D&D (2024) Deborah Ann Woll and Matt Mercer consulted on the 2024 DMG.

WotC consulted with celebrities including True Blood's Deborah Ann Woll and Critical Role's Matt Mercer when revising the upcoming 2024 edition of the Dungeon Master's Guide. Apparently another (unnamed) consultant provided advice on running game for kids.

That's it; that's the news.

 

[overgeeked]

It's just a really weird minor thing to change. Like someone sat down and thought "I really need to get rid of the canonical moustaches on this group of classic uptight knights."

More like keeping the canon mustaches would mean keeping the canon sexism, so they changed it. Anyone can be a knight, regardless of their ability to grow a mustache.

 

[Stormonu]

Holmes version (my initial encounter with D&D) was over my head, I was 10 at the time. My dad had to help me with rules and I just sort of winged it with my friends. For a bit I DMed just using the rule reference/summary page from B2 when I misplaced my Holmes book
.
When I got to AD&D (age 14), I had the advantage I'd already learned D&D through the Moldvay books (age 12).

I don't remember AD&D being too difficult to understand, but I do remember it being complex enough that I was hand-writing the rules for the PHB, DMG & UA all in one book for easier reference and having them in one place. Coming from B/X, there were quite a few AD&D rules that I just didn't use (Weapon vs. Armor, Psionics and Bards, for example).

 

[DarkCrisis]

More like keeping the canon mustaches would mean keeping the canon sexism, so they changed it. Anyone can be a knight, regardless of their ability to grow a mustache.

I would assume Female Knights wouldn't need a moustache. Kind of like how modern militaries have different dress codes for male and female soldiers.

I highly highly doubt Solomnia was like "Only people with moustaches can join our military". It was more like "Only dudes". Which changing that makes sense. But to take away that the guys dont want a moustache? Just weird.

 

[Mistwell]

You might want to read the post that you quoted, because it doesn't seem that you understood it at all.

Edit: I was talking about Pundit and Zak.

It definitely was not at all obviously about that.

 

[Demetrios1453]

The Knights of Solamnia in Dragonlance canonically have mustaches. All of them. According to Weis and Hickman. WotC changed that in the 5E version of the setting. Some fans were really upset by that.

That must have sucked if you simply had a genetic or hair-loss issue.

"Sir, you are by far the most talented fighter we've seen, and your honor and bravery are a credit to the Oath and Measure. But since you have an unfortunate case of alopecia that includes your upper lip, we're afraid that your application for knighthood must be rejected."

 

[Nikosandros]

It definitely was not at all obviously about that.

The post that I was replying to stated that Mercer and Woll were an improvement over Pundit and Zak. Hence my comment about the fact that being better than those two is a low bar to clear.

 

[Mistwell]

More like keeping the canon mustaches would mean keeping the canon sexism, so they changed it. Anyone can be a knight, regardless of their ability to grow a mustache.

Or they could have gone with something like, "After women broke the mustache ceiling of the Knights order, they began to wear fake mustaches. Then the first magical fake mustaches arose, and some of the male Knights began to wear the magical mustaches. So began the friendly competition, where each group tried to outdo the other in magical mustaches with the most flair and panache." Followed by a table of magical mustaches and their minor effects.

Creativity and humor sometimes takes a backseat to modern orthodoxy. It's easier to just remove it all for modern sensibilities, but I argue it's often not the most worthwhile route when there's sometimes a more interesting one which both nods to the past while also maintaining modern tastes.

 

[Mistwell]

The post that I was replying to stated that Mercer and Woll were an improvement over Pundit and Zak. Hence my comment about the fact that being better than those two is a low bar to clear.

Ah I see. Helena Real is a user I've never even heard of, but they have me on block for some reason. So to me it didn't look like you were replying to anyone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You might want to read the post that you quoted, because it doesn't seem that you understood it at all.

Edit: I was talking about Pundit and Zak.

That was really not clear (to me at least). Maybe you quoted someone @Clint_L and I blocked?
Read your sentences without the quote in between and you know why he responded the way he did.

 

[Nikosandros]

OK, fair enough. Apologies to you all and especially @Clint_L . Without the quote, it indeed looks the opposite.