D&D (2024) D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide (2024)

[tetrasodium]

How do you know what's going on in Crawford's head? I'm pretty sure that he's talking about both players and DMs.

You can usually tell when someone is talking about players from the context.

I have no idea how you got the impression that I thought you were saying that Bob was a DM. I thought you were saying that Bob was creating "his own story" contrary to the DM's wishes. When done poorly, that could be a PiTA for a DM, but "normally" IME, it's simply a tangent that Bob creates, that may lead to fun at the table, but that if the DM and/or the other players are not on board for, Bob will come around to join the others following the plot of the game.


Again, sure, if Bob is some kind of problem player. Otherwise, he's simply joining in with a collaboration that may or may not lead where he intends when he suggested a side-tangent. And usually, IME, if that side-tangent isn't a logical extension of the "main story" then no one will go along with it, and it will quickly go away. A problem that fixes itself when everyone is playing the game without being a jerk.

As long as Bob's side-adventure is fun for the other players and the DM, then it really doesn't matter. And if it isn't, it doesn't need to be a "no" to Bob, exactly, it's just that his side-quest just quickly leads back to the main story. And Bob would be on board with that, or they're not playing nice with others.


Sorry, what? I don't think that I mixed anything up.


Man, this Bob guy sure is a jerk. Maybe you should kick him out. (I'm mostly kidding, but he really seems like a problem!)

But I still don't see the problem - if the DM is going to follow Bob's side-quest, (and they would only do it, IMO, if it seemed like an interesting thing that other players were on board for) then that side-quest would include a conclusion, at which point, if it's suitable, it would be its own milestone.

IMO, The only important difference between Milestone leveling and "math XP" is whether you bother nickel-and-diming the points, grinding every goblin, or reward people for doing cool things in the fiction. YMMV.

Yes! of course "Bob" is a problem player. This started here with about how milestone leveling helps remove barriers that would otherwise encourage the players to push back against that problem behavior. The fact that so many posts tried to discuss that comment starting with an assumption that Bob is something else that the GM could support cater to or just accept because the other players went along with his subversion demonstrates just how much milestone leveling rolls out the red carpet for players like post 450 Bob. So that of course led to a discussion about all of the other rules changes that go into clearing the way for post 450 Bob.

 

[mamba]

2e had some... so did 3.x.... I might not be an expert on 4e, but I seem to recall it being fairly clear about expecting things like regular gear improvements meaningful carrying capacities & so on.

yes, 2e gained some over 1e and it stuck around, I was not suggesting that these were invented by 5e. My point is that however little support D&D gained, 1e did not even have that

 

[tetrasodium]

yes, 2e gained some over 1e and it stuck around, I was not suggesting that these were invented by 5e. My point is that however little support D&D gained, 1e did not even have that

my point was that the "stuck around" started getting removed & designed against not that 5e "invented" them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes, 2e gained some over 1e and it stuck around, I was not suggesting that these were invented by 5e. My point is that however little support D&D gained, 1e did not even have that

Personally I consider 1e and 2e all one big game, so anything that applies to either applies to both.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there’s a reason when OSR folk say they’re going back to 1e, they don’t mean the 1e PHB/DMG. They usually mean something like OSRIC or OSE Advanced Fantasy.

I hold no truck with 'OSR folk' most of whom I have concluded are entirely sans clue with respect to actual old school play. I have a copy of the OSRIC PDF someplace, never read it in detail, so I can't comment on its take on 1e.

Honestly, people reworked/warped/corrupted/improved (take your pick of adjectives) 1e so fast it isn't even funny. Truth is, the MM came out, we used that with OD&D/Holmes, the PHB came out, we used that as an extension of Holmes! We just fused together whatever and made it work. Whether we played the way Gary did or not? I dunno, we'd barely heard of the guy to be perfectly blunt. We did understand the game nature of the system though, and the stuff Gary said about advice and then when the DMG came out, at least some of the stuff in there, we were pretty much in line with. Still, you could find a LOT of leeway there!

So, IMHO the basic schematic of play is the classic dungeon crawl, with a keyed map on ruled paper, filled with lots of rooms and corridors, possibly some natural caves, and potentially some weird areas that don't exactly conform to any specific rules, because the GM made them up and they just don't. MOSTLY the original game handled this stuff pretty well. When the dwarf reached into the chest and blade trap sprung, his hand was cut off. There's not really a rule for that, and the fact that it didn't just grow back when he got cured or regenerated, well, it just didn't. Yes, there was a good bit of stuff like this. Still, when the party got to a door, the thief sniffed and listened, and then Grog commanded the mule "Go Bang!" and the door crashed in. If the party didn't want to fight something, they didn't bang in the door! MOSTLY.

Now, there was an area in my level 1 dungeon where there was a Flesh Golem. It had 2 hit points. Level 1 PCs, generally, cannot harm this golem, it was not something you could get past. Yup, that does not correspond to the normal encounter tables, but it was also confined to one hallway, and if you were smart enough to realize a Magic Missile (and not much else) can kill it, then you could get a sweet treasure!

This is pretty much how risk/reward dungeoneering play works.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wealth per level simply means appropriate amounts of treasure for that character. Not too powerful, but not too little. Likewise, you wouldn't put a powerful creature in a low level dungeon where any action taken would be a TPK. Fair challenge for fair rewards. Otherwise, I can't engage in reasonable risk/reward calculation if I enter a dungeon door and face down a creature way over my level for a little or no reward.

I agree that this is true, as a general rule of dungeon design, though see my example of the Flesh Golem, you could play some games with this.

