D&D 5E The DMG: Has it lived up to the hype?

[Jeff Carlsen]

It's a fantastic book, but it doesn't include as much modularity as I had been led to expect during the playtest process. I think some of that has been removed for online publication through a future article series, and I think the rest may have been dropped because there's less demand for it than expected.

Even so, my overall opinion of it is very positive.

 

[guachi]

There are a few bits of modularity that I wish they'd explored in more depth.

That said, I can flip the book open to any page and find something fascinating to read.

I'm reading straight through finally after much random flipping. I'm in Chapter 2: Creating a Multiverse. It's 26 pages and it's just packed full of inspiring (to me) information. It's almost overwhelming. Maybe if I'd purchased scads of 3e or 4e stuff as opposed to zero or owned a Manual of the Planes or three it wouldn't be quite as good, but it's like they took a dozen supplements and stripped them down and put them all in one place.

Heck, the first chapter is entitled A World of Your Own. And that right there tells me what the designers want to instill in a DM. It's your world, not ours. Even if there is too much Forgotten Realms lore scattered throughout the book. Least. Favorite. Setting. Ever.

 

[Rydac]

in a word: Absolutely!

Bravo and well done Mr. Mearls and Company....all three core books have brought me back to the excitement level of when I first started playing D&D (...many years ago)

 

[Plaguescarred]

While 5E may not have delivered everything it wanted in, i think it lives up to the hype overall and seems to be well received of what i can read online. I really like the finished product and how it shaped up. I think 5E D&D runs like a charm, is easy to teach and learn and is a ton of fun to play!

 

[Jester David]

It's good. I think it's the best DMG yet for teaching you how to be a good DM.

But as good as the hype... well, it's missing a *lot* of options and rules.
There are some solid variants and optional rules but things like critical fumbles, alternate xp tracks, and alternate amounts of magic items are missing and lacking even advice. And there's no suggestions or advice on making your own house rules.

It's a good book but a flawed book.

 

[Darth Quiris]

It's a good book. A solid 4 out of 5 stars, but it's not a 5 star book. It does exactly what it sets out to do, but I've seen much better books of similar styles written by other people for other game systems that does a much better job in describing what it means to manage and be a Game Master. Great artwork, lots of solid examples, and I am glad I own it. If I have to compare it to previous editions of D&D than it's definitely better than 3.5 and slightly better than 4th edition. I can't honestly compare it to pre-3.5 editions though as I've never read them, so I can't say if this is the best DMG of all time and I won't make that claim.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yep. Actually, it's far better.

I think people who complain that it doesn't have enough modularity mean that it doesn't have some specific options they were expecting. It's crammed full of optional rules. They're just not always what you might have expected.

 

[Sailor Moon]

A book full of options isn't that great when it's full of options you don't really want.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'll post the same response I gave in the other thread you created about the same topic.

I think this is a case of someone getting a notion in their heads of what "modules" means to them, and when the book doesn't align exactly, they feel wronged somehow. That's the problem with interpretation I guess.

 

[Nebulous]

I think that if (and it's not an if, they WILL) start an entire online column of modular rules, it will flesh out more holes in the DMG than anyone could possibly ask for. Probably hundreds of pages eventually of stuff that just wouldn't/ couldn't / shouldn't have been there.

Edit: and everyone's "should have been there" will be different.