• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

WotC shares video with a deeper dive

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
 

log in or register to remove this ad

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
If the players don't care about what you think they should when you are DMing then you have two reasonable choices:
  1. Change what you are doing to focus on the things they do care about.
  2. Accept that your DMing is not a good fit for the game those players in specific want to play.
There's a reason I'm running my 4e retroclone for one group and Apocalypse World for my other. Each group has a everyone loving the system and at least two players who'd hate the other one. And part of the point of session zero is to make sure you don't set off on the wrong foot.

And yes Session Zero guidance could be better written. So could just about everything else in the DMG.
3. Find players willing to buy into the campaign you're running.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Your post and its ungenerous commentary led me to go back and look at how Char-gen was framed in previous editions. I admit I don't have access to all the core books, but I will try and look at as many as I have access to...

The Red Box spends the majority of its time teaching you the mechanics through a "Choose your own Adventure" style solo quest. During that, you do not generate your own PC but instead play a fighter with premade stats in the book. Once character generation is reached on page 23, the only guidance resembling team construction is " When you play in a group, you may play your fighter, or you may choose any of the other six characters included in the center of this booklet. [...] If you have 4-6 people in the group, try to play most of the characters given." Beyond that, there are no instructions given beyond how to design your character except the single set of rules provided. As a beginning or teaching tool, that makes sense; there is no need to muddle things up with the notion of House Rules.

The definitive edition of Basic, this product was designed for people familiar with D&D rather than to teach concepts. It's a little more like a PHB. Its character creation rules DOES present the notion of Session Zero however! "If the Dungeon Master is just beginning a new campaign, he should call everyone together for a session where all players create their characters and where he describes the campaign world in which the others will be playing." And that's it. Everything else in the character chapter assumes no player or DM input until you get to equipment, where the DM again interjects "Be sure to ask your Dungeon Master if everything on that list is available in his campaign. If his campaign deviates a lot from the "standard" D&D® game campaign, he could have a very different list of equipment, which he should provide for you." However, the RC assumes that the DM will roll 3d6/order for ability scores, allow access to the seven core classes, roll for hp and money, and that your ability scores will decide what class composition your group exists of.

Chargen in High Gygaxian. Unlike previous books, the 1e PHB doesn't assume anyone playing isn't familiar with the concept of the game. Ergo, there is no hand-holding chapter going through the steps. We start out on the ability score chapter, after a discussion on the term with "level", with " The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. The Dungeon Master will inform you as to which method you may use to determine your character's abilities" No actual default method is given. We move onto race, where again Gygax injects "The Dungeon Master may have restrictions as to which races are allowed in the campaign due to the circumstances of the milieu.". Gary is more open when we get the classes chapter, stating after a brief description of each class "It is up to you to select what class you desire your character to be." with no hint that certain classes may or may not be off limits.

I'm looking at the Black "Revised" version, which is 99% compatible with the original release but noted for in case there is minor differences. Chargen is outlined on page 16 with a one-page guide to the steps. It's more-or-less useless as is except as a flow-chart, and everything forces you to various chapters. The DM's input is utterly omitted from this page except to "Ask your DM what spells your character knows" if playing a Wizard. Diving into the chapters, the player is advised to "... ask your DM if he allows players to use optional method for rolling up characters" The DM is not discussed in the racial section (assuming all six races would open to play) but for the first time, class options are restricted; "Fighter mage, cleric, and thief are the standard classes. They are legendary archetypes that are common to many different cultures. Thus, they are appropriate for any sort of AD&D game campaign. All other classes are optional. Your DM may decide that one or the optional classes are not appropriate to his campaign setting. Check with your DM before selecting an optional character class." Proficiencies (specifically nonweapon) are listed as optional, with the term "provide your DM allows this..." The equipment chapter also carves caveats for what kind of money a DM will have and what will be added or removed from the equipment list.
Despite 2e giving A LOT more control over his world to the DM, I find it interesting we aren't setting any "work with other players" rhetoric; you are still assumed to be making a character in a bubble, but your DM has a lot more control over said bubble.

I lumped both of these together because other than 3.0 having numbered the steps, they are exactly the same. This the origin of Rule Zero: "CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER // Your DM may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from these rules. You should also find out what the other players have created so that your character fits into the group." Can't be any clearer than that.

