D&D (2024) Dungeon Master's Guide Bastion System Lets You Build A Stronghold

The Dungeon Master's Guide's brand new Bastion System has been previewed in a new video from Wizards of the Coast.

Characters can acquire a bastion at 5th-level. Each week, the bastion takes a turn, with actions including crafting, recruiting, research, trade, and more.

A bastion also contains a number of special facilties, starting with two at 5th-level up to 6 at 17th-level. These facilities include things like armories, workshops, laboratories, stables, menageries, and more. In total there are nearly thirty such facilities to choose from.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I see no in-setting reason why bastions would have plot armor, based on what they represent in the world. Therefore, in my game, they don't.

There's no in game reason why the characters don't slip on a bar of soap in the shower and break their neck, or die of a brain aneurysm or get ALS. You simply choose not to have that occur. Unless you're writing for Flint in Dragonlance and he dies of old age while on guard duty. The DM is always choosing for things to happen or not based on the type of situations and conflict they want to see.

If you want some drama in the bastion, talk with your players and give them some prompts. Have them come up with the type of thing they would like to see play out. There was a game called the Quiet Year, which involed players drawing cards and picking several prompts to spell out conflict, boons, etc that befall their community. It encouraged ownership and adding additional details. Like "What are the sleeping arrangements in the settlement? Who is unhappy and why?" "Two of the settlements youngest characters get into a fight. What provoked them?"

Players portraying multiple characters is nothing new, even in D&D. Early player famously had a stable of characters. I think Dark Sun had the character tree. Ars Magica had players control their magi, comanions and grogs. Give the players some prompts and let them entertain you for a change!

Likewise Patrons can still be a thing, but its not an excuse to railroad the warlock under threat of losing their abilities. Some to the player with hooks, or have them toss some to you if they want the patron to be involved.

Lots of games encourage a more back and forth with the player and GM and blurring of the lines. D&D is doing the same.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I spent entire thread explaining why I think these rules will make DM's life harder, if they aren't there to oitright supplant us entierly.

Furthermore, I do not consider "yes, and" a sacred rule to begin with, merely one option on a spectrum beginning at "yes, and", going through "yes", "yes, but", "no, but", "no" and ending at "no, and".

Finally, if D&D was a more player-facing game like another game I run, Blades in the Dark, I'd maybe be more opne-minded. But ut is not and this system feels tacked on, a token attempt to have pkayer-facing rules.

Also, third party additions are usually, you know, better. Like, actually thought out and put a care into.

Not from where I am looking at this thread. You have spent a lot of energy and effort to convince people that do not agree with you that they are wrong. Not that some of those people have put in an effort to convince you that you are wrong also.

I get that you do not like these rules, I do not see how they can supplant the DM entirely. They are in the DMG so it would appear to me that makes them optional and without actually seeing these rules, I do not consider any other case made.

It may be that these rules add nothing to the game but none of the possible scenarios posited by you or anyone else objecting to these rules could not be solved by an honest conversation between all concerned.

NOTE: Some Edits made for clarity.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Because, in response to my concerns, people started making assumptions about my table and that pissed me off

And maybe other posters may perceived your "concerns and pointing" as assumptions against their tables or their GMing style if they do consider using those rules, no?

In the end, who cares about the things they imagine about your table? We are all just internet noises to one another.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Whatever should or should not be possible with the bastion... talk about it with your group.

You can figure it out together.

On no! Common sense!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Totally, especially since we this is about rules we have not yet seen. What it reinforces to me is how conservative the play community is. Even after many years of encouraging Dm to "..yes, and" the first reaction of many people to a proposed new subsystem from WoTC is "Hell, no, not at my table".

No, wonder we only see significant rules innovation attempts from third parties, since they can toss the system out there and see what sticks.

Maybe there are people who are interested in rules innovation, but aren't fans of "yes, and"-style play? The two ideas aren't inextricably bound.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They are in the DM so it would appear to me that makes them optional and without actually seeing these rules

The linked-to article indicates they are optional, since it states that the DM can give a bastion to the player as a quest reward, the player cannot initiate having a bastion.

But I’ve already pointed this out, and I’m going round in circles. Haters gotta hate. This definitely looks like a case of “I’m not going to use these rules anyway, but I hate that someone else might use them.” There is also an element of “players creating content in D&D is badwrongfun.”

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Strongholds & Followers by MCDM publishing, you're welcome.

Personally, I find that Strongholds and Followers is more geared towards campaign that are political and diplomatic in tier 2 and 3. but otherwise not generally useful.
I think that this game could use more optional rules from WoTC. In principle I really like the idea of bastions, I did not care for the specific implementation in the UA but I will wait and see before I judge these rules and at the end of the day my players may not find any value in them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've

There's no in game reason why the characters don't slip on a bar of soap in the shower and break their neck, or die of a brain aneurysm or get ALS. You simply choose not to have that occur. Unless you're writing for Flint in Dragonlance and he dies of old age while on guard duty. The DM is always choosing for things to happen or not based on the type of situations and conflict they want to see.

If you want some drama in the bastion, talk with your players and give them some prompts. Have them come up with the type of thing they would like to see play out. There was a game called the Quiet Year, which involed players drawing cards and picking several prompts to spell out conflict, boons, etc that befall their community. It encouraged ownership and adding additional details. Like "What are the sleeping arrangements in the settlement? Who is unhappy and why?" "Two of the settlements youngest characters get into a fight. What provoked them?"

Players portraying multiple characters is nothing new, even in D&D. Early player famously had a stable of characters. I think Dark Sun had the character tree. Ars Magica had players control their magi, comanions and grogs. Give the players some prompts and let them entertain you for a change!

I've used the Quiet Year quite successfully more than once as part of my session zero. It's a great way to collaboratively make a setting. My current game used it.

Once play began, however, we stopped using it and started playing 5e (Level Up in my case). At that point, the players control their PCs, and the DM controls everyone else.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Maybe there are people who are interested in rules innovation, but aren't fans of "yes, and"-style play? The two ideas aren't inextricably bound.

If they are interested in rules innovation, then they would be unlikely to simply knee jerk reject new optional rules sight unseen, would they? irrespective of their opinions to "yes and?".

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Urg. Yuck.

My days of treating everything like a bomb squad, pixel bitching my way through the dungeon with a 10 foot pole are thankfully long behind me. I'm not against traps when they make sense and they make an encounter interesting, but, yeah, the whole "gotcha" thing is something I'm glad has been largely relegated to the dustbin.

And, again, IME, what happens when you have that sort of NPC that kills your character in his sleep is that the players stop interacting with npc's

That's my take. Plus its also pointless, because gotcha DM's are unsatisfied even once they get you trained to follow door opening procedure. Oh you listend at the door? Now you got those brain worm things that crawl in your ears. Oh you searched for traps? You triggered the tiny explosive runes that the bad guys know not to read. You probed with a 10 foot pole? The trap is set to go off 11 feet from the switch. Its a constant treadmill.