Dungeon Mastering in D&D Next

This guy is the lich from the old Tomb of Horrors module, the big bad of that dungeon re-imagined in sort of a movie-like glow. This is also the cover of the Dungeon Master's guide of D&D Next, and this book is painfully coming out in November. I know, it's a long time to wait to have a DMG, and I dislike the staged releases here:

Starter Set = June 15
Player's Handbook = August 19
Monster Manual = September 30
DMG = November 18

Wow, that's a long time to wait. There's supposed to be a free PDF coming out covering play from levels 1-20, but you know, if I'm investing in the core books because I want to play, it's hard to wait until the near beginning of December to have a complete set. I suppose it's being done to create a six-month long buzz for the game, but dammit, if I'm mentally buying in, I want the complete set now.

That guy the lich is casting raise dead on there on the cover? Yeah, he died while waiting for this book to be released.

Enough about sales strategy, and it's going to be tough waiting until December to have a complete picture of this version of the game. Still, what does this cover tell us? That dungeon masters are akin to menacing lich kings who hurl death and terror at the players? Make no mistake, this cover art is about two concepts, control and fear. Raise dead implies servitude and control, and the art style is straight out of a horror movie.

Contrast this with Paizo's Gamemastery Guide, to the right. The art here says a lot of things too about the role of the referee. This guy is a cold, calculating bastard, with enough magic, treasure, and firepower to back his decisions up. He has a blue dragon at his command, and he sits there, plotting, scheming, and considering the player's fate.

Both of them are in the vein of "hostile to players" and they play to the GM fantasy of total control, power over lives, and absolute jurisdiction. There is a difference though, in Pathfinder this guy looks like a god, and he has a near invincible air to him. He doesn't even have to get up to lay the smack down on your party, a blink of his eye and you would be all utterly destroyed, no saving throw. It's a broad interpretation, but hey, most of the other Pathfinder cover art has heroes in battle scenes with a chance of pulling it out - this one is different for a reason. There's not going to be a battle, he's that powerful.

In the D&D Next, this is a big boss of a module, and he was defeated many times. He took a lot of character lives over the centuries, of course, but there is the possibility of defeating him, no matter how menacing he looks. He was a monster statted out in the Tomb of Horrors (and yes, this is likely the fake boss of that dungeon, the real one was hidden away in some wall near that room inside a gem). Still, no matter how powerful the boss on the DMG looks, the message is clear, he can be defeated.

I suppose it gives the player's hope, but in both cases I dislike the concept of the adversarial relationship. In Pathfinder, this is more of an omniscient god thing, so it isn't overtly hostile and innately adversarial. In D&D Next, it paints the dungeon master as a boss monster to be defeated. I'm probably sitting here and reading a lot into this, but hey, tone and presentation matter. If Disney marketed the Avengers as some sort of buddy comedy movie, you can be sure people's perceptions of it would be different today.

Personally? I like the dungeon master as storyteller role. I'm not sure either speak to this concept, possibly Pathfinder's a bit more since is speaks to my contemplative side better. It is overly manipulative in a "mob boss" style of way, but I'll take the thoughtful and constructive role of game master over an adversarial one.

I'm supposing these covers speak to the target markets of the game as well. The D&D Next one looks cool, and it speaks to the theme of "Hey, want to be a cool and powerful tyrant that terrorizes your friends in a cool game?" It says "you play the boss monsters" and it speaks to that fantasy well. It also speaks to terror and horror, which I hope are elements added to the game. I long for the time that dungeons were supposed to be scary places, full of tricks and traps, with death around every corner. So there is a theme here I appreciate being brought back with the D&D Next DMG.

There was a shift in 4th Edition where a dungeon became a series of tactical battles to master. Every dungeon was a series of chess games to play out, and there was a clear chance for you to beat them all. It was more a tactical minigame than a roleplaying game. Back in AD&D, the focus was different, dungeons were hell-holes, and you actively sought to minimize the time you spent in them to get to the goal or treasure, loot and scoot, and get the hell out. In AD&D, battles drained your party's resources, and every battle skipped was a battle won.

Yes, you used cheese-ball tactics to skip fights, because the alternative (fighting) was often the worst outcome, and one that used up the most resources. Please put aside the lame and unheroic "15 minute adventuring day" that developed during 3rd Edition D&D, where a party would fight a single encounter, and then head back to town to rest up 100%. It's an urban legend about D&D I suspect is more from video games than actual play; but whatever, if my players pulled crap like that with me, I'd put a worse encounter back in the room they just cleared the day before and tell them, "Those critters in the dungeon aren't stupid, you know."

And if they did the "back to town" too many times, the big baddie of the dungeon would wise up and pull out - mission failed. Or destroy the town when the heroes make the next dungeon run. Seriously? These aren't video game monsters you're fighting, and I'm not a computer here to just run the combats in the module, people.

To be fair, Pathfinder has it's share of cheese-ball tactics, and this continues the spirit of the original game. If played right, the resource game and "dungeons are hell holes" idea is alive and well in Pathfinder, and it's not all min-max character builds versus perfectly tuned CR encounters as people would have you believe.

DarkgarX differs from me on this, he does not like the cheese-ball tactics, and actually prefers the "tactical game" presented in 4th Edition. In a way, he feels the direct cheese in 3rd Edition invalidates the game's tactical elements. I feel differently, those "cheese" elements (sleep, teleport, passwall, ESP, etc) are part of the resource game and therefore valid. If you run 3rd Edition/Pathfinder with some sensible limits and imagination, you can have a great time. I may write a book outlining how I play someday and share that.

I hope there that focus on terror and problem solving is present here in D&D Next, I like that aspect of the game, and it gives players a real sense of accomplishment to beat the impossible situations I throw them in. Like that cold, calculating bastard on the front of the Pathfinder book, even if the players manage to beat my devious deathtrap that I carefully planned out for them, a little smile curls up from the edge of my mouth, however imperceptible, at the clever way the party managed to avoid certain doom.

And then I go back to designing the next challenge, which will almost certainly destroy them this time....