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

[mamba]

No, it implies that neither camp has the final word.

this relies on the two ‘sides’ finding a compromise that works for both. That obviously is the preferred option, but if neither side is willing to compromise (far enough to reach a middle ground the other side finds acceptable) then one side will have to end up calling the shot and all the other side can do is accept it or leave

But most DMing advice often comes down to the idea that the DM never needs to compromise their vision and the players must make the compromise in order to experience the joy of said vision.

that is not at all where I started, I have consistently said that one side essentially giving an ultimatum is the last resort. Ideally ideas / suggestions get accepted outright, or a compromise is found. I agree that advice that says to never compromise is BS, haven’t heard that in ages however

 

[mamba]

I'd take 3/4 of the way between Shadowdark and 5e for complexity as well as superheroics - and we'd have a very very good game.

I like the 3/4 spot for complexity as well, I would invest most of that towards simpler classes however, not so much anything else

 

[mamba]

When you say "other kinds of adventures" . . .

In Gygax's AD&D, what is the goal of adventuring?

For Gygax I’d say it was dungeon crawls, that is what he focused on in D&D and in his adventures, as mentioned here

This will typically result in your giving them a brief background, placing them in a settlement, and stating that they should prepare themselves to find and explore the dungeon/ruin they know is nearby.

For other groups and authors that varied, esp. Hickman made a difference but the game was moving away from pure crawls before there even was 1e already, depending on the table

Whether or not one enjoys this game, it is a coherent game design.

I never said it isn’t but I do not see 1) 1e limited to it, 2) that design being ruined by replacing gold as a main source of XP with some other source

Take away gp for XP, and then the questions arise like: why does the play of the game focus on dungeon exploration, and acquisition of treasure? Without that progression rule, there is nothing for the fantasy trappings and scenario goals to lampshade. Are the PCs just greedy psychopaths?

XP for gold is what made them greedy psychopaths in the first place

The most natural answer to this is to take away dungeon exploration and acquisition of treasure as the focuses of play.

I see this as an opening up of other options rather than a taking away of one option, esp since that one option still exists

So now, what is the focus of play. The answer that emerges in the early-to-mid 80s and is consolidated by AD&D 2nd ed, is whatever the GM says it is.

yes, not sure why that is an issue, it was a natural evolution driven by the players that the rules only acknowledged belatedly

But if the game is no longer about dungeon exploration and acquisition of treasure, then why do we have all this magic that is focused primarily on that stuff?

legacy, but much of that is still useful, you still explore dangerous locations frequently enough, just no longer exclusively. It’s not like suddenly everything is chariot racing instead, to use one of your examples

And if the game no longer uses a dungeon map-and-key to structure the way in which PCs encounter challenges

it’s not so much a ‘no longer’ as a ‘no longer exclusively, but still frequently’. Look at most WotC adventures even today and there are barely any where exploring locations is not a large part of the adventure

So if you want to have other kinds of adventures, but want a game that is structured around something different from whatever the GM says and decides, then you will need a system other than the one provided in the AD&D volumes. My personal favourite is Burning Wheel, but there are plenty of others out there!

yes, 1e was being outgrown by the adventures it spawned, but this started as ‘without gold for XP dungeon crawls make no sense’ and that is a very different statement, one I still do not agree with

 

[mamba]

What "other things"? How are the success conditions established? Gold for XP establishes success conditions. Without them, success conditions become whatever the GM says they are.

killing monsters, overcoming obstacles, accomplishing a goal, the stuff we use even today. That they are ‘whatever the DM says’ does not invalidate the approach

But the rules for scene-framing and action resolution didn't develop - they were just abandoned, and replaced with GM decides.

That's what I have in mind when I say that it breaks the game to drop gold for XP.

you already had scenes play out and actions in need of a resolution at the time of XP for gold, that did not just pop up as a consequence of removing XP for gold

 

[mamba]

No. There is no need for anyone to have the final say. In this respect playing a RPG is like many other small group social activities. Decisions can be made by consensus without a formal decision rule or hierarchy of decision-makers.

this assumes that a consensus will always be found, I do not assume that

 

[mamba]

Yes! You, the GM! It's entirely about what the GM thinks it should be about!

in stark contrast to the dungeons of 1e that were designed and populated by the DM…

 

[mamba]

What you are describing here is exactly what I am talking about: instead of the game setting the goal (ie acquire treasure and, thereby, XP), and the players making decisions about how to achieve that goal, the GM is setting the goal (fight the boss, save the princess) and the players are not choosing their goal nor how to achieve it.

while I do not really disagree, I see this as a much smaller change than you do. First the DM designed the dungeon and populated it, now they also do the same for an overland world with multiple locations, it’s more a change in scope than in the fundamentals

 

[Sulicius]

So I'm doing a little viewing party with a discord community when the videos go live. We like to make a bingo card beforehard for maximum silliness.

