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

[mamba]

It really isn't that weird. People somehow IRL manage to work out their different preferences without totally falling apart. Marriages somehow survive despite the fact that neither participant is the "master" of that relationship who calls all the shots. Friendships somehow survive despite the fact that no one is "in control" of the friendships and telling the other friends what to do.

really, no friendship or marriage ever ends due to some fallout? Sometimes there are things that cannot be bridged, in a TTRPG I probably would consider most of them bridgeable, but that goes both ways. I see no reason why a player has to insist on his way rather than be able to compromise with the DM on something they both can live with, and if for some reason the DM cannot compromise and insists on their position because it is so important to them, heck, then find something that works with that position.

Quite frankly, if no compromise can be found, I am not sure why the DM is more at fault than the player for that, if anything it is the reverse to me. Maybe there are some tyrant DMs out there, but I am sure I find plenty of other reasons I would not want to play with them and no compromise will be enough if we keep constantly butting heads to even get there

 

[pemerton]

Making that version even less necessary than the others to play (except 1e, which had the attack matrices needed to run combat).

Huh? The 4e DMG is a pretty core rulebook for any group wanting to play 4e D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Huh? The 4e DMG is a pretty core rulebook for any group wanting to play 4e D&D.

Do you not have the rules needed to play 4e without the DMG? I ran it for about a year and rarely if ever referred to it.

 

[pemerton]

Do you not have the rules needed to play 4e without the DMG? I ran it for about a year and rarely if ever referred to it.

The 4e DMG has the rules for awarding XP, the rules for treasure parcels, the rules for skill challenges, the rules dealing with the technical aspects of combat encounter design (including traps and hazards), the rules for terrain, the rules for affecting objects with powers, the rules for scenario design (quests), and some discussions of the relationships between game elements and gameplay (eg the stuff on languages; Worlds and Monsters is better on this last thing).

I'm talking about Dungeon World and other PbtA games, where the rules provide hard boundaries on what the GM is allowed to do. The style of several of those books (I've read DW, AW, and MotW) seems to me to pressure GMs into towing the line rules-wise.

So, here is the passage from Apocalypse World (p 108):

There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this.​

The idea that playing a game is structured by the procedures that are followed is not especially weird; I mean, there are a million ways to play a move tokens about a board game, but only one of them is chess. If you want to play chess, you do it the chess way. Of course, if you would rather play draughts than chess you'll follow a different set of rules and procedures.

If I wanted to play a game called "GM tells me what happens", then I would expect the GM to tell me what happens. If I'm playing a different sort of game - eg one where sometimes I tell the GM what happens - then we will need some rules to structure how the players and GM interact, who gets to say what when within which parameters, etc. Gygax's AD&D sets out one sort of approach to this (where the GM pre-commits primarily via map-and-key, and resolution is structured mostly via talking but sometimes - especially for doors and for fighting - via dice rolls); 4e D&D sets out a different sort of approach (where the GM pre-commits primarily via NPC/creatures stats, combat maps, and skill challenge parameters, and resolution is structured mostly via dice rolls but sometimes - especially for setting up scenes/situations - via talking); and AW sets out a different approach again (where the GM pre-commits via fronts, and resolution is structured by the alternation between GM soft moves, player moves, and GM hard moves).

Complaining that games set out their rules and associated procedures, or that not all games have the same rules and procedures, seems a bit odd to me. I mean, if all games had the same rules and procedures then there would be only one game!

 

[Micah Sweet]

The 4e DMG has the rules for awarding XP, the rules for treasure parcels, the rules for skill challenges, the rules dealing with the technical aspects of combat encounter design (including traps and hazards), the rules for terrain, the rules for affecting objects with powers, the rules for scenario design (quests), and some discussions of the relationships between game elements and gameplay (eg the stuff on languages; Worlds and Monsters is better on this last thing).

