D&D (2024) Bastions in the 2024 DMs Guide

[tetrasodium]

Is it more or less time than getting to 8th in 5e? I mean, posts above say that most games end before 7. So that implies that 5e 8th is longer than 1e 5th.

I will note, my logic also ,wans a 5th level 5e character getting a bastion is akin to a 1e character getting a house at 3rd level.

Not even a little comparable. 5e levels much faster and that difference is compounded by the way it was much more common for a PC to die.

Sure there were the usual assortment of raise dead type spells, but those came with risk that grew each time in some editions and it wasn't uncommon to convert a semi eveled up-geared follower or similar to a PC when the old one decided it was time to retire.

 

[Ondath]

I think the "Oh no, WotC is adding more ways to make a house party fun and you guys are saying they're doing a bad job because they don't provide anything to make the party fun for the host!" argument is missing a point. It's not that players getting more options is a bad thing. It's not even that DMs' fun is antithetical to player fun. But D&D is a very traditional game in terms of the way authority is shared between the players and the GM. That also means that the GM has a lot more work to do to keep the game going. They design the structure of the story (either as a railroad with set story beats and exciting setpieces or as a sandbox full of interesting hooks that the player can craft their narrative out of), they run all the NPCs, they balance the encounters, they keep the rules consistent and fun for the group... And so far, WotC seems to be offering very little support in that regard. The 2024 DMG is supposed to be the book where they finally give DMs these necessary supports, but it seems that a non-negligible portion of the page count is instead used for player-facing rules where the DM explicitly does not have authority to do some things. I mean, consider all the important stuff previous editions had:

• 3.5 DMG had a very strong simulationist basis, telling you to dress up a settlement, know what level of NPCs of which classes were there, how much money that settlement could take in at once, and so on. Most DM advice from WotC in terms of making places believable post-Tasha's has been "I dunno, make stuff up".
• Take the 2E Spelljammer sourcebook that had incredibly detailed procedures on how to generate solar systems, planets and so on, and compare that to the 5E spelljammer sourcebook that had no such rules, and just threw up its hands in the air and said "Make some fun solar system! You've got it!"
• Most importantly, the current edition seems to be in dire need to clean procedures (as the Effin' GM put it), and we don't seem to be getting any of them. I had this epiphany ever since I started running OSE more frequently: Old School D&D (and by extension, OSE and Dolmenwood) have such clear procedures on how to run all of the game: Exploration has a clearly outlined procedure with Dungeon Turns, visibility, wandering monsters, how to adjudicate things like searching for traps... In the 2024 PHB, the exploration rules go into specifics like hiding, hazards and travel pace from page 19 onwards but give you no procedures on how to run things properly. Older DMs have an intuitive sense of these procedures, and newer DMs tend to learn them by osmosis, but... Why does it have to be this way? Why can't WotC outline the game's procedures (regardless of whether they're the same compared to older editions or not)? Why do the GMs have to run to forums and YouTube videos and blog posts to learn this stuff?

In all these ways, I feel like WotC has stopped expecting to teach DMs anything, and just expects them to be a player who sees behind the screen without teaching them the pattern behind things. The players keep getting newer and cooler abilities, but there is no guidance on WotC's end on how to make these abilities mesh in a coherent game table. There is no passing down of GMing's own joys and virtues (the ability to weave an interactive story with your players, building an interesting world, making players feel challenged while cheerleading them the whole time), just the expectation that the novice GM will somehow pick those skills up.

And sure, the 2024 DMG might actually teach these things, and if that's the case I'd be delighted. But given how most of the page space is given to magic items and bastions (aka goodies for players) and not to guiding GMs, I am very, very cynical.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think the "Oh no, WotC is adding more ways to make a house party fun and you guys are saying they're doing a bad job because they don't provide anything to make the party fun for the host!" argument is missing a point. It's not that players getting more options is a bad thing. It's not even that DMs' fun is antithetical to player fun. But D&D is a very traditional game in terms of the way authority is shared between the players and the GM. That also means that the GM has a lot more work to do to keep the game going. They design the structure of the story (either as a railroad with set story beats and exciting setpieces or as a sandbox full of interesting hooks that the player can craft their narrative out of), they run all the NPCs, they balance the encounters, they keep the rules consistent and fun for the group... And so far, WotC seems to be offering very little support in that regard. The 2024 DMG is supposed to be the book where they finally give DMs these necessary supports, but it seems that a non-negligible portion of the page count is instead used for player-facing rules where the DM explicitly does not have authority to do some things. I mean, consider all the important stuff previous editions had:

• 3.5 DMG had a very strong simulationist basis, telling you to dress up a settlement, know what level of NPCs of which classes were there, how much money that settlement could take in at once, and so on. Most DM advice from WotC in terms of making places believable post-Tasha's has been "I dunno, make stuff up".
• Compare the 2E Spelljammer sourcebook that had incredibly detailed procedures on how to generate solar systems, planets and so on, and compare that to the 5E spelljammer sourcebook that had no such rules, and just threw up its hands in the air and said "Make some fun solar system! You've got it!"
• Most importantly, the current edition seems to be in dire need to clean procedures (as the Effin' GM put it), and we don't seem to be getting any of them. I had this epiphany ever since I started running OSE more frequently: Old School D&D (and by extension, OSE and Dolmenwood) have such clear procedures on how to run all of the game: Exploration has a clearly outlined procedure with Dungeon Turns, visibility, wandering monsters, how to adjudicate things like searching for traps... In the 2024 PHB, the exploration rules go into specifics like hiding, hazards and travel pace from page 19 onwards but give you no procedures on how to run things properly. Older DMs have an intuitive sense of these procedures, and newer DMs tend to learn them by osmosis, but... Why does it have to be this way? Why can't WotC outline the game's procedures (regardless of whether they're the same compared to older editions or not)? Why do the GMs have to run to forums and YouTube videos and blog posts to learn this stuff?

In all these ways, I feel like WotC has stopped expecting to teach DMs anything, and just expects them to be a player who sees behind the screen without teaching them the pattern behind things. The players keep getting newer and cooler abilities, but there is no guidance on WotC's end on how to make these abilities mesh in a coherent game table. There is no passing down of GMing's own joys and virtues (the ability to weave an interactive story with your players, building an interesting world, making players feel challenged while cheerleading them the whole time), just the expectation that the novice GM will somehow pick those skills up.

And sure, the 2024 DMG might actually teach these things, and if that's the case I'd be delighted. But given how most of the page space is given to magic items and bastions (aka goodies for players) and not to guiding GMs, I am very, very cynical.

It is because of things like your 2e and 3.5 examples that I cannot accept the opinion put forward by some posters that D&D has never been all that simulationist. It sure as heck has been considerably more simulationist than it is now, and I can think of dozens of examples in various areas of play from the very beginning until the release of 4e in 2009 (which followed a different but still perfectly valid philosophy, 4e-lovers!).

 

[Xeviat]

I'm actually kind-of tempted to consider a bastion-central campaign, where running and upgrading it is much of the point of the game, and quests are generated around it. While facilities would still be unlocked at particular levels, their acquisition wouldn't be automatic, but would involve special quests to gain access to whatever is most needed to make them happen.

Make the bastion a social or economic hub for the surrounding area, with the players invested to help out with local issues as improving the area will benefit the bastion.

I expect the defaults would need some adjustment to accomodate that style of game, but having the basic framework available would certainly help.

Same. I'm thinking one of all of the party members get bequeathed noble titles and are put in charge of a keep with a village. It was given to them primarily as a white elephant, meant to be a burden and target them for aggression for the other nobles, but being the players they'll make it their own.

 

[Yaarel]

Bastion is a ship?

It isnt clear to me how the bastion rules relate to the homebase being a ship or spelljammer, or a demiplane accessible from anywhere.

 

[Yaarel]

I mean, consider all the important stuff previous editions had:

• 3.5 DMG had a very strong simulationist basis, telling you to dress up a settlement, know what level of NPCs of which classes were there, how much money that settlement could take in at once, and so on. Most DM advice from WotC in terms of making places believable post-Tasha's has been "I dunno, make stuff up".
• Take the 2E Spelljammer sourcebook that had incredibly detailed procedures on how to generate solar systems, planets and so on, and compare that to the 5E spelljammer sourcebook that had no such rules, and just threw up its hands in the air and said "Make some fun solar system! You've got it!"
• Most importantly, the current edition seems to be in dire need to clean procedures (as the Effin' GM put it), and we don't seem to be getting any of them. I had this epiphany ever since I started running OSE more frequently: Old School D&D (and by extension, OSE and Dolmenwood) have such clear procedures on how to run all of the game: Exploration has a clearly outlined procedure with Dungeon Turns, visibility, wandering monsters, how to adjudicate things like searching for traps... In the 2024 PHB, the exploration rules go into specifics like hiding, hazards and travel pace from page 19 onwards but give you no procedures on how to run things properly. Older DMs have an intuitive sense of these procedures, and newer DMs tend to learn them by osmosis, but... Why does it have to be this way? Why can't WotC outline the game's procedures (regardless of whether they're the same compared to older editions or not)? Why do the GMs have to run to forums and YouTube videos and blog posts to learn this stuff?

In all these ways, I feel like WotC has stopped expecting to teach DMs anything, and just expects them to be a player who sees behind the screen without teaching them the pattern behind things.

I find 3e to be the most difficult of all D&D versions for the DM. "Simulationism" in the sense of many, gratuitous rules for worldbuilding, makes the game needlessly complex for the DM. For example, consider how difficult it is for the DM to design a 3e monster or balance a 3e encounter. Simulationism is the opposite of DM friendly.

I do want 5e to simplify the mechanics of monster creation and balance. But 5e DMing is much easier than 3e DMing. 4e offers the easiest DMing.

In terms of the mechanical system mastery that a DM is responsible for, 5e can do better. 2024 helps the DM by putting all the Core Rules in the Players Handbook. Thus players share the burden of knowing all the rules − and following the rules properly when interacting mechanically.

