D&D (2024) DMG 2024: The Planes

[Shardstone]

No one said anything about big OSR style dungeons.

The 2014 DMG did a much better job with dungeons, hands down. Combined with the 2014 Starter Set, it guarantees new DMs understand how to effectively use dungeons in larger adventures.

It will be interesting to see what the new Starter Set looks like. I'm still shocked that they did not make sure it was out with the core rules.

The DMG did a great job with dungeons but most people don't use dungeons, so it was a waste of space for most people IMO. I never once used this rolltables, even though I do sometimes use dungeons.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

never once used this rolltables

Random tables are a good example of how not to do it. At least not if you want an ecology that makes sense.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

The DMG did a great job with dungeons but most people don't use dungeons, so it was a waste of space for most people IMO. I never once used this rolltables, even though I do sometimes use dungeons.

Do we have data that dungeons have really fallen that far into disuse?

 

[Reynard]

The DMG did a great job with dungeons but most people don't use dungeons, so it was a waste of space for most people IMO.

I don't know where you are getting this. Ever adventure WotC has made for 5E has included dungeons extensively. If "most people don't use dungeons" why would that be the case?

Are you perhaps mistaking your own preferences for a broader trend?

 

[Li Shenron]

Why do you think they decided to invest so many pages in the Planes?

It is cheaper than creating new content.

Does it signal a near term focus on the Planes for adventures and supplements?

Not really.

Will we be seeing more Planescape products or a big planar adventure?

No more than usual. I doubt about Planescape. Planar references however are common in many adventures already.

Is that something you would like to see?

Sure.

For that matter, are you happy with the large investment of pages on the Planes in the 2024 DMG?

I have always been a huge fan of planar adventures, but I think the planar content in the DMG was already a bit too much in the 2014 DMG.

I would not dedicate more than a few pages to the planes in a DMG: just enough to present the concepts and explain the mechanics of planar travel in the current edition so that the DM knows how to handle relevant spells and abilities in the PHB. Maybe for 5e specifically, it was ok to include Feywild and Shadowfell since they are given greater focus in adventures, good to have in the DMG some effects, dangers and hazards, so that the DM can handle short excursions in those planes. But I would have probably stopped there without describing other planes or cosmological models.

I would generally prefer a dedicated book to the whole default cosmology like the 3e Manual of the Planes, or let smaller books and adventures provide details for specific planes.

I still wish for a DMG in general to be more focused on practical matters about running the game first and foremost.

 

[dave2008]

One thought I just had: If the DMG had significantly less about the planes I bet you would see people complaining it is just a money grab to sell more books!

 

[Shardstone]

I don't know where you are getting this. Ever adventure WotC has made for 5E has included dungeons extensively. If "most people don't use dungeons" why would that be the case?

Are you perhaps mistaking your own preferences for a broader trend?

Hmm no, I don't think so to your second question.

Dungeons are usually just one of many locales as opposed to the main thing. And creating a serviceable and fun dungeon doesn't require all the "best practices" be laid out beforehand, because you're essentially just making a flavorful location. That's my greater point. That the game isn't focused on Dungeons anymore, but on Fantasy Worlds, which include Dungeons, and Dungeons themselves are really a stand-in word for "Fantasy Locations."

 

[Shardstone]

Random tables are a good example of how not to do it. At least not if you want an ecology that makes sense.

The tables were for rooms, connectors, etc in 2014 DMG.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I don't know why this is a controversial opinion other that people getting their backs up anytime anyone suggests WotC did not do it perfectly. The 2024 PHB and DMG both have serious organizational issues, and the DMG while doing a very good job of explaining play and the DM's job fails to explain the most basic unit of D&D adventure design: the dungeon.

The only thing controversial is that you're stating your opinion as if it is a fact, but other people disagree with your opinions.
I disagree that the PHB and DMG have serious organizational issues - organization is probably the most widely praised aspect of the books in various online reviews, so it is comical for your to state the opposite as if it is a fact. Also I disagree that the DMG fails to explain dungeons - for my personal taste, I would say it does a good (but not great) job.

Your opinions themselves aren't actually controversial or anything, people just don't unanimously agree with your personal preferences and that's fine. We don't all have to prefer the same things

 

[Reynard]

The only thing controversial is that you're stating your opinion as if it is a fact, but other people disagree with your opinions.
I disagree that the PHB and DMG have serious organizational issues - organization is probably the most widely praised aspect of the books in various online reviews, so it is comical for your to state the opposite as if it is a fact. Also I disagree that the DMG fails to explain dungeons - for my personal taste, I would say it does a good (but not great) job.

Your opinions themselves aren't actually controversial or anything, people just don't unanimously agree with your personal preferences and that's fine. We don't all have to prefer the same things

So you are pro splitting things up into multiple chapters and having to page flip to get the whole story, specifically for new DMs?