So, here is the passage from Apocalypse World (p 108):

There are a million ways to GM games; Apocalypse World calls for one way in particular. This chapter is it. Follow these as rules. The whole rest of the game is built upon this.​

The idea that playing a game is structured by the procedures that are followed is not especially weird; I mean, there are a million ways to play a move tokens about a board game, but only one of them is chess. If you want to play chess, you do it the chess way. Of course, if you would rather play draughts than chess you'll follow a different set of rules and procedures.

If I wanted to play a game called "GM tells me what happens", then I would expect the GM to tell me what happens. If I'm playing a different sort of game - eg one where sometimes I tell the GM what happens - then we will need some rules to structure how the players and GM interact, who gets to say what when within which parameters, etc. Gygax's AD&D sets out one sort of approach to this (where the GM pre-commits primarily via map-and-key, and resolution is structured mostly via talking but sometimes - especially for doors and for fighting - via dice rolls); 4e D&D sets out a different sort of approach (where the GM pre-commits primarily via NPC/creatures stats, combat maps, and skill challenge parameters, and resolution is structured mostly via dice rolls but sometimes - especially for setting up scenes/situations - via talking); and AW sets out a different approach again (where the GM pre-commits via fronts, and resolution is structured by the alternation between GM soft moves, player moves, and GM hard moves).

Complaining that games set out their rules and associated procedures, or that not all games have the same rules and procedures, seems a bit odd to me. I mean, if all games had the same rules and procedures then there would be only one game!

I prefer my RPGs to be less insistently structured than PBtA. Gun to my head, that's at least half my problem with them.

 

[pemerton]

I believe that there are plenty of tables that do not really want a challenge, they just want to kill some stuff, find some loot and have a fun time with their friends, so the fact that plenty of people enjoy the game is not necessarily an indicator of it having the challenge level / balance figured out

Well, it sounds like its figured out for those table. And no game is going to be all things to all people. I mean, we don't expect that in any other field of gameplay - that's why there are so many games (traditional as well as contemporary) in those fields (different parlour games, different board games, different card games, different field sports, etc). Likewise for RPGing.

Of course WotC has a commercial interest in persuading as many people as possible to buy, and perhaps also to play, what they are selling. But just as in any other field, you wouldn't want to treat their marketing pitch as an objective description of what the game can and can't do - especially given that there is a long history, in the RPG hobby, of exaggerating the scope of play that is possible with a given ruleset (mostly by ignoring all the procedures of play that are necessary beyond the narrowest components of PC build and action resolution, and assuming that the table will "plug in" the needed additional procedures based on their past experience or folk wisdom).

I’d argue D&D was never good at higher levels, I’d stop at level 12 or so and throw out the rest (yes, will never happen).

As to most published campaigns ending around 12 to 14, most groups never even make it there, if anything you need more 1-5 and 1-8 adventures

I've only got experience of high level play in AD&D and 4e D&D. I would say that AD&D breaks down around about name level - maybe once 6th level spells come online. This is because, both mechanically and in fictional terms, the game doesn't really have the resources to establish or resolve conflicts at that level of play, other than maybe mass combat. This shows itself in practical terms in high level modules like Vault of the Drow (which relies on giving all NPCs ridiculous magic items that "self-destruct" when the PCs try and profit from them, in order to make the maths work) or Isle of the Ape (which I think is just poorly conceived all around).

4e D&D worked fine at my table all the way to 30th level. Both the mechanics and the fiction were there, and did what they had to do. The encounter-building guidelines needed a bit of recalibration (at Heroic Tier, a Level +4 combat encounter is going to be pretty challenging for the PCs; at Epic Tier, that becomes Level +6 or Level +8), but the recalibration was straightforward and all the maths still worked.

eh, no ruleset is so all-encompassing and clear that there is nothing that needs a ruling, so the only question is where to draw the line.

I think you are using the word "ruling" in an idiosyncratic way - you seem to use it to encompass all GM decision-making. But (just to give an example) I wouldn't normally call a GM decision about (say) which PC a given NPC/creatures attacks in a fight as a ruling; nor (say) a decision about how a NPC/creature responds to an unsuccessful attempt to influence them.

