Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In Search Of: The 5e Dungeon Master's Guide
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8800794" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>Labeling my thoughts and preferences as irrational fear (they are not) isn't going to be conducive to good conversation. Nor is it going to diminish my point. I think it only strengthens my point because before it was claims that what was being advocated for wasn't prescription. Now that's morphed into 'only fear keeps you from prescription'. I'm glad we've moved toward agreeing that what is desired is prescription.</p><p></p><p>There are many areas in the books (especially the PHB) where things are prescribed. In general I believe most prescription there is necessary and necessary prescription I don't have an issue with. It's the unnecessary stuff that I would take issue with.</p><p></p><p></p><p>For discussion's sake let's assume we can objectively describe all the various playstyles based on their qualities. Enter the players - all human beings with different psychologies. The things that bring about a certain quality for one player won't necessarily bring about the same quality for a different player with a different psychology.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would say it's desire to not have our playstyles impugned. Something 5e as a whole has been very careful not to do. And something that added prescriptiveness will result in.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you can define styles, you just cannot say what brings them about. Different players respond to stimuli differently and so the path to a particular style for one player need not be the path for another player. I'd be fine saying some DM's do X to try to bring this about in their players. Others do Y. Etc. But to actually say do X to yield this result. That's such a bad idea, IMO.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Then blame legacy for the title.</p><p></p><p>Honestly though, worldbuilding is the biggest and most challenging DM endeavor. The DMG should be focusing on that more than any other DMing topic IMO. I think the 5e book is solid on the world building side and that seems to be most of the content others want to rip out for 'new to DMing' advice. I don't think that's a good direction.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Or maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe what should be asked is how does such advice improve a DM's worlds and how much easier does it make it for him to create worlds when following the advice. 'Just because I can cook something on my own doesn't mean a cooking book won't improve my cooking or make doing it easier'.</p><p></p><p>I think when asking that question the value of such information in the DMG becomes much more clear.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think so. Those kinds of questions often come up. Having thought about your world and how it works enables DM's to give thoughtful answers to those questions in play.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the cosmology stuff is really important.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Reordering the chapters would impact DM's that want to use the book for worldbuilding. Which was my point.</p><p>There is a page count goal. Adding new material does mean removing existing material. I don't see enough existing material that could be cut to help there. In the end you are having to decide which important thing to leave out and I think they made the right call (at least mostly).</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think most info is already greatly condensed. Many of the worldbuilding sections are fairly dry reads.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And this goes right back to prescriptiveness. A prescriptive RPG book can cover alot of ground in 50 pages. A non-prescriptive book will need tons more pages to cover the same ground on the same topic. Now I don't know the book cited but I'm willing to bet that it's very prescriptive and that's why that layout works for it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's already very concise.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not an irrational fear. Something will be taken out to add something else. Especially for the amount of new material being desired. It's inevitable.</p><p></p><p>Please reconsider the labeling of valid points as irrational fears.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8800794, member: 6795602"] Labeling my thoughts and preferences as irrational fear (they are not) isn't going to be conducive to good conversation. Nor is it going to diminish my point. I think it only strengthens my point because before it was claims that what was being advocated for wasn't prescription. Now that's morphed into 'only fear keeps you from prescription'. I'm glad we've moved toward agreeing that what is desired is prescription. There are many areas in the books (especially the PHB) where things are prescribed. In general I believe most prescription there is necessary and necessary prescription I don't have an issue with. It's the unnecessary stuff that I would take issue with. For discussion's sake let's assume we can objectively describe all the various playstyles based on their qualities. Enter the players - all human beings with different psychologies. The things that bring about a certain quality for one player won't necessarily bring about the same quality for a different player with a different psychology. I would say it's desire to not have our playstyles impugned. Something 5e as a whole has been very careful not to do. And something that added prescriptiveness will result in. I think you can define styles, you just cannot say what brings them about. Different players respond to stimuli differently and so the path to a particular style for one player need not be the path for another player. I'd be fine saying some DM's do X to try to bring this about in their players. Others do Y. Etc. But to actually say do X to yield this result. That's such a bad idea, IMO. Then blame legacy for the title. Honestly though, worldbuilding is the biggest and most challenging DM endeavor. The DMG should be focusing on that more than any other DMing topic IMO. I think the 5e book is solid on the world building side and that seems to be most of the content others want to rip out for 'new to DMing' advice. I don't think that's a good direction. Or maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe what should be asked is how does such advice improve a DM's worlds and how much easier does it make it for him to create worlds when following the advice. 'Just because I can cook something on my own doesn't mean a cooking book won't improve my cooking or make doing it easier'. I think when asking that question the value of such information in the DMG becomes much more clear. I don't think so. Those kinds of questions often come up. Having thought about your world and how it works enables DM's to give thoughtful answers to those questions in play. I think the cosmology stuff is really important. Reordering the chapters would impact DM's that want to use the book for worldbuilding. Which was my point. There is a page count goal. Adding new material does mean removing existing material. I don't see enough existing material that could be cut to help there. In the end you are having to decide which important thing to leave out and I think they made the right call (at least mostly). I think most info is already greatly condensed. Many of the worldbuilding sections are fairly dry reads. And this goes right back to prescriptiveness. A prescriptive RPG book can cover alot of ground in 50 pages. A non-prescriptive book will need tons more pages to cover the same ground on the same topic. Now I don't know the book cited but I'm willing to bet that it's very prescriptive and that's why that layout works for it. It's already very concise. It's not an irrational fear. Something will be taken out to add something else. Especially for the amount of new material being desired. It's inevitable. Please reconsider the labeling of valid points as irrational fears. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
In Search Of: The 5e Dungeon Master's Guide
Top