More and more info releases and people who want to say it’s backwards compatible are just fooling themselves. Sure it sort of is but you massively benefit from just using the newer core.
“We readjusted all the monsters”. IE using the old MM monsters is outdated and subpar but sure you can use them.
The fanbase: "A lot of the monsters in the MM are terribly balanced, wizards should errata and fix them"
Wizards: "Well, since we are doing a massive revision of the rules, let's go back and rebalance the monsters to make sure they are where they should be"
The Fanbase: "See, clearly Wizards hates the old game because now they are making it so the monsters in the MM are out-dated and terribly balanced!"
I am seriously glad I never got into game design. Fix things, you are a POS for changing things, don't fix things, you are a POS for not changing things. Explain things? You are clearly lying. Don't explain things? You are scheming and being secretive. It is exhausting to just read, I can't imagine what it would be like to work under those conditions.
Thinking about the new DMG, I doubt the stronghold rules will be in there, as that seems to be rather player facing content.
I think a brief point-of-lights or First world setting/adventure makes some sense, but they did say they were planning on having a lot more examples in the text alongside their advice, so that might be how they work that in.
In an effort to get back on topic I want to talk about the TCoE session zero rules mentioned by Perkins. They are on page 139 v& pretty much continue on to 141 with various related tangents. On more than one occasion I've gone to look for those rules because someone mentioned them, but each time I'm quickly reminded "oh yea, I scrobbed them from my memory because they are useless to me as a GM". I might even be giving them too much credit there because I spent a while trying to decide if they are actively harmful or just needlessly hostile but decided it's close enough that they are just useless.
Through those pages the GM is given the following responsibilities:
As the DM, youcan help players during the character creation process by advising them to select options that will serve the adventure or campaign that awaits.
The players are under no obligation to work with you, have no guidance on doing so, & even have character creation rules in the PHB that don't even bother to mention working with anyone until a character is gfully built.
Why would the DUNGEON MASTER'S guide include instructions for the player? They aren't supposed to be reading that guide. They are players. This isn't some obligation thing, this is telling DMs that it is perfectly fine to "spoil" things by advising the players on things like "Hey, you want to play a Paladin? I'm not really planning on a large prescence of undead and fiends, so the devotion's abilities won't be as useful"
And, despite the PHB never once telling the players they can work with someone else, somehow every single player I've ever shown the game to figured out they can ask for help. Shocking that.
Each player has options when it comes to choosing a character race, class, and background, though youmayrestrict certain options that are deemed unsuitable for the campaign.
Same problem as before but worse. You as the GM need to either strictly limit or foresee any possible clash & squash it now even though players have nothing encouraging them to work with you or describe how they might do so during chargen
Somehow telling the DM that it is perfectly fine for them to restrict options if they want to is a problem. Sure, the PHB doesn't say anything about this.... except for the second page of the PHB " Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."
Or in the various places where it says to check with your DM, like the drow entry on pg 24 or the the variant human on pg 41.
Also, why would they need to describe what working together looks like? Don't people... know what it means to work together?
If there are multiple players in the group, youshould encourage them to choose different classes so that the adventuring party has a range of abilities.
No. Just no... 5e was made so every character is a one man army with isekai main character plot armor levels over the top skills abilities & insulation from risk. I can't encourage it because players have no pressure to do so and nothing telling them how they might do so. I'm tired of trying to push this only to have most or all of the group go mute, open their books, & start following "chapter 1: step by step character creation" in silent isolation as described in RAW. This isn't something the GM can accomplish with so little support we have players using a core rulebook actively working against the GM's efforts. Even more frustrating here is that back in 2e & 3.x players would often actively engage in this unprompted because they wanted to make sure their weaknesses were covered by someone else in the group, it was just common sense that the tank would make sure someone could heal them & the controller would make sure someone could make use of their controlled targets & so on with the healer glass cannon rogue & so on. PCs don't have weaknesses they feel pressure to be worried about getting hung out to dry anymore & the player facing rules don't even hint at doing it.
This is just a rant that misses the entire point of the advice, and has nothing to do with the advice itself. This isn't about "if you don't have a trap master you will all die a horrible, screaming death, so make sure someone can handle traps" but is more about "if you have three people who are focused on dealing with traps, they may overlap and not feel like they get as much chance to shine, so encourage them to diversify." Because, yeah, as we have seen with the discussion of the "heal-bot" and the cleric, turns out people hated that there were roles no one wanted to play but that were vitally necessary to success.
And, despite your continuous rants on the subject, I still find players look to having a healer and a main tank and ect.
you should work with the player to decide who that generous benefactor is and build relevant storylines into the larger campaign.