By "ruling" I'd normally understand a "meta"-level decision about how to resolve some declared action, where the rules don't themselves establish a procedure.

I’d say the number of pages has a direct correlation to how many scenarios are covered in what detail and make rulings unnecessary, the fewer pages, the more decisions/ rulings that need to be made or the less universal the game.

There is no particular correlation between rules length and rules comprehensiveness. Classic Traveller has a shorter set of rulebooks than AD&D, but is a more complete game (in terms of the scope of feasible action declarations that the rules give advice on). Just as one example, Classic Traveller in its 3 books tells you how to resolve not only a fight, and an interstellar space journey, but also (for instance) how to resolve an attempt to purchase contraband on-world, and how to resolve the sale of trade goods. Whereas, despite their many pages, the AD&D rulebooks do not set out any procedure for attempts to deal in goods in a settlement. All they have are price lists, and rules for percentages that will be charged for the sale of jewellery or the changing of money; but no actual process for working out whether attempts to buy or sell will be successful or not.

This is only a weak criticism of AD&D - it is a game aimed overwhelmingly at dungeon-crawling and wilderness exploration play, with the idea of settlements as somewhere where play might happen being mostly an afterthought. I make the point simply to illustrate one (of many possible) counter-examples to the assertion of a correlation between length of rules and comprehensiveness of rules.

DW lacks a ton of clear rules, for example take any of its monsters and compare them to their D&D counterparts.

Dungeon World has perfectly clear rules for how to resolve what happens when a player declares an action vis-a-vis a monster. They just happen to not be wargame-type rules.

If a specific DM abuses their position from your perspective then find another DM.

I don't think the notion of "abuse" is very applicable in this sort of discussion.

If a particular GM is not able to follow the rules and procedures of the game, that may mean they're hopeless or it may just be that they need more practice - some games (including, notoriously, D&D) have fairly complicated rules and procedures.

If a GM doesn't want to play a game according to its rules, but rather according to some others - most often, in the context of RPGs, this means that they want to be free to ignore the action resolution rules if they have their own preferred view of how the fiction should unfold - then I think it makes sense for them to be upfront about that, so that other participants understand what sort of game play is on offer. (The idea that it is an inherent part of RPGing that the GM is free at any time to ignore the action resolution rules is an unhelpful one, that probably causes more confusion and unhappiness in the context of RPGing than any other single confusion about rules and procedures of play.)

But for GMing to count as abusive I think would be at a whole other level, and not really about the way the GM approaches the rules and procedures of play.

 

[pemerton]

I prefer my RPGs to be less insistently structured than PBtA. Gun to my head, that's at least half my problem with them.

I don't know what this means. All RPGing has a structure of play, and a set of associated rules and procedures. AW sets out a different one from (say) AD&D, but I don't see how it is more "insistent".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm talking about Dungeon World and other PbtA games, where the rules provide hard boundaries on what the GM is allowed to do. The style of several of those books (I've read DW, AW, and MotW) seems to me to pressure GMs into towing the line rules-wise.

Yes, because the rules have actually been very carefully designed, and breaking them is extremely unwise in 99.999% of cases, unless you genuinely just...do not at all want to play the kind of game on offer.

The books themselves explicitly discuss what it would mean to change the GM moves, Agendas, Principles, and monsters. You can read that text here, since Dungeon World is under CC-BY 3.0, but I'll quote the relevant part.

The GM​

Changing the GM’s side of the rules is an entirely different beast from writing custom player moves. Writing GM moves is the easy part. Since a GM move is just a statement of something that fictionally happens, feel free to write new ones as you please. Most of the time you’ll find they’re just specific cases of one of the moves already established, but occasionally you’ll come across something new. Just keep in mind the spectrum of hard to soft moves, your principles, and your agenda, and you’ll be fine.

Changing the GM’s agenda or principles is one of the biggest changes you can make to the game. Changing these areas will likely require changes throughout the rest of the game, plus playtesting to nail it all down.

