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

[MarkB]

I have a theory. I think it's fairly clear why this is happening and it adds some clarity to the placement of this Bastion mechanic in the DMG, as well as to the wording of "off limits to the DM" in the video

We have heard in many instances on investor calls by higher ups at Hasbro about under monetization. And we have heard many times about how DMs buy a disproportionate percentage of products compare to players.

An easy, and obvious, solution to this is to give the players reasons to buy those products. Player focused optional rules in the DMG that are "off limits to DMs" as an example. Mechanical changes that make DMing slightly less pleasant but empower players. In essence a very player-centric "update."

So I think that all of this makes sense if WotC's intent is to drive player engagement and spending. It is assumed DMs will just go along with it and continue as is. If players, in a ill-advised desire to take back some power, demand the use of the Bastions, you may even gain a 2024 adoption from a DM that may have sat it out otherwise.

So in my head, it's not hostility to DMs, at least not on purpose. It's courting of players because WotC sees players as an untapped revenue stream. DM opinion doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter if the content is used, only that it's bought.

That's a stretch. They've talked about one new feature of the DMG in one video, and even there made it clear that this feature is limited and campaign-dependent, and entirely in the hands of the DM to choose to implement or not implement. This is very far from marketing the DMG at players.

 

[CaptainRelyk]

The 2024 bastions emphasize that it is the place where a player can tell stories. The player determines the people and their lives in the bastion. It is the home that the character is fighting for. But it is especially the boundary within which, the player is functioning as the DM.

"Players are essentially DMing their own microcosms, within the larger campaign, giving identities to their hirelings, triggering events that happen in the bastions, and seeing the results and consequences. ... Its allowing the players to get a taste of what DMing is like."

This is absolutely not true

If this was true, then monks, zeal barbarians and celestial warlocks would be able to build a sanctum. But no, only clerics Druids and paladins can have a sanctum or relinquary

 

[Lanefan]

This is absolutely not true

If this was true, then monks, zeal barbarians and celestial warlocks would be able to build a sanctum. But no, only clerics Druids and paladins can have a sanctum or relinquary

Does a sanctum or reliquary provide any material or mechanical benefits that an ordinary stronghold does not? If not, what's to stop a Monk just building one anyway?

And, welcome to the madhouse that is the ENWorld forums!

 

[MarkB]

Does a sanctum or reliquary provide any material or mechanical benefits that an ordinary stronghold does not?

Yes, it's one of the special facilities you can add to your bastion, all of which provide mechanical benefits. It can only be selected by a character capable of using a Holy Symbol or Druidic Focus as a spellcasting focus.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, it's one of the special facilities you can add to your bastion, all of which provide mechanical benefits. It can only be selected by a character capable of using a Holy Symbol or Druidic Focus as a spellcasting focus.

Ah.

That does seem a bit limiting for both players and DMs.

 

[Distracted DM]

So I've read through the Bastion rules in the DMG. I like them! I like moving this sort of thing over to the players' responsibility. All of the bad events that occur are setbacks, meaning the player doesn't get to accomplish something they wanted to for that bastion turn.

I like that there's a procedure for all of this working- it vaguely reminds me of the Birthright setting domain management.

I really like MCDM's Strongholds & Followers, but I didn't realize that I was missing procedure like this- if anyone knows of something similar already existing that might be better, let me know, but this is pretty good!

 

[Baron Opal II]

Are those the only choices? No middle ground?

Well, no.

Personally, the DM's job is to create a milieu and scenarios that lets the players have fun. This is what is fun for the DM.

Now, "fun" is defined for me, in this context, "an enjoyable evening spent with friends". Enjoyment can come from many routes: comedy, tragedy, drama, mystery, &c. I find a variety is best. How could I enjoy myself if my friends were repeatedly frustrated or bored? Certainly a puzzle or mystery can be confounding, but ultimately it will be solved and the players will enjoy the achievement.

However,

As far as bastion rules go, I am looking forward to their presentation. I wouldn't mind a more streamlined and detailed method of building strongholds and facilitating a transition to more domain play. Players in my previous campaign (on the back burner until summer) had a choice about dealing with a crop blight. They could either weather the loss of crops from their barony and feed the peasantry from the grain stores, or they could battle the disease spirit that was sickening the crops. Spend reserves to ignore the problem, or be proactive and deal with an issue now.

(They chose to bargain / fight the spirit and delay another foray until the next season.)
((By Asclepius, I must check the dates of the posts. Sheesh.))