D&D General A DMG for all of us

[Remathilis]

It's a fair call. Personally, I don't care whether D&D caters to my preferences. I don't like the kind of influence stuff like the (frankly, toxic) advice in the new DMG will have on RPG culture in general, though. It's also sad to see people who keep going back to WotC even though D&D clearly doesn't give them what they want.


Here.

Honestly, I advise anyone who is interested in this stuff to read those free DMG rules.

The issue of fudging vs fate is as old as D&D itself, and outside of Gygax's notion that all rolls be fair regardless of outcome, most of the advice I've ever seen in RPGs is that in a choice between fun and fair, fun should win. So much so that I thought it was universally assumed a DM can alter his rolls in pursuit of the greater good of people having fun. (The notion that a DM who does is cheating wasn't something I ever saw expressed until within the last decade, when OS purity became en vogue).

Which I think is why I prefer separate game systems rather than merely DM advice when it comes to game systems. 2nd edition (where I cut my teeth) was a terrible mismatch of expectations and rules. 2e wanted narrative focused adventures with heavy role playing and storytelling and then used a version of D&D that was full of instant death, randomized chargen and shackles on PC power. No matter how many essays the Dragon Mag and the DMG made, the rules were at odds with the mission statement.

So if a game comes along with a "let the dice fall where they may" style of play (something like Hackmaster or DCCRPG) the rules will support that, and a game like Doctor Who AiS&T which is all about the narrative over the dice, the rules support that. But I wouldn't want both to run off the same engine because their goals are too widely different.

 

[Remathilis]

Umbran looks around at 3rd party publishers, and shrugs.

I'm sure there are 3pps who make all manner of products that would fill that gap. The issue is they aren't on the front page of D&D Beyond for people to be made aware of them. Not that many people scour DTRPG or Kickstarter to find out these gems exist.

 

[Umbran]

I'm sure there are 3pps who make all manner of products that would fill that gap. The issue is they aren't on the front page of D&D Beyond for people to be made aware of them.

"It is on the front page of D&DB, or it isn't worth doing," is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Scribe]

"It is on the front page of D&DB, or it isn't worth doing," is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Or a prediction on the reach of anyone not Wizards?

 

[payn]

The dream was called Modularity, and it never left the drawing board. Turns out it wasnt needed becasue 5E splits the middle well. "Everybody's second favorite edition"

 

[Umbran]

Or a prediction on the reach of anyone not Wizards?

So, is A5E "not worth doing"? Because it doesn't show up on the front of D&DB.

Oh, is any game not D&D "not worth doing"?

Blades in the Dark? Pointless! PbtA? Same - can't be bothered! Monte Cook's $2 million kickstarter for Old Gods of Appalachia didn't appear on D&D Beyond. Let's go tell him that $2 million... didn't happen I guess?

 

[gorice]

The issue of fudging vs fate is as old as D&D itself, and outside of Gygax's notion that all rolls be fair regardless of outcome, most of the advice I've ever seen in RPGs is that in a choice between fun and fair, fun should win. So much so that I thought it was universally assumed a DM can alter his rolls in pursuit of the greater good of people having fun. (The notion that a DM who does is cheating wasn't something I ever saw expressed until within the last decade, when OS purity became en vogue).

What if I want my character to fail or die, even when the GM wants them to live or succeed? What if I want failure to sting? Conversely, what if I try to do something that will throw the game off the rails (e.g. kill the DM's favourite NPC), and they fudge the dice to prevent it?

My concern isn't about 'fun vs. fair', it's about players having agency. That's why fudging is so pernicious. The DMG advising DMs that they can fudge when they want is basically WotC telling DMs to ride roughshod over their players and then pretend nothing happened. Which is in line with the generally railroad-friendly approach outlined in that chapter.

Which I think is why I prefer separate game systems rather than merely DM advice when it comes to game systems. 2nd edition (where I cut my teeth) was a terrible mismatch of expectations and rules. 2e wanted narrative focused adventures with heavy role playing and storytelling and then used a version of D&D that was full of instant death, randomized chargen and shackles on PC power. No matter how many essays the Dragon Mag and the DMG made, the rules were at odds with the mission statement.

