Who's Actually Read the DM's Guides

[SpydersWebbing]

Or just one of them?

After DMing 4th edition since the beginning I finally sat down to read DMG and DMG2, and I am amazed. If people actually read this thing, I don't think there would be half the problems with 4th edition that people have.

Dunno, still a bit in shock. Thoughts?

 

[Rechan]

I don't think there would be half the problems with 4th edition that people have.

Do you mean problems like, problems running it, or problems like people who don't like 4e?

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Both. The game is made with the burden of narrative squarely on the DM's shoulders. Which is fine, but I don't think people quite understand just how much of it really is with the DM.

 

[Tymophil]

Or just one of them?

After DMing 4th edition since the beginning I finally sat down to read DMG and DMG2, and I am amazed. If people actually read this thing, I don't think there would be half the problems with 4th edition that people have.

Dunno, still a bit in shock. Thoughts?

I read both Dungeon Masters Guide from cover to cover.

I didn't like DMG (1) much but I really liked the DMG2.

I used the DMG a lot to write my first adventures. The more I read it, the less I liked it. I really disliked the way the skill challenges were presented, and I really was amazed by the poor quality of the introduction adventure within.

On the other had the DMG2 is a book I liked, and still like to read to remind me of the full strength of DD4. The advices are also very, very good.

 

[Rechan]

Both. The game is made with the burden of narrative squarely on the DM's shoulders. Which is fine, but I don't think people quite understand just how much of it really is with the DM.

Most of the issues IMO are not with that. Most of the "I don't like 4e" comes from:

• Actions specific to WotC: canceling the print Dragon/Dungeon, the way 4e was previewed/comments by the designers, lack of OGL. The layout of the books (limited fluff, uninteresting reads; the PHB and MM are all numbers no fluff). There were people outraged that the gnome/half-orc were not in PHB1 and Frost Giants weren't in the MM1.
• Less simulationism, more gamist nature of the system (see the nod to Realism threads).
• The way the system "Feels" (i.e. videogamey): marking techniques, fighters with "p0werz", the way healing powers work, the "sameness" of classes, etc.
• Lack of some traditional D&D rules: vancian magic, shift from daily resources to encounter resources, over-emphasis on grid-based minis, lack of non-combat abilities (the Crafting Skill, charm person).

While they were working on 4e, they used certain design elements in late 3e books. Complete Mage had feats that allowed an at-will-ike spell ability, there was the Warlock Class who only had At Will powers, the Book of Nine Swords were a 3.5 interpretation of fighter/warlord powers. People complained about those for the video-gamey/non-realistic elements then. Many of the arguments today are the same arguments had when 4e was being previewed.

The above elements would have have existed regardless of the DMG's advice. Once an impression was made about 4e, what the DMG actually said would not matter. And in my experience, people who passionately do not like something will find more things to dislike about the thing they dislike, and positive elements/counterpoints will have no impact. There's more psychology behind it but I think that's enough.

Most of your "I'm having trouble running 4e" issues come from running skill challenges (which more has been written than any other topic), building encounters, and issues with the system itself (the bad math and feat taxes, etc). Nothing the DMG would resolve.
​

 

[OnlineDM]

I read both DMGs before I started DMing. I've had no problems running 4e and have in fact enjoyed it very much. For whatever that's worth.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

Most of the issues IMO are not with that. Most of the "I don't like 4e" comes from:

• Actions specific to WotC: canceling the print Dragon/Dungeon, the way 4e was previewed/comments by the designers, lack of OGL. The layout of the books (limited fluff, uninteresting reads; the PHB and MM are all numbers no fluff). There were people outraged that the gnome/half-orc were not in PHB1 and Frost Giants weren't in the MM1.
• Less simulationism, more gamist nature of the system (see the nod to Realism threads).
• The way the system "Feels" (i.e. videogamey): marking techniques, fighters with "p0werz", the way healing powers work, the "sameness" of classes, etc.
• Lack of some traditional D&D rules: vancian magic, shift from daily resources to encounter resources, over-emphasis on grid-based minis, lack of non-combat abilities (the Crafting Skill, charm person).

While they were working on 4e, they used certain design elements in late 3e books. Complete Mage had feats that allowed an at-will-ike spell ability, there was the Warlock Class who only had At Will powers, the Book of Nine Swords were a 3.5 interpretation of fighter/warlord powers. People complained about those for the video-gamey/non-realistic elements then. Many of the arguments today are the same arguments had when 4e was being previewed.

The above elements would have have existed regardless of the DMG's advice. Once an impression was made about 4e, what the DMG actually said would not matter. And in my experience, people who passionately do not like something will find more things to dislike about the thing they dislike, and positive elements/counterpoints will have no impact. There's more psychology behind it but I think that's enough.

Most of your "I'm having trouble running 4e" issues come from running skill challenges (which more has been written than any other topic), building encounters, and issues with the system itself (the bad math and feat taxes, etc). Nothing the DMG would resolve.
​

I understand those issues, but some of those (particularly the video-gamey elements and the "feel" of 4th) are covered extremely well in both DMGs, which teach the DM how to use these things to produce a fantasy game. I've run some of this advice already, and I think it works. I appreciate your concern, but most of these issues don't belong here.

 

[Rechan]

some of those (particularly the video-gamey elements and the "feel" of 4th) are covered extremely well in both DMGs, which teach the DM how to use these things to produce a fantasy game.

Could you elaborate on what addresses those issues well? I don't have my books on me, and I'm very curious what you feel addresses those issues well.

 

[S'mon]

Yes, I'll sometimes sit down and spend a couple hours with DMG or DMG2.

There are some sections though, like the DMG Skill Challenges or Traps section, I've never been able to get through the whole thing. I tend to focus on the rules-free DMing advice.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I understand those issues, but some of those (particularly the video-gamey elements and the "feel" of 4th) are covered extremely well in both DMGs

Sorry, but nothing in the DMG could possibly change my reaction to the actual mechanics of the game that feel videogamey to me. It's not a playstyle thing, it's a game mechanics thing.