This is a reference to a BIFT based example of ""I'm trying to pay off an old debt I owe to a generous benefactor" but it's a mess for several reasons. I have 5 players barely working with me & some of them only doing it in hopes of invoking rule zero to gain extra abilities like whatever is linked to the generous benefactor... I don't have the ability to weave in five of these kind of threads at this point because none of those five are making any effort to work with each other at this point. Worse than those reasons is the fact that players are one hundred percent free to simply nosell anything related to this if I do bring it up.... Even if that nosell would result in burned bridges the players have PCs that don't actually need anything that might be put in the lurch & the GM has no fate compel type tools that might be able to at least patch a prepped adventure linked to such a thing. Don't relegate the GM to the role of author for a player's self insert fanfic if the Players are not discouraged from ignoring the hooks or even slightly pressured to bite the hook.
No this is not a case of "give your players what they want" or "you & your players need to agree on the type of campaign" because the GM has multiple players in no way pressured to work together. Not only that the players come to the session zero & zero+N primed by a PHB to believe that they are The Main Character surrounded by sidekicks who have the job of getting with The Main Character's story.. "D&D is about telling your story" & all that. A player should write a book if they want to tell a story because the order of operations is GM describes ->players react. With that order a story forms through the events that develop & choices made not by a player telling it
This again just reads like a rant, because you have problematic players. Seriously, why are you talking like you need to compel players to work together? Yes, the players should get the ability to no sell ideas that don't fit. No one likes having to put in the time and effort to embody a character only to find out that they are going to be forced to play out a story they have no interest in.
I played a character some time ago who was married. I told the DM flat-out, I had zero interest in a plot line where my character's wife leaves him or cheats on him. Because I had zero interest in that. Yes, it could have been "dramatic" but held no story I was interested in exploring.
Now, yes, Main character syndrome is a problem, but it isn't a problem that needs to be solved by coercing players into working together or compel people into playing your story. Sure, weaving together five different elements isn't easy, but it is made easier by not trying to have "shocking twists" or surprises. Talk to your players, as a group, and say "hey, we've got a benefactor here, and this element here, maybe we could combine them like this?" and if the players say "No, that doesn't sound fun or interesting" then you know that doesn't appeal to them, and can figure something else out.
But, the reason this advice exists is because a lot of the time, DMs will just ignore everything you build into your character's backstory. I had a DM who I knew did this, every time we played together I would make a character with a backstory, and they would completely ignore every single element of it, so I started writing in completions to my backstory and closing those threads, because otherwise they just dangled forever because the DM didn't want me to even have a backstory, but I can't make a character who springs fully formed from the aether with no history. So the book says "hey DMs, we gave players these hooks for you to utilize, so try and make sure you utilize them"
During session zero, your role is to let the players build the characters theywant and to help them come up with explanations for how their characters came together to form an adventuring party.
How about a player facing section about how they need to work with the GM to fit the GM's world campaign & so forth rather than just stonewalling & trying to work in loopholes to get things the GM said no to or a section on how it's important for the player to remember this kind of stuff & act as if it remains the case rather than just ignore it
This reminds me of a Puffin Forest video. A guy invited Puffin to a 4e game, where he had great hopes for the players. The guy then invited two people brand-new to DnD... and at every character creation point, told the new people "this is what the character you make has to look like". You, the DM, aren't playing the character. You, the DM, should work with the players to help build characters those players are actually interested in. Because if they aren't interested, then just like that video, after they feel it is socially acceptable, those players will leave and never come back. Because if they aren't interested, why would they continue to play?
This is advice, and the advice is to prevent the above. To prevent the DM who is reading it from approaching things like "and these characters would be great for my next nove- I mean campaign!"
And, again, your description here just sounds like bad player expeirences. I've had players who wanted to do crazy and ridiculous things. Had a guy recently who wanted to play a warforged possessed by the souls of dead children. But I was able to work with him, and figure out ways we could both be happy with the situation. I didn't need to shut him down and tell him his idea was stupid and would never work in MY world. Also, the PHB doesn't assume that the players WILL go outside of the options presented in the PHB, and where they would it is quite clear on "talk to your DM". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZknKIWDA1XU
Here are some questions you can ask the players as they create characters to get a sense of the party's relationships:
• Are any of the characters related to each other?
• What keeps the characters together as a party?
• What does each character like most about every
other member of the adventuring party?
• Does the group have a patron? See chapter 2, "Group Patrons," for patron examples.
Again everything from the last point still applies, the GM is still in a position where they need to fight the PHB in a ryuleset that provides no pressures for the players to actively participate on this rather than just saying whatever needs saying to convince the GM to let them continue by making characters in isolation & throwing their backstories at the GM.