So if a game comes along with a "let the dice fall where they may" style of play (something like Hackmaster or DCCRPG) the rules will support that, and a game like Doctor Who AiS&T which is all about the narrative over the dice, the rules support that. But I wouldn't want both to run off the same engine because their goals are too widely different.

I think games like 2nd ed. probably have a lot to do with people thinking that fudging is good or necessary.

 

[Clint_L]

The issue of fudging vs fate is as old as D&D itself, and outside of Gygax's notion that all rolls be fair regardless of outcome, most of the advice I've ever seen in RPGs is that in a choice between fun and fair, fun should win. So much so that I thought it was universally assumed a DM can alter his rolls in pursuit of the greater good of people having fun. (The notion that a DM who does is cheating wasn't something I ever saw expressed until within the last decade, when OS purity became en vogue).

I don't object to altering die rolls because it's cheating. I object to it because I think it is a strong example of the DM altering the story to what they think it should be - it's another means of exercising control. I do every roll openly in front of the players, except a few situations where they couldn't instantly know the result (e.g. whether their attempt to lie was successful). I've found that this makes the game more exciting and leads to better story results because the dramatic tension is more authentic.

I was shocked and disappointed that the 2024 DMG openly advocates altering die rolls, but it's definitely in there.

I also think it can create a slippery slope for new DMs. There's no real instruction on how often you should do it, just an admonition to be sparing about it, which is super subjective.

I think the 2024 DMG is a big improvement, especially for new players, and is a good book that I recommend. But nothing is perfect, and my four biggest criticisms are:

1. Alignment is presented as a core part of the game. I will never, ever think alignment is a good idea, and that's my hill to die on. It crosses every line for me: conceptual, practical, and ideological. But, okay, it's a D&D tradition, so whatever. I'll just keep it out of my games.

2. Advocates dice fudging. I just think this is bad advice, though I can sort of see it as a way to help new DMs out of situations that they might blunder into by making a challenge too stiff.

3. Magic items are in the wrong book. I think this is mostly just done to incentivize more people to buy the DMG.

4. Bastions. Not for me, and even if they were, they're in the wrong book as a completely player facing system. Probably just there to get more non-DMs to by a DMG. Adding this to the "ignore" pile alongside alignments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The issue of fudging vs fate is as old as D&D itself, and outside of Gygax's notion that all rolls be fair regardless of outcome, most of the advice I've ever seen in RPGs is that in a choice between fun and fair, fun should win. So much so that I thought it was universally assumed a DM can alter his rolls in pursuit of the greater good of people having fun. (The notion that a DM who does is cheating wasn't something I ever saw expressed until within the last decade, when OS purity became en vogue).

Which I think is why I prefer separate game systems rather than merely DM advice when it comes to game systems. 2nd edition (where I cut my teeth) was a terrible mismatch of expectations and rules. 2e wanted narrative focused adventures with heavy role playing and storytelling and then used a version of D&D that was full of instant death, randomized chargen and shackles on PC power. No matter how many essays the Dragon Mag and the DMG made, the rules were at odds with the mission statement.

So if a game comes along with a "let the dice fall where they may" style of play (something like Hackmaster or DCCRPG) the rules will support that, and a game like Doctor Who AiS&T which is all about the narrative over the dice, the rules support that. But I wouldn't want both to run off the same engine because their goals are too widely different.

And yet we have multiple games with wildly different intended playstyles and the same name. Because $$.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What if I want my character to fail or die, even when the GM wants them to live or succeed? What if I want failure to sting? Conversely, what if I try to do something that will throw the game off the rails (e.g. kill the DM's favourite NPC), and they fudge the dice to prevent it?

My concern isn't about 'fun vs. fair', it's about players having agency. That's why fudging is so pernicious. The DMG advising DMs that they can fudge when they want is basically WotC telling DMs to ride roughshod over their players and then pretend nothing happened. Which is in line with the generally railroad-friendly approach outlined in that chapter.


I think games like 2nd ed. probably have a lot to do with people thinking that fudging is good or necessary.

For my part, I will continue to let the dice fall where they may.