What do you expect Todd and the designer to talk about during those videos? I'll need 25 of them, so anything goes!

 

[tetrasodium]

So I'm doing a little viewing party with a discord community when the videos go live. We like to make a bingo card beforehard for maximum silliness.

What do you expect Todd and the designer to talk about during those videos? I'll need 25 of them, so anything goes!

"Expect"?
"Players are going to love this more than ever"

"We really wanted players to feel like they had more control, that's why this new bastion system lets your players be mini dungeon masters"

Want?
That is something very different that I covered here & the last few pages of discussion over yielding to player ultimatums being the only form of compromise nicely demonstrates that wotc's "Jason" problem is one that is widespread enough to get serious attention from wotc.

 

[pemerton]

this started as ‘without gold for XP dungeon crawls make no sense’ and that is a very different statement, one I still do not agree with

No it didn't.

It started with me posting this:

I never felt like changing what one needs to do to earn XP in 1e would break the game

And yet it does!

So there you go.

I didn't say anything about what does or doesn't make sense. My remark was about the play of the game. Gygax's PHB and core parts of his DMG set out a style of play, which is coherent, for which the game provides rules for scene-framing, for which the game provides rules for action resolution. And XP for gp is a core element of that game.

Remove XP for gp, and that game no longer exists - colloquially, it is broken. Instead of a game with a win-condition known to the players, with a framework that the players can interact with and significantly influence (despite not having total control), what takes its place is a completely different game, in which the GM sets the win conditions, and controls scene-framing as they desire, and controls much of action resolution as they desire.

That they are ‘whatever the DM says’ does not invalidate the approach

I didn't say anything about validity. I said that XP for gp is fundamental to the game presented by Gygax in the AD&D books. Get rid of it, and you get a completely different game. (More on this below, as well as in my posts upthread.)

esp. Hickman made a difference but the game was moving away from pure crawls before there even was 1e already, depending on the table

Yes, I'm aware of that. I started a thread about it, around 10 years ago: DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

But GM decides is not the game that Gygax helped to design, and that he advocated, even though many RPGers drifted it that way at an early stage, keeping its rules for PC building and its combat resolution rules, but replacing its goal and its framing rules, and supplementing its resolution rules, with GM decides.

in stark contrast to the dungeons of 1e that were designed and populated by the DM…

while I do not really disagree, I see this as a much smaller change than you do. First the DM designed the dungeon and populated it, now they also do the same for an overland world with multiple locations, it’s more a change in scope than in the fundamentals

"Scope" is a description of the fiction. I am talking about the game, and the gameplay.

As per Gygax's advice to players (that I quoted, in part, upthread), a dungeon map is knowable. The players can - by declaring actions for their PCs that involve moving through the dungeon, listening at its doors, using detection magic, etc - learn its layout, learn what lies behind its doors, etc. They have the reaction rolls, too, to try and collect information or opportunities from dungeon inhabitants. And then they can make plans as to how they engage those prospective encounters. In technical terms (that hadn't been coined when Gygax was writing), the players are able to exercise significant control over what scenes are framed, by making informed decisions about which doors to open. The game has rules to support this - not only the rules for obtaining information, but the rules for evasion of pursuit (which, if the players can get their PCs out of the combat without being hacked down by the free attack in response, tend to give the players a reasonable chance to get away).

It is not possible to play a "living, breathing world" in the same way. That is not knowable. The players can't, by declaring simple actions around moving and listening and scrying, obtain the knowledge that will let them exercise considerable influence over scene framing. And that's before we get to the fact that the GM is now not just controlling scene-framing, and action resolution for all the actions for which there is no other system, but also determining what the actual goals for successful play are.

not sure why that is an issue, it was a natural evolution driven by the players that the rules only acknowledged belatedly

For me, there are two issues.

One is about acknowledging that not all RPGing is GM decides, and that Gygax presented a game in which the GM did not decide the focus of play. Rather, the game itself provided a focus of play - just as any other game does - and players would then exercise their skill at that play to try and "win", by hauling gp out of dungeons and hence earning XP.

The second is that I, personally, think that GM decides makes for bad RPGing, and therefore have an interest in pointing out the first point, ie that there are other possibilities and some of them were foundational in the design and publication and play of D&D.

Look at most WotC adventures even today and there are barely any where exploring locations is not a large part of the adventure

I regard these as almost a worst-of-all-worlds situation: these locations give rise to all the constraints and artificiality of classic D&D dungeons, but without the players having the chance to engage in skilled play, because of the change in the way scene-framing and action resolution and goals of play are understood.