At the same time, my 5e DM style is narrative adjudication. This means that most of the game is either "yes" or "no" in response to how players interact narratively with a scene. Only in a context of a "maybe", where a player effort might or might not work, do dice rolls ever happen. This narrative emphasis is for "immersion", but it also radically simplifies life for the DM who can focus on what makes sense narratively in a particular scenario rather than focus on rules mastery. Meanwhile the DM is the referee who understands the encounter scenario, and has the authority to say "yes" or "no".

And, at the same time, because the DM is responding to player decisions, it is player interests that steer and decide the campaign of the game.

If the players want to do something cool with their bastion, no problem. The DM can riff stories and adventure encounters from what is going on in there.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think the "Oh no, WotC is adding more ways to make a house party fun and you guys are saying they're doing a bad job because they don't provide anything to make the party fun for the host!" argument is missing a point. It's not that players getting more options is a bad thing. It's not even that DMs' fun is antithetical to player fun. But D&D is a very traditional game in terms of the way authority is shared between the players and the GM. That also means that the GM has a lot more work to do to keep the game going. They design the structure of the story (either as a railroad with set story beats and exciting setpieces or as a sandbox full of interesting hooks that the player can craft their narrative out of), they run all the NPCs, they balance the encounters, they keep the rules consistent and fun for the group... And so far, WotC seems to be offering very little support in that regard. The 2024 DMG is supposed to be the book where they finally give DMs these necessary supports, but it seems that a non-negligible portion of the page count is instead used for player-facing rules where the DM explicitly does not have authority to do some things. I mean, consider all the important stuff previous editions had:

• 3.5 DMG had a very strong simulationist basis, telling you to dress up a settlement, know what level of NPCs of which classes were there, how much money that settlement could take in at once, and so on. Most DM advice from WotC in terms of making places believable post-Tasha's has been "I dunno, make stuff up".
• Take the 2E Spelljammer sourcebook that had incredibly detailed procedures on how to generate solar systems, planets and so on, and compare that to the 5E spelljammer sourcebook that had no such rules, and just threw up its hands in the air and said "Make some fun solar system! You've got it!"
• Most importantly, the current edition seems to be in dire need to clean procedures (as the Effin' GM put it), and we don't seem to be getting any of them. I had this epiphany ever since I started running OSE more frequently: Old School D&D (and by extension, OSE and Dolmenwood) have such clear procedures on how to run all of the game: Exploration has a clearly outlined procedure with Dungeon Turns, visibility, wandering monsters, how to adjudicate things like searching for traps... In the 2024 PHB, the exploration rules go into specifics like hiding, hazards and travel pace from page 19 onwards but give you no procedures on how to run things properly. Older DMs have an intuitive sense of these procedures, and newer DMs tend to learn them by osmosis, but... Why does it have to be this way? Why can't WotC outline the game's procedures (regardless of whether they're the same compared to older editions or not)? Why do the GMs have to run to forums and YouTube videos and blog posts to learn this stuff?

In all these ways, I feel like WotC has stopped expecting to teach DMs anything, and just expects them to be a player who sees behind the screen without teaching them the pattern behind things. The players keep getting newer and cooler abilities, but there is no guidance on WotC's end on how to make these abilities mesh in a coherent game table. There is no passing down of GMing's own joys and virtues (the ability to weave an interactive story with your players, building an interesting world, making players feel challenged while cheerleading them the whole time), just the expectation that the novice GM will somehow pick those skills up.

And sure, the 2024 DMG might actually teach these things, and if that's the case I'd be delighted. But given how most of the page space is given to magic items and bastions (aka goodies for players) and not to guiding GMs, I am very, very cynical.

I'd say things like supporting tools and rxtrnsible rules frameworks rather than "procedures but more or less on the mark

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think you and Tetra are totally wrong.

I think that they have a point, but that it's not anywhere near as bad as they make it out to be. I'd be much more on board and interested in a discussion on the subject, if it weren't always stated as if the designers were "hostile" to DMs.

I'm pretty sure that the designers ARE DMs. It would be really weird to be hostile to one's self. I think they just get great joy, as I do, through making their players happy.

That said, I think that the game could be seriously improved, when it comes to Quality of Life, for the DM, with some serious thought and design effort put into it.

Hmm. Thinking about it here, I think that my main beef with them is the negative characterization of the motives behind why things are the way they are, rather than a push towards how positive things could be if they were different.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sounds very magical

You could just role-play your followers doing what they think is best, without any concern for how the PC communicates with them - they don't - the NPCs just do their best to do what their boss would want. If they fail in that goal, they fail.

 

[Weiley31]

Some of the published adventures are more travel-intensive than others. In Rime of the Frostmaiden the Ten Towns are very much a hub that the players will return to regularly, having probably developed ties to one or another in the first part of the game. I could easily see players establishing bastions there, or at one or two nearby locations, and am a little sad that I didn't have these rules to hand the last time I ran it.

Ten Towns IS the Bastion.