D&D (2024) Kobold Press posts 2024 DMG Hit Piece

[Parmandur]

Well there are other topics than these and hopefully they can get over D&D '24 hate enough to contribute something worth reading. But I do feel like you have a point in this discussion and think I will disengage with the usual suspects.

I somehow doubt it, IMO.

 

[Remathilis]

The reason I'm asking is to see if I'm right and it's just a few, or if there are a significant number of optional rules.

So the 2024 rules has optional rules (things you can add to augment certain things) but not optional systems (things that change fundamental aspects of the rules). For example, it gives all the traditional optional methods for generating ability scores, but does not give the option for a 7th (or more) ability score like Honor or Sanity. The latter is a fundamental change to the system and requires a DM to do more than just add another score to the PCs 's sheet. (How does it interact with skills, saves, magic like enhanced ability, etc). That's a major amount of adjudication and rulings a DM has to make that aren't covered in the page and a half both ability scores are given in 2014. The ramifications are far larger than the rule appears.

The same is true of changing the skill system, making slots into spell points, or mucking with the rest mechanics. We, having played for a long time are comfortable with adjudicating such changes. But the game should not present such options to newer or less experienced DMs without fully explaining the ramifications of such changes. You need more than a few paragraphs to explain that changing the resting rules will change encounter balancing (and make that part in the DMG moot) or how spell point flexibility allows for more firepower than the game assumes for a given level. In short, those optional systems make much of the stuff they just learned in the DMG invalid, and I can understand why WotC would choose to exclude them.

Maybe we'll get a big book on optional rules where each one can be explained in greater detail and given the space needed to explain how it changes the game besides the obvious ways. Maybe WotC will cede that space to 3pp. Regardless, it's probably for the best that the book that is tasked with teaching the game doesn't also give options to break it without proper explanation on what and how it broke.

 

[TwoSix]

Nothing you can say will convince me to buy it. Not because I think it's crap or anything, but because I'm not a beginner DM. The only things I use the DMG for these years are magic items, traps, XP tables and optional rules chapters. I have all 4 of those in the 5e DMG and the 5.5e DMG removed one of those. The only temptation I have to buy it is the Bastion chapter, but I can't justify spending that much money for a single smallish chapter.

Agreed. I think a lot of the discussions around the new core sometimes forget the distinction between evaluating the books as a product versus evaluating them as an upgrade.

The new books seem pretty good as core rule books; and would certainly be worthwhile if I was being introduced to 5e and D&D more generally. But they seem to have little value to me, as a 30+ year player with 10 years of 5e experience and a host of house rules and 3pp in play.

 

[Parmandur]

Agreed. I think a lot of the discussions around the new core sometimes forget the distinction between evaluating the books as a product versus evaluating them as an upgrade.

The new books seem pretty good as core rule books; and would certainly be worthwhile if I was being introduced to 5e and D&D more generally. But they seem to have little value to me, as a 30+ year player with 10 years of 5e experience and a host of house rules and 3pp in play.

So, this wild and crazy thing happened to me tge other day with the new DMG I had a question, so I went to the index, which allowed me to find the info really quickly.

I love the 2014 DMG, but boy hiwdy...that never happened.

 

[TwoSix]

So, this wild and crazy thing happened to me tge other day with the new DMG I had a question, so I went to the index, which allowed me to find the info really quickly.

I love the 2014 DMG, but boy hiwdy...that never happened.

I 100% agree that if I ever had questions, a good index would indeed be a major value add.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So the 2024 rules has optional rules (things you can add to augment certain things) but not optional systems (things that change fundamental aspects of the rules). For example, it gives all the traditional optional methods for generating ability scores, but does not give the option for a 7th (or more) ability score like Honor or Sanity. The latter is a fundamental change to the system and requires a DM to do more than just add another score to the PCs 's sheet. (How does it interact with skills, saves, magic like enhanced ability, etc). That's a major amount of adjudication and rulings a DM has to make that aren't covered in the page and a half both ability scores are given in 2014. The ramifications are far larger than the rule appears.

The same is true of changing the skill system, making slots into spell points, or mucking with the rest mechanics. We, having played for a long time are comfortable with adjudicating such changes. But the game should not present such options to newer or less experienced DMs without fully explaining the ramifications of such changes. You need more than a few paragraphs to explain that changing the resting rules will change encounter balancing (and make that part in the DMG moot) or how spell point flexibility allows for more firepower than the game assumes for a given level. In short, those optional systems make much of the stuff they just learned in the DMG invalid, and I can understand why WotC would choose to exclude them.

Maybe we'll get a big book on optional rules where each one can be explained in greater detail and given the space needed to explain how it changes the game besides the obvious ways. Maybe WotC will cede that space to 3pp. Regardless, it's probably for the best that the book that is tasked with teaching the game doesn't also give options to break it without proper explanation on what and how it broke.

Doing it their way certainly focuses the book on the playstyle they now want to emphasize, but it does tell a segment of the customer base that what they want, are interested in for their games, and were happy to pay them for, is no longer something they are interested in supporting. And all without changing the edition no less, something which IMO would be logical to do when you make a visible philosophical shift in implied and supported playstyle like this. Being unwilling to throw more money at WotC at this point is I think a measured, intelligent choice given that situation.

 

[Cadence]

Doing it their way certainly focuses the book on the playstyle they now want to emphasize, but it does tell a segment of the customer base that what they want, are interested in for their games, and were happy to pay them for, is no longer something they are interested in supporting. And all without changing the edition no less, something which IMO would be logical to do when you make a visible philosophical shift in implied and supported playstyle like this. Being unwilling to throw more money at WotC at this point is I think a measured, intelligent choice given that situation.

The book has something on house rules up near the front.

It feels odd to me to say that just because the core book doesn't offer something means they have no intention to support it. Is there any reason WotC can't do a supplement akin to PF 1e's "Unchained" that was chock full of optional rules systems?

 

[Parmandur]

I 100% agree that if I ever had questions, a good index would indeed be a major value add.

I don't "need it" to run the game, but the organization changes are sufficient for the costs of the book for me at least.

 

[Maxperson]

Right about what? That it's less than 2014... I dont think anyone has argued it isn't. Is it a significant number... thats a purely subjective threshold. What I'm not going to do, especially since the optional/alternate rules are sprinkled throughout the DMG is take the time to collect all of.them for someone who.has already decided they aren't interested in the product regardless of how many there are.

You're conflating a lack of interesting in BUYING the product with a lack of interest IN the product. I'm interested in the product, but it doesn't have anything in the book other than the bastions to make it worth buying.

The same thing happened when 3e went to 3.5e. I bought the 3e DMG, but even though 3.5e was and still is my favorite incarnation of the game and I DM'd it from the day it came out until the end of 2019, I have never owned a 3.5e DMG. There wasn't enough in it that was different enough from the 3e DMG to make the purchase worthwhile and I don't need the DMG advice on running a game like new DMs do.

 

[Cadence]

You're conflating a lack of interesting in BUYING the product with a lack of interest IN the product. I'm interested in the product, but it doesn't have anything in the book other than the bastions to make it worth buying.

Even though I won't use it, I really like that the back of the map of the Greyhawk region actually has Greyhawk the city...