D&D (2024) GenCon 2023 - D&D Rules Revision panel

I'd even argue that the following would yield much more reliable results, forget all the 1 to 5 and how to interpret them nonsense.

1) do you prefer this over the 2014 version yes/no
2) if yes, is it good enough as is yes/no

That's it. Given the playtest experience, you should rate everything 5 you want to keep and everything 1 you do not, anything else is you fooling yourself / screwing yourself over.
It's already specifically 2.

Rating something 4 and then giving some qualitative feedback works, too. 4 is over 70%.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It's already specifically 2.

Rating something 4 and then giving some qualitative feedback works, too. 4 is over 70%.
except that I'd argue that you are really doing 1), not 2), and that you voting 4 just means you need so many more people voting 4 than 5 to drag it over the finish line. You are shooting yourself in the foot in a tug of war and intend to win...
 

It’s also, in my opinion, very bad at teaching the reader how to DM, which should be its primary purpose.
I disagree. I think Starter Sets should be designed in this way. I mean, the 1983 Mentzer set taught a literal entire generation how to DM. The DMG is for running the game as someone who is already familiar.
 

I disagree. I think Starter Sets should be designed in this way. I mean, the 1983 Mentzer set taught a literal entire generation how to DM. The DMG is for running the game as someone who is already familiar.
Ideally, it should do both. The template approach that Perkins has been previewing shows promise: teaches, but also serves as a reference framework for vets. Theybare apparently going to have a sample Adventure, example campaign, and example Setting, with guidance on how to build each one.
 

Ideally, it should do both. The template approach that Perkins has been previewing shows promise: teaches, but also serves as a reference framework for vets. Theybare apparently going to have a sample Adventure, example campaign, and example Setting, with guidance on how to build each one.
Which means most of the book is intro level infromation. That belongs ina seperate item than one of the 3 main books in a game. I absolutely think WotC should support new DMs (rather than just letting YouTube do it, as they have for the past few years) but I think that should be in its own poduct. Vet GMs need useful info too. There is a dearth of attention paid to "onging education" for GMs and one of the rare places you got anything was the DMG.

Teach people how to DM in a specific product, probably the same one that teaches people to play.

Again, I don't know how not to reiterate this: they are 90% of the way there with the original Starter Set. Just add a few sidebars and discussions about specific challenges in running the game, and you have the best intro to D&D ever made.
 

I disagree. I think Starter Sets should be designed in this way. I mean, the 1983 Mentzer set taught a literal entire generation how to DM. The DMG is for running the game as someone who is already familiar.
Both should, not everyone buys a starter set
 




well, then a few sidebars in Lost Mine won't do, or we are still talking about a relatively short chapter in the DMG...
What do you mean? Lost Mines is an excellent adventure that covers the breadth of what a D&D campaign looks like. If there was direct, specific advice in the presented encounters it would truly teach new GMs how to do the job, at least we'll enough to grab an adventure like Rime and run with it.

Have you ever tried to teach folks how to GM? I have. It isn't that hard, but you have to explain things with examples. Lost Mines IS the examples.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top