Serious question. Do you think a rule in the PHB that stated "If you don't work with your DM while making your backstory, reduce your health by 50%" would be a good rule? How are you supposed to pressure players into working with the DM? What does that even mean? And what about DMs who have no interest in working with the players? What are the player's supposed to do when the PHB creates "pressures" for them to do this, but the DM has no interest?
And, this is also baffling to me, because this here is the solution to that issue you had a bit ago, about weaving together different story elements from multiple players AND how to combat Main Character Syndrome. Ta-Da! Here is that solution, working with the players to create the party dynamics. But instead you want there to be rules about pressuring players to work together?
If the players are having trouble coming up with a story for how their characters met, they may choose an option from the Party Origin table or let a d6 roll choose it for them. You should spend part of session zero helping the players flesh out the details. For example, if the characters came together to overcome a common foe, the identity of this enemy needs to be determined. If a funeral gathered the group, the identity of the deceased and each character's relationship to them will need to be fleshed out.
Don't just dump this on the GM & walk away without player facing guidance here. The GM has very little control over this and this is a system that makes efforts to defang any risks that could be associated with doing this poorly or simply ignoring it on a later session. The bulk of this text needs to be player facing not aimed at the GM.
Okay, I will concede, some of this text should be player facing. But look at the PHB, it is already full to bursting with the actual rules of the game. And you don't need control or fangs here. You are just asking the players "okay, how did you all meet". What control do you even want here that you don't have? Why is this something you need to control? And, what fangs do you need for doing "how did you meet" poorly? What does that even mean?
The way I do this sort of thing is really simple. I use a lot of "No, but" and "yes, And". If two players come up with something I truly don't see making sense, then I would go "Well, I'm not sure that would work because (gives reasons), but what if we tried (gives alternative)." And yes, the players might veto me, but that is far preferable to me being able to veto them, because unhappy players aren't going to want to continue playing.
Session zero is the perfect time for you and the players to discuss the experience they're hoping for, as well as topics, themes, and behavior theydeem inappropriate.
It's hard to be more blatant with telling the GM to just give the players what they want and do your job without actually saying it.
Dude, what? This is actually very important advice. Discussing what themes, topics and behavior your players see as inappropriate and not something they are interested in is massively important. Without that knowledge, you can step in it BIG TIME. I should know. I once had a game where two of my players were dating, and they rolled a married couple. They didn't do much with that plot line, and I forgot about it when I had a dryad charm and seduce one of them, which led to both of them being uncomfortable and the one character flying into a murderous rage that nearly split the party. We had to retcon the entire thing. And that was entirely my fault.
Knowing what experience they are hoping for? My man, have you ever attempted to run a political intrigue game for a group who is more interested in a hackfest? It doesn't work well. Playing a hackfest when you are looking for an engaging story? Boring as heck. This isn't "just give them what they want" this is making sure expectations align so everyone is having the most fun possible. And yes, session zero is the best time for it, because session 9 is a little late too find out everyone is bored out of their minds and had no interest in the game style you ended up using.
At no point are the players encouraged to work with the GM or accept the fact that sometimes the GM might need to make changes not covered during a session zero doctoral thesis presentation because one or more players forced their hand. You as the GM need to cover every possible thing during session zero without losing player interest or allowing unexpected loopholes/problematic cracks & plsyers are under no obligation to really work with you.
Dude, no one is expecting you to be perfect. No one is expecting a doctoral thesis presentation, or that you covered every single possible thing under the sun. Yeah, sometimes you don't fit it all in session zero, and you have to continue it into sessions two and even three. But knowing this is the type of stuff to do early, instead of not doing it at all? Useful.
That goes on & on in a loop like that with all of the responsibility put on the GM's shoulders. The only exception is these
The players will respect you and the effort it takes to create a fun game for everyone. The players will allow you to direct the campaign, arbitrate the rules, and settle arguments. When you are talking, the players are listening.
• The players will respect one another, listen to one another, support one another, and do their utmost to preserve the cohesion of the adventuring party.
Players are not directed to help or work with the GM on any of that... just sit back and "allow" the GM to do it all because they showed up to be The Star.
That's not a reasonable or even useful section of GM facing text. Experienced GMs can handle those things easily enough given active player participation & doesn't need to be told such vague generalities. Inexperienced GMs need advice on handling it. Both types of GMs need players who are amenable to actively working with them in good faith because much of it is areas where the GM has very little control or say over things the players can't simply ignore later, getting players to that state is where the bulk of the Session Zero text needs to lie. This couple pages in TCoE may as well be a tvtropes or wikipedia entry intended for a hostile GM who doesn't understand why they are toxic.