Play to find out what happens is the least changeable part of the GM’s agenda. Other options, like “play towards your set plot” or “play to challenge the players’ skills” will be resisted pretty strongly by the other rules. The moves give the players abilities that can change the course of an planned adventure quite quickly; if you’re not playing to find out what happens you’ll have to resist the moves at every step or rewrite many of them.

Fill the characters’ lives with adventure could be rephrased, but it’s hard to really change. “Fill the characters’ lives with intrigue” might work, but intrigue just seems like a type of adventure. Removing this agenda entirely will require major reworking since the move structure is based on this. The effects of a miss and the GM’s soft moves are all there to create a life of adventure.

Portraying a fantastic world is maybe the easiest to change but it still requires considerable rewriting of the class moves. A historical world, a grim world, or a utopian world are all possible, but you’ll need to carefully rethink many moves. A historical world will require magic, equipment, and several other sections to be nearly entirely rewritten or removed. A grim world can only survive if the players’ moves come with darker costs. A utopian world won’t need many of the moves as written. Still, this is the easiest part of the agenda to change, since it requires changing the moves, not the basic structures of the game.

The GM’s principles are more mutable than the agenda but still can seriously change the game with only minor modifications. Address the characters, not the players; Make your move, but misdirect; Never speak the name of your move; Begin and end with the fiction; and Be a fan of the characters are the most important principles. Without these the conversation of play and the use of moves is likely to break down.

Embrace the fantastic; Give every monster life; Name every person; Think Dangerous; and Give them something to work towards are key to the spirit of Dungeon World and fantasy exploration. These are changeable, but they amount to changing the setting of the game. If you want to change any of these, you may have to make changes to all of them.

Leave Blanks; Sometimes, let them decide; and Ask questions and use the answers are important to running Dungeon World well. They also apply to many other games in the same style. The game will be diminished without them, but the conversation of play will continue. These are also some of the most portable principles, applicable to many other games. They may even work in games with very different play styles.

An additional principle that some people prefer to add is Test their bonds. This principle is entirely compatible with the others and with all the moves, but it changes the focus of the game somewhat. Fronts need to be rethought to work fully with this, and you might need to add moves that speak to it.

If you consider this to be "shaming" you, frankly, I think you're jumping at shadows and inventing persecution where there is none.

 

[mamba]

Well, it sounds like its figured out for those table.

not really, because they are not following the guidelines anyway, so you cannot really say that they are working for them either

And no game is going to be all things to all people.

agreed, but that doesn’t mean no one should be criticizing anything. The encounter building rules are not 5e’s strong suit, not to mention the assumption of how many encounters there are in a day. Virtually no one has that many, and this nonsensical decision throws the entire balance off

course WotC has a commercial interest in persuading as many people as possible to buy, and perhaps also to play, what they are selling. But just as in any other field, you wouldn't want to treat their marketing pitch as an objective description of what the game can and can't do

I am not comparing it against their marketing pitch

I've only got experience of high level play in AD&D and 4e D&D. I would say that AD&D breaks down around about name level - maybe once 6th level spells come online. This is because, both mechanically and in fictional terms, the game doesn't really have the resources to establish or resolve conflicts at that level of play, other than maybe mass combat.

I agree, 5th level spells are really the maximum, and even then I’d limit it to one

I think you are using the word "ruling" in an idiosyncratic way - you seem to use it to encompass all GM decision-making. But (just to give an example) I wouldn't normally call a GM decision about (say) which PC a given NPC/creatures attacks in a fight as a ruling

I would not go quite that far either, but adjudicating a result (or an action taken by a monster) because there is no rule that prescribes the exact outcome is a ruling to me

By "ruling" I'd normally understand a "meta"-level decision about how to resolve some declared action, where the rules don't themselves establish a procedure.

if you replace the last word with ‘specific result’ I’d agree, but depending on what exactly you consider to be a procedure that might work too (ie roll die and if result is X then the outcome is Y)

It’s when the DM has to make a decision rather than follow a clear rule when I would consider it a ruling

