D&D (2024) I have the DMG. AMA!

[TwoSix]

I have not trouble working with a player to run a story decision; however, I have a big problem with a rule that forbids action if it is not a mutual decision.

And I have a problem with a rule that would allow the DM to unilaterally change the core of a player's contribution, which is their conception of their character.

I'm glad the most recent DMG supports this interpretation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I have a problem with a rule that would allow the DM to unilaterally change the core of a player's contribution, which is their conception of their character.

I'm glad the most recent DMG supports this interpretation.

I wish it didn't, at least not in the mandate fashion that quote indicates.

Like I said, 5.5 is the player empowerment so they spend more money on the brand edition.

 

[Belen]

In terms of game play, can you see the difference between My PC is being pursued - which is a framework for establishing scenes and seeding conflict - and My god as removed my abilities - which means the player can't play their position any more?

No. Role playing is part of game play. It has consequences. I am not worried about position.

Now, maybe the player comes to me and wants to set up a story or plot point around their character switching deities etc. Then that is cool. We will build on it together.

Honestly, though, if it comes to the point where a player is intentionally making such in-game choices without talking to the DM, then there is already something wrong at the table. I tend to give a ton of player freedom and choice and will work with them within the bounds of the setting but there needs to be a level of respect between both parties.

The most likely scenario is that one or the other person will leave the group.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't make assumptions that go against my preferences simply because of some obligation to follow DMG advice with which I disagree. No such obligation exists.

A basic principle I follow for DMing is "If there's two ways to interpret something, and one way makes people happy and the other way makes people sad, I'm going to pick the first one."

I would rather choose the fiction that releases players from the worry that their character's powers might get taken away (unless that's a storyline they would like to explore.)

 

[TwoSix]

I wish it didn't, at least not in the mandate fashion that quote indicates.

Like I said, 5.5 is the player empowerment so they spend more money on the brand edition.

Well, I'm not buying the book either; it seems there's little reason if it's just reiterating positions I already hold.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A basic principle I follow for DMing is "If there's two ways to interpret something, and one way makes people happy and the other way makes people sad, I'm going to pick the first one."

I would rather choose the fiction that releases players from the worry that their character's powers might get taken away (unless that's a storyline they would like to explore.)

But what makes me happy, is classes in a class based game being strong thematic archetypes, and a cleric not needing to care about their god goes against that. If a cleric is just another a generic mage, I don't need a separate class for it.

 

[Belen]

A basic principle I follow for DMing is "If there's two ways to interpret something, and one way makes people happy and the other way makes people sad, I'm going to pick the first one."

I would rather choose the fiction that releases players from the worry that their character's powers might get taken away (unless that's a storyline they would like to explore.)

The player is agreeing to the setting and campaign when they start play. If they want to violate the fiction without talking to the DM, then the DM should be able to lay out consequences.

Again, I feel like this only indicates a toxic issue with the group or person. The rule seems aimed to inhibit toxic DMs but could empower toxic players.

 

[TwoSix]

But what makes me happy, is classes in a class based game being strong thematic archetypes, and a cleric not needing to care about their god goes against that. If a cleric is just another a generic mage, I don't need a separate class for it.

Well, I would clarify that it goes against the archetype you're familiar with. It's fairly trivial to reshape the archetype to where the cleric is a servant of their god but ultimately not dependent on them for their powers.

This is the way I've been running clerics for 20 years, so it's not like I'm making stuff to be argumentative. When a god makes a cleric, they're essentially changing their soul to be more "god-like" and tap into the universal pool of divine energy. The gods and their churches obviously don't advertise this, and the few clerics who do figure it out are usually condemned as heretics and apostates.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why rename Madness to Mental Stress? Madness sounds cooler and is more in line with playing a fantasy game.

Obviously, WoTC does not want to encourage ANY MORE SKA!

It's a public service.

 

[OB1]

Here's an interesting tidbit! In the Gods and Divine Magic section, it states this "For game purposes, wielding divine power isn’t dependent on the gods’ ongoing approval or the strength of a character’s devotion. The power is a gift offered to a select few; once given, it can’t be rescinded."

In other words: "No, DMs, you're not allowed to punish a wayward cleric PC by having their god revoke their clerical powers."

Love this, and like that it's still open to the idea that if you fall out of your gods favor, you may need to go to another god to continue getting gifts (leveling up). At least, it's ambiguous enough that a DM could rule either way I think. I've always run Warlocks that way, and will now bring that over to clerics.