Sure, the inexpeirenced GM needs more specific advice, I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean this advice is bad.
But I don't get this idea that the GM needs some control over things the players "can't ignore later". Session zero can't make people want to work together, if you are in that state, you need far more than a session zero. But you keep presenting this like there is something the rules can do to make players do things they don't want to do, or that somehow the PHB is encouraging people to sit in isolated rooms, drafting their own personal novels, then grunting at the DM when the DM tries to talk to them.
Yes, the advice could be a little more focused on the how, but at a certain point you are talking about the book offering a "how to talk to people in a social situation" advice, and the DMG isn't the place for that.
Perkins also talked in the video about the importance of teaching the history of the game to new DMs picking up their first DMG. Showing how to create a campaign world by walking thru how Gygax created Greyhawk would fit that bill perfectly. And I could see a lot of long time players picking up the DMG just for that. And so I'll say...
Thinking about the new DMG, I doubt the stronghold rules will be in there, as that seems to be rather player facing content.
I think a brief point-of-lights or First world setting/adventure makes some sense, but they did say they were planning on having a lot more examples in the text alongside their advice, so that might be how they work that in.
It's a section of advice targeted at an audience other than the one that needs to be the one getting the information in order to meet any useful goal. The PHB & DMG are written for the same game but need to have information that targets the side of a gm screen that most effectively supports the game. Pert of that involves putting information in the book that needs it. Unfortunately this is a case where the GM starts out fighting uphill & against the current because of how the PHB so deeply pushes "you be you [don't worry about the unmentioned GM & rest of table]" to players.
In this case the TCoE session zero section is targeted at some vanishingly small segment of the community made up of players who really want to have a session zero but can't because the GM doesn't believe it's a thing if wotc didn't publish it. That crumb of a slice of a slice is probably not large enough to justify having nearly three full pages devoted to it making it a pretty big failure to support players who don't know what it is. The whole quest in 5e's design was simplicity at all costs no matter the cost, supposedly to make it easy for new players... A session zero section that dumps the entire task of getting the bulk of the table up to speed on what is assumed by the text to be the freshest & noobiest of newbie DMs who don't even know what a session zero is fails once more in a category that results in actively making things needlessly difficult for the only remaining person at the table not directly failed by the first failure.
Session zero advice needs to be in the PHB not DMG & written towards getting the players ready to constructively participate in session zero rather than writing it to dump the task of doing that on a DM who doesn't even know what a session zero is. The GM facing section in the DMG need not even exist simply because there should be general sections about the very ongoing GM side collaboration things like working with players on X.
I agree, especially about the flexibility. When I use skill challenges, I make sure to have a few examples of things the players can do that are relevant to the situation, but also just go with the "yes and" approach. The rule of cool is the main ingredient to a great skill challenge in my opinion. I let the players know that we are doing a skill challenge, and I also started letting them know what style and mood I have in mind for it. Like running a challenge where they are trapped in a house with an army of badguys outside, and I compare it to a western movie like Young Guns, so the players know what cinematic approach fits the theme of the situation. Then I let the players come up with ideas and just say "yes and" followed by a skill roll.
I've run skill challenges like the above situation, one where the players had to lure an astral dreadnought to the githyanki city (through a modron march and an astral ship graveyard) and a simple chase through the city, and they worked by being flexible and saying yes to crazy ideas.
It might be difficult to include in a basic DMG, but I think it can be done. A bit like the simple and complex traps in Xanathar's.
I agree, especially about the flexibility. When I use skill challenges, I make sure to have a few examples of things the players can do that are relevant to the situation, but also just go with the "yes and" approach.
same
When I used skill challenges I use them the same way I would any other encounter... here is the straight forward answer, and if you come up with something else we will try it. However like the people who want to "I cut off his head" with the first shot I don't allow circumventing the rest of the encounter.
I haven't, mainly because I'm kinda allergic to anything related to Magic the Gathering though I have to admit that Ravnica had some ideas that I've used for my game.
I'm assuming you have something specific in mind? I must admit I have no clue what is in that book except an owl PC race.
I haven't, mainly because I'm kinda allergic to anything related to Magic the Gathering though I have to admit that Ravnica had some ideas that I've used for my game.
I'm assuming you have something specific in mind? I must admit I have no clue what is in that book except an owl PC race.
as a school setting it has a lot of set ups for 'skill challenges' starting with studying for a test giving you bonus dice to roll to add to knowledge skills That I cribbed for doing research on monsters or locations. They also have sports events that are opposed skill checks in a pattern that I used to help round out my 5e skill challenges.
though I have to admit that Ravnica had some ideas that I've used for my game. 