Boy Howdy what a reversal. Befitting the edition that trying to unify the D&D experience, 4e's character creation guide begins with "First, take a minute to imagine your character. Think about the kind of hero you want your character to be. Your character exists in your imagination—all the game statistics do is help you determine what your character can do in the game." It then goes through the steps, with only one nod to thinking beyond your own PC " You should pick the race and class combination that interests you the most. However, sometimes it’s a good idea to first consider the role you want your character to fill. For example, if you join an existing game and none of the other players are playing a character in the defender role, you would help them out by playing a fighter or a paladin." The DM, nor the notion any anything might be omitted, is ever mentioned for the rest of the chapter. Roles though again mention the notion of party balance and hint at expansion; " It’s a good idea to cover each role with at least one character. If you have five or six players in your group, it’s best to double up on defender first, then striker. If you don’t have all the roles covered, that’s okay too—it just means that the characters need to compensate for the missing function. // Future volumes of the Player’s Handbook will introduce additional classes for all these roles."

Aka the Essentials book. I realize there was a companion volume to this one with the remaining classes and races, but I only bothered to grab this one. I don't think it matters, it mostly repeats the information found in the 4e PHB, often times with the same (or slightly abridged language). Again, the book focuses on "imagine your character, thinking about the kind of adventurer you want to play." and "If you don't have all the roles covered, that's fine; it just means that t h e group needs to compensate for the missing function in some manner." The DM is nowhere to be found.

Having looked at all of these, I don't think any of them really handle what you're talking about super well. Basic and 4e give nods to party composition, AD&D (1e and 2e) are scattershot on their approach fo chargen, and 3e is the gold standard on being clear the DM supersedes the rule book
while 4e is explicitly the opposite, but none of them were exceptionally good at this notion of char-gen as a group activity; each assumes the player does the majority of the work in isolation (or with the permissions of the DM). In that regard, the 5e material you quotes appears to be in line with the Basic and 4e versions the most.

I do hope the Revised 5e PHB addresses this, but this problem is FAR older than the 2014 PHB...
I mostly skipped 4e so going to walk around that Nothing I'm writing here is intended to have anything to do with 4e & any relation is probably just coincidence :D.

Everything you said is true & I mostly or entirely agree with the words you wrote -but- there are other factors that helped then and make the 5e equivalence letting it ride as is a failure. Those two factors collide in very problematic ways that very much justify 5e simply letting it ride deserving of unglamourous criticism, some of that criticism even referenced those elements of help & harm.

In the older editions up till 3.x at least players made PCs who faced a much higher bar of lethality with less easy recovery*. The GM could do things like providing cheap potions & wands of CLW or regularly handwave rest times. This alone provided mechanical pressure & a fast learning curve on the kinds of things players in the group should talk about during chargen to avoid another trainwreck like that. Even though "Session Zero" as a term & codified thing is a much more recently elevated thing it was extremely common for players to engage in it or similar well before it went from "meet up & make characters" to "Session Zero." Resting & recovery are so utterly trivialized in 5e while monsters are defanged from providing that pressure due to various bonkers baseline expectations (no magic item expectations no feat expectations, wackamole healing, etc). All of that combined means that the player facing chargen text can't just let that section on chargenride as it's always been.

The second big problem is that 5e itself made some huge changes with an impact on chargen that is both inseparable & a thing that requires the chargen text to be better. That change was a deliberate attempt to make a core of slightly modified d20 ruleset more story driven. You can hear Mearls talking about the half that we didn't get at about 1:21:20 here where he talks about a greedy rogue & fate style compels, but we still got the player facing half in BIFTs & background features. That half has a huge impact that for the first time (again ignore 4e) we no longer had adventurer as a social class... Worse still the shift of making magic items "optional" not at all supported by monster math directly conflicted with a well documented GM tool for the GM in a way that actively made things more difficult for the GM as that linked 2e page described/outright stated.

