D&D (2024) Take A Closer Look At The 2024 Dungeon Master’s Guide

Wizards of the Coast has just shared a video delving into the upcoming One D&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, due for release in 2024.

​

Scroll down to post #4, below, for a more detailed text summary!

• Chapter 1 -- basic concepts
• Chapter 2 -- Advice, common issues
• Chapter 3 -- Rules cyclopedia
• Chapter 4 -- Adventure building
• Chapter 5 -- Campaign building
• Chapter 6 -- Cosmology
• Chapter 7 -- Magic items
• Chapter 8 -- 'A surprise'
• Appendices -- maps, lore glossary

 

[Zaukrie]

Surprise chapter all about the exploration pillar? That would be cool.....but not happening. A5e does it so well.

 

[mamba]

Yes, because WotC has been so transparent and ethical in what they've done recently that all the confusion must clearly just be all these unethical players' fault.

if you had problems understanding what WotC is saying, then it would be their fault. If you decide to disregard what they are saying, then that is your decision and any ‘confusion’ that stems from it is on you.

I was not happy with their whole OGL stance, but they ended up putting it under CC and were relatively honest about what they wanted to accomplish with the OGL change, how it did not accomplish that, and why they put it under CC.
So I do not approach One D&D from a ‘WotC is lying to me’ perspective, as you are. Any ‘confusion’ seems to stem from that.

 

[tetrasodium]

I totally love every one of your references.

Looking back it probably should have included crystal sphere and sealed sphere.

 

[Hurin70]

First thing I agree with.

That is a logical fallacy you fall victim to.
I don't know if it has a special name, but just because they failed with communication in one area does not make the one with clear communication incomorehensible...

Yes, fair point. I was engaging in what is generally called 'what aboutism'.

The more direct point I should have made is that the general confusion seems to stem, at least to some extent, from Wizards' use of terms that suggest a new edition ('One D&D', 'next generation') when that was never what was intended.

The marketing purpose here seems to be to benefit from a sense of newness even though there isn't supposed to be much that is new (or else backwards compatibility becomes just a marketing buzzword). That I think has to be acknowledged if we are being honest.

 

[Hurin70]

I was not happy with their whole OGL stance, but they ended up putting it under CC and were relatively honest about what they wanted to accomplish with the OGL change, how it did not accomplish that, and why they put it under CC.
So I do not approach One D&D from a ‘WotC is lying to me’ perspective, as you are. Any ‘confusion’ seems to stem from that.

Yes, you are adopting an uncritical attitude, and I am adopting a critical one. We can agree on that.

The fact that they were compelled to be 'relatively honest' after they were caught trying to be chaotic evil does not foster in me an uncritical attitude.

 

[Umbran]

That is just marketing bulls#!t, and trying to have it both ways.

If you enjoy that crap, all power to you. But I'll continue to call it out.

I do not see those ‘calling it out’ as having less of an agenda when doing so than WotC has with calling it compatible

You are not calling things out, you twist things around to fit your agenda

Mod Note:
Both of you should step back, take a breath, and use less angry, confrontational approaches, or this will go very badly.

Dial it back, please.

 

[mamba]

Yes, you are adopting an uncritical attitude, and I am adopting a critical one. We can agree on that.

The fact that they were compelled to be 'relatively honest' after they were caught trying to be chaotic evil does not foster in me an uncritical attitude.

yes, we can agree on us having different attitudes towards what they said. Being critical is not the same as flat out refusing to believe what someone says however.

Being critical would be to go by the evidence, ie the playtest material. Is it compatible with 5e or is it not.

The OGL evidence (as limited as we have access to) was in line with / did not contradict their explanations.

The playtest is compatible with 5e.

So I am looking at this critically, ie through the data we have. I am not so sure about you

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Actually, I am going to disagree with you here a bit.

Actually, I lot of people talk about how good 4e monster design was (a bit exaggerated IMO) and in particular Threats from the Nentir Vale. I do agree that book is probably the high water mark, or close to it, for 4e monster design.

I think a lot of the love for 4e monsters was not in their execution (many of them were terribly designed and I did nothing but complain about them at the time) but in their presentation. They were very simply presented for how dynamic they were to run. They generally always got to do at least One Cool Thing.

The execution was off for most of the edition's run (math problems, Solos being terrible, etc) but they were just about there at the end, when they were scrapped for 5e's design.

I would say the monster math was improved, but not "nailed down." At high levels and for solos, the monsters were terrible under powered. Blog42 did a great article on this: how, relatively speaking, epic level 4e monsters were weaker than heroic tier 4e monsters. The math is pretty straightforward and MM3 only helped very slightly.

Yes! They were also very easy to fix (which is one of the reasons that it was so frustrating that they didn't get them very to a very good point in print). I ran some really stellar encounters with them, though much like you, I had rebuilt most of them myself.

 

[EternalDungeonMaster]

I mean...since D&D started there has never been a coherent DMG. If they haven't figure out how to make one by now, I'm a bit skeptical that this "new, polished" version will all of a sudden crack the code.

But I'm a D&D nerd through and through, so I'll buy it and read it. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean...since D&D started there has never been a coherent DMG. If they haven't figure out how to make one by now, I'm a bit skeptical that this "new, polished" version will all of a sudden crack the code.

But I'm a D&D nerd through and through, so I'll buy it and read it. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised.

Nothing's perfect, but we can always hope for "better than it currently is".

This one sounds like it'll pull that off, in the very least.