There is no particular correlation between rules length and rules comprehensiveness.

depends on what you consider comprehensive I guess, you can cover a wider scope but at less detail in the same amount of words, but you cannot really cover the wider scope at the same level of detail without needing more words

If you want to prescribe the result to ‘pin the DM down’ and remove their ‘empowerment’ then you need that detail

Dungeon World has perfectly clear rules for how to resolve what happens when a player declares an action vis-a-vis a monster. They just happen to not be wargame-type rules.

but it is pretty open when it comes to the action declaration of the monster, D&D is much more restrictive / prescriptive in what the monster can do

 

[pemerton]

not really, because they are not following the guidelines anyway, so you cannot really say that they are working for them
either

<snip>

that doesn’t mean no one should be criticizing anything. The encounter building rules are not 5e’s strong suit, not to mention the assumption of how many encounters there are in a day. Virtually no one has that many, and this nonsensical decision throws the entire balance off

Well, criticising seems a bit pointless for a game that has been in print for 10 years, is now being reprinted in a revised form, and that has tens (? I believe) of millions of players.

That doesn't mean you have to enjoy them or use them; but the appropriate response seems to be to explain their limitations, and why you do something different.

As far as 5e's encounter guidelines are concerned, it seems to me that they are serving a few purposes:

There is a part of the customer base who *expect that such guidelines be included - it's part of their measure of the formal adequacy of a set of D&D rules. So 5e includes them for this reason. Note that this reason is satisfied even if the guidelines are pretty weak in themselves.

*There is a part of the customer base who want to run classic dungeon crawls, or something in that neighbourhood, who benefit from guidance in how PC capabilities and GM-side capabilities (ie monsters in combat encounters) are related. The guidelines support this sort of play.

*There is a part of the customer base who rely much more heavily than those in the previous dot point on GM curation to manage PC "spotlights", the general trajectory of play. For these people, there is no particular need for technical/mathematical guidelines on how to pace encounters, but there is still benefit in having some tool for assessing the overall threat posted by one or more encounters. The guidelines help with this.​

Coming up with a tool that does these three things, even passably, seems like a reasonable design achievement. The resulting game won't support every conceivable approach to D&D - eg 4e-style scene-framed D&D - but the only way to support that is to give every player the same resource structure, and there is good evidence that this makes some core members of the D&D customer base go bonkers.

I would not go quite that far either, but adjudicating a result (or an action taken by a monster) because there is no rule that prescribes the exact outcome is a ruling to me

<snip>

if you replace the last word with ‘specific result’ I’d agree, but depending on what exactly you consider to be a procedure that might work too (ie roll die and if result is X then the outcome is Y)

It’s when the DM has to make a decision rather than follow a clear rule when I would consider it a ruling

<snip>

If you want to prescribe the result to ‘pin the DM down’ and remove their ‘empowerment’ then you need that detail

No RPG can do what you describe as the alternative to rulings - that is, actually dictate the fiction that results from a resolved action - outside of an incredibly limited domain of activities. I mean, jumping might look like a promising candidate, but suppose a jump fails - does that mean the jumping character didn't make it and fell to their death down the crevasse, or rather that they landed by twisted their ankle in the landing? Or even if you specify that (eg via a Rolemaster-esque table), when they land do they trigger the pressure plate in that area or not? - there will always be a limit to the precision of resolution of distances and areas.

But D&D has never aspired to anything like this level of completeness. It has always permitted open-ended resolution, relying on the participants to extrapolate the fiction within the limits that the game rules establish.

but it is pretty open when it comes to the action declaration of the monster, D&D is much more restrictive / prescriptive in what the monster can do

I don't agree with this claim about D&D: presumably a GM can adjudicate actions for their monsters that the rules don't expressly address, just the same as they would such action declarations from a player for their PC.

And thinking beyond combat: can a NPC/creature willingly leave its home to go on a trek, or to offer itself as a hostage, or even if that means leaving its beloved(s) behind? A D&D statblock doesn't answer any of those questions.