Berift of the old mechanical pressures alongside this huge injection of problematic influences the old style of chargen text is now reprehensibly inadequate for the GM who is now pressured to teach their players how to do what once developed organically within as few sessions while the GM is expected to foresee any & all possible needs/problems to present whatever houserules limits restrictions requirements and so on during session zero. That all needs to be done without losing or overloading players causing a "You should have brough that up in session zero" veto card to get left on the table for any player to grab should the GM need to do anything outside strict RAW simply because it could have been raised in S0.


* Yea "Less easy" rolls off the tongue weirdly but "more difficult" isn't quite accurate for what it was either. "Less easy" is a better fit.
 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
I mostly skipped 4e so going to walk around that Nothing I'm writing here is intended to have anything to do with 4e & any relation is probably just coincidence :D.

Everything you said is true & I mostly or entirely agree with the words you wrote -but- there are other factors that helped then and make the 5e equivalence letting it ride as is a failure. Those two factors collide in very problematic ways that very much justify 5e simply letting it ride deserving of unglamourous criticism, some of that criticism even referenced those elements of help & harm.

In the older editions up till 3.x at least players made PCs who faced a much higher bar of lethality with less easy recovery*. The GM could do things like providing cheap potions & wands of CLW or regularly handwave rest times. This alone provided mechanical pressure & a fast learning curve on the kinds of things players in the group should talk about during chargen to avoid another trainwreck like that. Even though "Session Zero" as a term & codified thing is a much more recently elevated thing it was extremely common for players to engage in it or similar well before it went from "meet up & make characters" to "Session Zero." Resting & recovery are so utterly trivialized in 5e while monsters are defanged from providing that pressure due to various bonkers baseline expectations (no magic item expectations no feat expectations, wackamole healing, etc). All of that combined means that the player facing chargen text can't just let that section on chargenride as it's always been.

The second big problem is that 5e itself made some huge changes with an impact on chargen that is both inseparable & a thing that requires the chargen text to be better. That change was a deliberate attempt to make a core of slightly modified d20 ruleset more story driven. You can hear Mearls talking about the half that we didn't get at about 1:21:20 here where he talks about a greedy rogue & fate style compels, but we still got the player facing half in BIFTs & background features. That half has a huge impact that for the first time (again ignore 4e) we no longer had adventurer as a social class... Worse still the shift of making magic items "optional" not at all supported by monster math directly conflicted with a well documented GM tool for the GM in a way that actively made things more difficult for the GM as that linked 2e page described/outright stated.

Berift of the old mechanical pressures alongside this huge injection of problematic influences the old style of chargen text is now reprehensibly inadequate for the GM who is now pressured to teach their players how to do what once developed organically within as few sessions while the GM is expected to foresee any & all possible needs/problems to present whatever houserules limits restrictions requirements and so on during session zero. That all needs to be done without losing or overloading players causing a "You should have brough that up in session zero" veto card to get left on the table for any player to grab should the GM need to do anything outside strict RAW simply because it could have been raised in S0.


* Yea "Less easy" rolls off the tongue weirdly but "more difficult" isn't quite accurate for what it was either. "Less easy" is a better fit.

I'm curious as to why you would ignore the introduction in the PHB as you claim that 5e eliminates teamwork and building characters together, considering the pages prior to Chapter 1 say to do exactly that.

In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.

and

Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. 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.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Please stop trashing players like Bob by assuming anyone in his situation simply doesn't care or is some "self-absorbed lunatic" as it was phrased.
AH! NOW I understand why you're not grasping why people are disagreeing with you. You've presented scenarios where your players and DM are seemingly pathologically incapable of basic communication, but you are imagining a scenario where they are doing it for legitimate, understandable reasons. You simply overstated your case, and wound up with everyone overstating their objections in response. What you intended to portray, and what you managed to portray, wound up quite different things.

I get where you're coming from now. Sure, of course, it would be good for the game to have guidance for Bob. I think nearly everyone would agree. They're not insulting Bob - they are failing to understand how you imagine Bob when compared to how you've set the tone of your objection. Internet communication being what it is.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I'm curious as to why you would ignore the introduction in the PHB as you claim that 5e eliminates teamwork and building characters together, considering the pages prior to Chapter 1 say to do exactly that.



and
I'm aware of it. It's not ignored. Chargen rules are 11-15 in "Chapter 1: Step by Step character creation". The sections you note are buried at the tops of page 5&6 in isolation rather than being woven into the chargen guidance Alice Cindy Dave & Eddie could be directed to start collaborating on while the GM is busy helping Bob with hids much greater need or breaking from bob to talk one on one with someone else about their PC in the wrong place & lacking teeth that gives the GM room to make changes that make players feel like they are getting something good rather than a nerf. The same holds true of the DMG equivalent. Lacking a meeseeks box the GM needlessly faces a much higher bar if the players are not at a level where the GM doesn't actually need to teach them or do much to even "run" a session zero by failing to provide useful contextually relevant & meaningful text supporting players in a session zero.

