D&D General Does WotC use its own DMG rules?

[Vaalingrade]

Because a lot of players don't want to hear that. Their immediate response will be "Well, why am I paying for a DMG then?!?"

Most players don't want to be told the truth from the designers... they want to be told the designers are making the game exactly how they wish to play it. They need that pat on the head that their preferences are the "right" preferences by seeing them appear in the book.

Is it the truth or is it more that adventure writers are mostly separate people with separate goals who, like most of us, have come up in the hobby just not trusting the DMG for that sort of design?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Most players don't want to be told the truth from the designers...

100%

Most DMs lose their minds when you tell them that all of the combat roles from 4E have been in the game more or less since the beginning and that WotC still clearly uses the model internally -- but just aren't dumb enough to tell the players any more.

 

[Emerikol]

And really if I followed the monster guideline rules all the time some of my groups would have been bored in almost any edition. A DM does need to understand the play skill of his groups when building an entire campaign let alone a dungeon. I do think over time if you play in my campaign your skill will increase.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If there was an "encounter guru/czar" at WOTC whose job was to check all encounters headed for publishing and validate them against the DMG guidelines we might have some real consistency. I am pretty sure this is not any one person's job

Given that they made the goblin cave at the beginning of Lost Mines harder in Phandelver and Below, it may not be anyone's job.

 

[bloodtide]

The typical person who writes an adventure does not use the DMG or The Rules. And just about never have. Unless they were hired to write an adventure that on the cover said "wow..look inside this cool adventure uses the offical DMG rules!" or such hype on the cover.

They write an adventure first. Rules are just things added on at the end to make the adventure look 'shinny' to the players that like such shinny things.

And really, D&D has never had rules for written planned linear adventures. And sure has had only sparse advice. And most of the better advice is not offical.

 

[FrogReaver]

The Dungeon Dudes did a deep dive on the new encounter building rules, and mentioned using them for a 17th level encounter and found that they work great.

Also, keep in mind that while some classes got stronger to catch up with other classes, most of the powerful nova capabilities got reduced, which should lead to encounters playing out in more similar fashion regardless of party composition.

I’m not sold that Nova damage across the board is clearly worse.

 

[Selas]

The Dungeon Dudes did a deep dive on the new encounter building rules, and mentioned using them for a 17th level encounter and found that they work great.

Also, keep in mind that while some classes got stronger to catch up with other classes, most of the powerful nova capabilities got reduced, which should lead to encounters playing out in more similar fashion regardless of party composition.

I actually watched their video and I think it was awesome. It should hopefully dispel some of the doubts some have about the new encounter system

 

[gorice]

Because a lot of players don't want to hear that. Their immediate response will be "Well, why am I paying for a DMG then?!?"

Most players don't want to be told the truth from the designers... they want to be told the designers are making the game exactly how they wish to play it. They need that pat on the head that their preferences are the "right" preferences by seeing them appear in the book.

I think this is more accurate as a description of the 2014 edition. What I've seen of the 2024 DMG has fewer options and more directed advice. It seems pretty clear to me at this point that WotC intends for players to be running more-or-less linear railroads, with combat encounters that don't pose a serious chance of failure, so that the party can get to the next plot point. This fits with the kind of linear adventures WotC sells.

Now, whether the underpaid freelancers who write their adventures actually get the combat maths right... Well, that's another matter.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think one of the things they loved about 4e was getting away from rules as physics. Meaning monster design rules that had to be followed. They went to exceptions based design instead and 5e still reflects that decision. In exceptions based design CR is an art as much as a science. I'm not saying it is bad either. It is a way.

Given 4e's XP Budget system worked great and 5.0's CR system worked only marginally better than the absolute wild mass guessing of 3e's CR system, I don't really think "exception-based design" is at fault for making CR as much art as science. 4e was remarkably reliable. Not absolutely so, because dice will be dice and players make the characters and parties they want to make etc., etc., but dramatically moreso than either 3e or 5.0.

If anything, the only game you mention here that even remotely approached "monster design rules that had to be followed" was 4e...and even then only to a pretty limited degree.

Encounter building in 3e was one of the single worst aspects of DMing it. I've lost--not joking--three 3e(/PF1e) DMs over the years very specifically due to encounter-building burnout. No other part of DMing it was anywhere near as time-consuming, vexing, and inconsistent.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because a lot of players don't want to hear that. Their immediate response will be "Well, why am I paying for a DMG then?!?"

Most players don't want to be told the truth from the designers... they want to be told the designers are making the game exactly how they wish to play it. They need that pat on the head that their preferences are the "right" preferences by seeing them appear in the book.

I want to hear what their actual design perimeters and intentions are. I've been asking for that for years now.