There's another significant thing here, players could dial up and down the risk knob! Feel like you're a 'leet player? Take your level 1 PC down to level 3 and get some sweet lootz! I mean, you'll PROBABLY die, but think of the glory if you pull it off? 3x normal XP! Plus level 3 treasures are a lot bigger, bonanza! You could make level 2 in one score, and if you get lucky, not even have to fight, or just get the jump on something and win, it happens. Honestly, there's an argument to be made that one or two difficult situations overcome is LESS dangerous than slogging through a dozen mundane ones.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

has been forever since I took a look at 1e, but I do not recall that. In that case it would also need to establish risk vs reward though, so say what kind of treasure, what types and number of monsters and what difficulty and lethality of traps etc. belong on each dungeon level (or correlate to which char XP since they do not gain levels in sync).

I do not remember it doing so, and I certainly do not remember anyone playing that way (that would be somewhat besides the point however)

I am not saying that it might not have been the tighter loop and that Gygax did not have this in mind, I am just not seeing the game breaking if you do not follow it, so what if you also rely on ability checks etc. and get XP for things other than gold.

Almost no one followed this pretty much right from the start. For the proliferation of D&D it certainly was an advantage that Gygax failed at enforcing that playstyle

Well, 1e has very extensive and elaborate treasure tables, and every monster is described as having specific types. Now, exactly what a specific given monster in a specific place has, yes that is up to the DM. Could a DM simply refuse to place adequate treasure? Sure!

Honestly, the absolute size of treasure hordes is not even really the point. The point is that the players are the ones defining the level of risk they take, and reaping the reward appropriate to that. If a given GM makes treasures 1/10th as big as another, there's still the same proportionality there. It may change the character of the game in various ways, but it isn't a part of the question of who is in control of risk management, that's the players.

 

[TiQuinn]

I hold no truck with 'OSR folk' most of whom I have concluded are entirely sans clue with respect to actual old school play. I have a copy of the OSRIC PDF someplace, never read it in detail, so I can't comment on its take on 1e.

Whether or not you hold truck with it is kind of incidental. The point is that the 1e rules are so scattered that people felt it necessary to reproduce and organize the rules in such a way that future gamers could realistically play those rules without having them taught to them by people who had learned them hand-me-down style by whatever table they had learned them from. People literally read the 1e PHB and DMG and went and created their own house rules because the rules as written were all over the place.

Honestly, people reworked/warped/corrupted/improved (take your pick of adjectives) 1e so fast it isn't even funny. Truth is, the MM came out, we used that with OD&D/Holmes, the PHB came out, we used that as an extension of Holmes! We just fused together whatever and made it work. Whether we played the way Gary did or not? I dunno, we'd barely heard of the guy to be perfectly blunt. We did understand the game nature of the system though, and the stuff Gary said about advice and then when the DMG came out, at least some of the stuff in there, we were pretty much in line with. Still, you could find a LOT of leeway there!

Whereas from the time that I started playing, the 1e rules were already a curiosity piece. A bit of history that had already been replaced by 2e rules. Rules one could actually understand and follow.

So, IMHO the basic schematic of play is the classic dungeon crawl, with a keyed map on ruled paper, filled with lots of rooms and corridors, possibly some natural caves, and potentially some weird areas that don't exactly conform to any specific rules, because the GM made them up and they just don't. MOSTLY the original game handled this stuff pretty well. When the dwarf reached into the chest and blade trap sprung, his hand was cut off. There's not really a rule for that, and the fact that it didn't just grow back when he got cured or regenerated, well, it just didn't. Yes, there was a good bit of stuff like this. Still, when the party got to a door, the thief sniffed and listened, and then Grog commanded the mule "Go Bang!" and the door crashed in. If the party didn't want to fight something, they didn't bang in the door! MOSTLY.

I mean, I don’t know what to say.

We’ve been going round and round about whether the 1e rules are written in some way that gives some sort of explicit control over risk and reward to the players to allow them to control the game better than in subsequent editions…and you’ve now laid out a scenario where arbitrarily some character just gets their hand lobbed off just because. I got nothing. It’s like we’re talking two totally different languages. The game you describe has no appeal to me.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree that this is true, as a general rule of dungeon design, though see my example of the Flesh Golem, you could play some games with this.

There's another significant thing here, players could dial up and down the risk knob! Feel like you're a 'leet player? Take your level 1 PC down to level 3 and get some sweet lootz! I mean, you'll PROBABLY die, but think of the glory if you pull it off? 3x normal XP! Plus level 3 treasures are a lot bigger, bonanza! You could make level 2 in one score, and if you get lucky, not even have to fight, or just get the jump on something and win, it happens. Honestly, there's an argument to be made that one or two difficult situations overcome is LESS dangerous than slogging through a dozen mundane ones.

So here is my issue with your flesh golem example.

A flesh golem is obviously not a fair fight for low level PCs. New players would likely not know this and die, experienced players would know this and avoid it. They have no way of knowing it's a glass cannon unless you specifically described it as somehow different (damaged, barely still together, etc). How do I calculate risk/reward when my knowledge of the game can't actually aid me? If I engage in combat with it, it will most likely TPK the party before I figure out it's one magic missile from death, and even if I have magic missile and have it memorized, my knowledge of a flesh golem should tell me that 1d4+1 shouldn't be enough to stop it so why even bother. Essentially, it's a puzzle with the solution being "read the DMs mind".

Now if you telegraphed any of this info prior to the encounter (a nearby lab has notes on a failed experiment, the golem is damaged, the room prior to it has a wand of magic missiles next to pulverized wizard) I MIGHT accept that the golem isn't what it appears to be and is quite defeatable at the level I'm currently at). But I don't see anything that implies the fight is winnable or fair.

 

[mamba]

Personally I consider 1e and 2e all one big game, so anything that applies to either applies to both.

maybe, but you could only mix 2e in once it was available, until then you were 'stuck' with 1e and its rules