AH! NOW I understand why you're not grasping why people are disagreeing with you. You've presented scenarios where your players and DM are seemingly pathologically incapable of basic communication, but you are imagining a scenario where they are doing it for legitimate, understandable reasons. You simply overstated your case, and wound up with everyone overstating their objections in response. What you intended to portray, and what you managed to portray, wound up quite different things.

I get where you're coming from now. Sure, of course, it would be good for the game to have guidance for Bob. I think nearly everyone would agree. They're not insulting Bob - they are failing to understand how you imagine Bob when compared to how you've set the tone of your objection. Internet communication being what it is.
I think it's unreasonable to not consider how the d&d community has a whole has grown much quicker to simply kneejerk blame the gm for any & all problems at the table no matter the problem. There were a lot of people who immediately made the leap to bad gm conflicting gm : player expectations with a bad gm who can't see that. Heck one person quoted me saying I was talking about the TCoE text complete with page numbers & section references for the quotes multiple times with huge fisked responses before noting in surprise that I was actually quoting what I noted I was quoting then did so a few more times before actually reading it. & noting they "read over those pages".
 

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
I'm aware of it. It's not ignored. Chargen rules are 11-15 in "Chapter 1: Step by Step character creation". The sections you note are buried at the tops of page 5&6 in isolation rather than being woven into the chargen guidance Alice Cindy Dave & Eddie could be directed to start collaborating on while the GM is busy helping Bob with hids much greater need or breaking from bob to talk one on one with someone else about their PC in the wrong place & lacking teeth that gives the GM room to make changes that make players feel like they are getting something good rather than a nerf. The same holds true of the DMG equivalent. Lacking a meeseeks box the GM needlessly faces a much higher bar if the players are not at a level where the GM doesn't actually need to teach them or do much to even "run" a session zero by failing to provide useful contextually relevant & meaningful text supporting players in a session zero.


I think it's unreasonable to not consider how the d&d community has a whole has grown much quicker to simply kneejerk blame the gm for any & all problems at the table no matter the problem. There were a lot of people who immediately made the leap to bad gm conflicting gm : player expectations with a bad gm who can't see that. Heck one person quoted me saying I was talking about the TCoE text complete with page numbers & section references for the quotes multiple times with huge fisked responses before noting in surprise that I was actually quoting what I noted I was quoting then did so a few more times before actually reading it. & noting they "read over those pages".
"Hidden" by being in front, the things to read first.

It's illogical to think that people haven't read those words.
 

AH! NOW I understand why you're not grasping why people are disagreeing with you. You've presented scenarios where your players and DM are seemingly pathologically incapable of basic communication, but you are imagining a scenario where they are doing it for legitimate, understandable reasons. You simply overstated your case, and wound up with everyone overstating their objections in response. What you intended to portray, and what you managed to portray, wound up quite different things.

I get where you're coming from now. Sure, of course, it would be good for the game to have guidance for Bob. I think nearly everyone would agree. They're not insulting Bob - they are failing to understand how you imagine Bob when compared to how you've set the tone of your objection. Internet communication being what it is.
I don't think anyone was disagreeing with the basic point that the Session Zero and character generation rules/suggestions could definitely be better, just, as you said, the examples given were so far beyond the pale of how one expects a group of people playing D&D to behave that they caused everyone to be immensely puzzled.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
I don't think anyone was disagreeing with the basic point that the Session Zero and character generation rules/suggestions could definitely be better, just, as you said, the examples given were so far beyond the pale of how one expects a group of people playing D&D to behave that they caused everyone to be immensely puzzled.
And yet none so glaring that they might stand on their own when stripped of their context & directly pointed out?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top