D&D General Dmg previews up

[overgeeked]

It's a nitpick, I know, but it really bugged me that Perkins kept saying Greyhawk as presented in the Revised DMG is somehow both complete and yet a not entirely filled in skeleton. And the bit about no other DMG doing this before. No, the 4E DMG had the skeleton of a setting as well. Which is what this is, a skeleton of a setting.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't see anything in the summery about optional/variant rules. Are those not a thing in 5.5 anymore?

That was something that I felt was really missing as well. The video felt like it was aimed towards GMs for a change & there were a few things that made me less concerned about their inclusion than I was originally. Like several others have mentioned, I want to see the optional & variant rules that wotc folks feel most showcases how this new DMG it built with the GM's needs in mind by supporting the GM in ways that will make the lives of GM's easier without leaning on a sucking void of "just homebrew it" whilethe base rules designs against doing.

The summery reads like the whole book is more focused on showcasing the IP in various ways than anything else.

I think that the value in setting scatter is more complicated than that. Taking the time(and pagespace) to acknowledge the fact that there are a lot of settings with wildly different baselines even before the GM might be making one of their own with new & different baselines helps mitigate the friction that comes with the GM using a setting other than "the default setting". --BUT-- success there very much depends on the rules subsystems & player options not being written in ways that are so monolithically focused on supporting "the default setting" that the rules (and PC abilities) fight the GM's attempt to use any setting with differing baselines.

No major complaints about the video & some positives I noticed but still feel like there is a lot more to cover(like optional/variant rules) because of how exclusively player focused everything has been for so long☆. It felt jarring when Kenreck felt the need to turn away from talking about how the book is built for GMs in order to insert some excitement about using bastions on the player characters he creates.

☆ I almost said "last year or so", but it's been a lot longer than that.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Bastions are probably there for 1. The Stardew Valley crowd and 2. A money sink.

More than likely it will generate some kind of bonus that the already powerful players don't actually need, but people like big shiny large numbers so...

Unless it's really important to have them, and I get its wait and see on this, I'll probably never use them in a 5.5 game I run.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It's a nitpick, I know, but it really bugged me that Perkins kept saying Greyhawk as presented in the Revised DMG is somehow both complete and yet a not entirely filled in skeleton. And the bit about no other DMG doing this before. No, the 4E DMG had the skeleton of a setting as well. Which is what this is, a skeleton of a setting.

unless there's additional context i'm missing, i wouldn't really call that a nitpick. that sounds like he's being outright misleading.

 

[Zaukrie]

It seems possible. They do point out the whole bastion system is optional.

I actually hope now that they are not in the DMG and instead they make a UA style of books of variants as a new 4th "core" book.

Player and DM options would make up a whole book (like the Artificer and spell point spellcaster)....potentially. They could call it Advanced Dungeons and Dragons if they really want to hit the nostalgia even harder....

 

[Imaro]

It's a nitpick, I know, but it really bugged me that Perkins kept saying Greyhawk as presented in the Revised DMG is somehow both complete and yet a not entirely filled in skeleton. And the bit about no other DMG doing this before. No, the 4E DMG had the skeleton of a setting as well. Which is what this is, a skeleton of a setting.

There was a wider world to the Nentir Vale that wasn't touched upon in the DMG but got some coverage in a few products ts later on. Perhaps the Greyhawk setting in the '24 DMG presents an overview of the whole setting as opposed to a small piece of one.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

It's a nitpick, I know, but it really bugged me that Perkins kept saying Greyhawk as presented in the Revised DMG is somehow both complete and yet a not entirely filled in skeleton. And the bit about no other DMG doing this before. No, the 4E DMG had the skeleton of a setting as well. Which is what this is, a skeleton of a setting.

Well, Greyhawk not being entirely filled in is part of the setting.

unless there's additional context i'm missing, i wouldn't really call that a nitpick. that sounds like he's being outright misleading.

No it's just how Greyhawk is.

 

[Remathilis]

It's a nitpick, I know, but it really bugged me that Perkins kept saying Greyhawk as presented in the Revised DMG is somehow both complete and yet a not entirely filled in skeleton. And the bit about no other DMG doing this before. No, the 4E DMG had the skeleton of a setting as well. Which is what this is, a skeleton of a setting.

Complete as in "everything you need to get started" not complete as in "every last detail is accounted for".

 

[Zaukrie]

Complete as in "everything you need to get started" not complete as in "every last detail is accounted for".

I mean, he was 100% clear on that. 100%.

 

[OB1]

Regarding variant rules, it feels like rather than give pages and pages of rules that only a small percentage of DMs might use, that they will reduce it down to perhaps two 'master' rules. DM Rulings (in the moment) and DM House Rules (permanent changes). Give a couple of play examples for both, emphasize that you can and should do what's fun for your table, and connect it to the multiverse.

For Example

DM Rulings - The DM can ignore RAW when the result seems nonsensical or just not fun, such as a PC who takes the hide action to gain the invisible condition and then dances in front of a guards face as they walk into the throne room to assassinate the evil king. If the player disagrees with the ruling, allow them to change their declared action that led to the moment.

DM House Rules - the DM can change any rule presented in these books. For example, if your table doesn't feel that combat is deadly enough, you could make death happen at 0 HP, give Exhaustion levels for failed death saves, and/or change resurrection rules to require an ability check or the completion of a quest to work. Once again, be sure to get buy in from your players that they also find these rules fun and let them know they can be changed if the result isn't what they were looking for. It may also be worth discussing with other DMs on forums such as enworld.org about changes you are thinking about before you take them to the group to see if other DMs have tried similar approaches.