the players do rather than just stand there waiting to be slaughtered! Cool! That's what I want!

But then I turn to the section on designing dungeon adventures and... there isn't one. In fact, the section on designing adventures seems the most underwritten in the book. Lots of handwaving, a few good bits of advice, but the lack of a strong core about adventure structure or even what a dungeon adventure is.

For an experienced DM - sure, you'll be fine. Though the book lacks a lot of the resources found in the 2014 DMG for stocking dungeons (many of which were reprinted from the 1E DMG - for good reason!)

As a DMG that was intended to introduce new DMs to the game - which I heard a few times was the intent - I think it's passable on running the game (some good and bad advice), but often very bad at preparing for the game and designing adventures.

I sure hope you read the entire book before posting that opinion.

 

[Selas]

Maybe what we need are two books. One can be about table management and getting new DMs started. The second would be about serious world building, weather, city design, npc design, tons of random tables, etc etc etc. There is probably a market for both.

I expect that sometime in the next 3 years we will get a combined XGE and TCE book that also has all the things they cut from the 2014 book. This will be the Advanced DM Guide

 

[grimmgoose]

I expect that sometime in the next 3 years we will get a combined XGE and TCE book that also has all the things they cut from the 2014 book. This will be the Advanced DM Guide

I surely hope it’s more than just repackaged content that we got back in 5E. I would prefer it to not be like Call of Duty, charging you full price for minor changes/modifications.

 

[MerricB]

I surely hope it’s more than just repackaged content that we got back in 5E. I would prefer it to not be like Call of Duty, charging you full price for minor changes/modifications.

I've been watching Cubicle 7 doing a lot of expansion of the downtime system, and at some point I'll try to properly bring that into my campaigns.

Some of the oddities in the new DMG relate to how stuff hasn't changed. Which feels very odd when looking at all the major changes in the PHB.

Perhaps when separated from the need to create the core rulebooks they can spend more time developing a new Xanathar's book with some depth. But, honestly, I'm not entirely sure if that's what they'd do.

 

[Yaarel]

I am reading the DMs Guide a bit at a time. I love the way it presents the Greyhawk setting. I plan to use as a model for the next setting a build (or tweak). It is a reminder to write notes that are useful in play, and to present them simply in a way that engages player creativity. I will be referring to the section often.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I sure hope you read the entire book before posting that opinion.

Mod Note:

Snarky callbacks to previously moderated behavior- even of others- is not conducive to civil discussion.

And when the previously moderated behavior of others involved your own posts? Points for style.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I never said that anyone couldn’t say whatever they wanted. Just what I found amusing.

 

[Hussar]

But your examples are just wrong. I play D&D. 5e is a VERSION of D&D. I've played D&D for a very long time. And the retroclones and lookalikes are also a form of D&D. So I'm very much in the middle of roleplaying in the D&D way.

So D&D is like the NFL. 5e 2024 is like the new kickoff rules. The entire game conceptually doesn't change every time a new edition comes out.

Swimming way upthread because I believe this is a very strong point.

You'Re absolutely right, the game doesn't conceptually change. But, what we're seeing is people who have only watched 1970's NFL try to nail down why the new kickoff rules are bad without bothering to understand that there have been fifteen other changes to the rules before the kickoff rules change. So, they are taking things way out of context, not bothering to try to understand why these changes are being made, ignoring the ensuing 30 or 40 years of history of the game between where they are coming from and now, and then declaring that the new way is bad because it doesn't fit in with their conceptualization of the game.

The whole argument about species is a perfect example of this. Ignoring the past thirty years or so of fantasy genre which rejects the notion of biological determinism (see Terry Pratchett for a perfect example of this) means that D&D is just following along with what the fantasy genre has been doing since the 90's. But, because it's not written by some dead author, it doesn't count and it's "insulting" to the fandom.

That's what's being pushed back against here. People who have zero dog in the race, haven't played the game in years, haven't bothered actually understanding the context of the changes, proceeding to pontificate about how the game has changed so much for the worse. It's really frustrating to see.

 

[Emerikol]

Swimming way upthread because I believe this is a very strong point.

You'Re absolutely right, the game doesn't conceptually change. But, what we're seeing is people who have only watched 1970's NFL try to nail down why the new kickoff rules are bad without bothering to understand that there have been fifteen other changes to the rules before the kickoff rules change. So, they are taking things way out of context, not bothering to try to understand why these changes are being made, ignoring the ensuing 30 or 40 years of history of the game between where they are coming from and now, and then declaring that the new way is bad because it doesn't fit in with their conceptualization of the game.

Well I just took it as a point about one particular aspect of the game. I'm not sure it had to be one way or the other.

The whole argument about species is a perfect example of this. Ignoring the past thirty years or so of fantasy genre which rejects the notion of biological determinism (see Terry Pratchett for a perfect example of this) means that D&D is just following along with what the fantasy genre has been doing since the 90's. But, because it's not written by some dead author, it doesn't count and it's "insulting" to the fandom.

That's what's being pushed back against here. People who have zero dog in the race, haven't played the game in years, haven't bothered actually understanding the context of the changes, proceeding to pontificate about how the game has changed so much for the worse. It's really frustrating to see.

Well. Even in 1e, I never imagined biological determinism was the thing. Drizz't seemed to be accepted easily and he came along before that concept ended. I always thought there were exceptions. Creatures have "free will" right.

What we have obscured by going down the path we've went is that orcs are mostly evil. That is true in almost all fantasy genre where they are mentioned. It doesn't mean every orc is evil. It just means most orcs are evil.

Not every soldier in the Third Reich as evil either but the Third Reich was evil.

And yes, there is a feeling that the center of gravity of the WOTC D&D design team is significantly left of the country. Not slightly but significantly. The fact is this game was being played in Indiana and Kentucky and Texas just as much as it was (per capita) in California or Washington. So the D&D design team is at the forefront of a cultural movement that a lot of the country rejects or doesn't accept to the same degree. And I'm not making this political as you'd be shocked at who I voted for having said that. I'm just aware of how things are perceived.

And to be honest we should break this into it's own thread if you want to take it into an email thread.

 

[Morrus]

And yes, there is a feeling that the center of gravity of the WOTC D&D design team is significantly left of the country. Not slightly but significantly. The fact is this game was being played in Indiana and Kentucky and Texas just as much as it was (per capita) in California or Washington. So the D&D design team is at the forefront of a cultural movement that a lot of the country rejects or doesn't accept to the same degree. And I'm not making this political as you'd be shocked at who I voted for having said that. I'm just aware of how things are perceived.

Are you confused about where you are? This post does not belong on this site, and you know that.

Your last two warnings were for posting about the political leanings of WotC's designers, so the only conclusion I can draw, after three warnings in a row for the exact same thing, is that you are choosing to ignore us. And we really don't like being ignored.

Take a few days' break. When you come back, remember that WotC's staffs political leanings are not suitable posting topics on this website. Next time you do this, it won't just be a few days.