D&D General Have You Actually Read the DM's Guide?

[MGibster]

I've been running D&D 5th edition off an on since it was released a few years ago, and while I've read the Player's Handbook and the Monster Manual cover-to-cover, I've never actually sat down and read through the entirety of the DM's Guide. I've read bits and pieces of it, but there are whole swaths of the book that remain an arcane mystery to me. I think the last time I read a DM's Guide from front to back was almost 21 years ago when 3rd edition was released. I'm just curious to learn who has actually read any version of the DM's Guide at some point in their gaming history. This is just one of those weird thoughts that come to me in the middle of the night.

 

[Charlaquin]

The 5e DM's guide is the only one I've actually read all of.

 

[Ath-kethin]

The DM's Guide is always one of my favorite core books, and the one for 5e is astounding. What's particularly fun are all the rules spelled out that nobody seems to even realize are there (like weapon speed modifiers and quicksand, to name just two).

In fact, the biggest gripe I have about the 5e DMG is that it's SO packed with ideas it's hard to use or even remember them all.

 

[billd91]

I usually pour over each edition’s DMG in various meandering chunks at a time. So it’s probably less than strictly cover-to-cover but way more than “at least part” and I’ve done it with all editions I’ve run.

 

[The Green Hermit]

The DM's Guide is always one of my favorite core books, and the one for 5e is astounding. What's particularly fun are all the rules spelled out that nobody seems to even realize are there (like weapon speed modifiers and quicksand, to name just two).

In fact, the biggest gripe I have about the 5e DMG is that it's SO packed with ideas it's hard to use or even remember them all.

I go back to it whenever I need to. I agree, though. Every time I read it, I find something else I didn't remember.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I go back to it whenever I need to. I agree, though. Every time I read it, I find something else I didn't remember.

I suppose we can debate whether "seemingly requires constant review and study" is a positive or negative trait for a game rulebook, but for my money more is always better than less.

 

[Lanefan]

Never all at once, but I think over the years I've in total read the 1e DMG cover to cover, or mighty close.

As for the 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e DMGs, on initial release I've read decent-size parts of each (and then largely put them aside, other than very occasional later reference) but I've generally skipped over material that largely repeats from edition to edition e.g. the magic item write-ups.

For 4e I only got the first DMG, though I understand there were (three? four? does Essentials count?).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I tend to read each core rules book for a game I’m going to run cover to cover twice (because I don’t have an eidetic memory) because I think the person running the game owes it to the players to make a strong attempt to know the rules. Even then I can’t remember anything everything, but most of the time I at least know where to look.

[Edit: Because I'm not as absent minded as autocorrect thinks I am. Just unobservant.]

 

[DND_Reborn]

I wish there was an option: I usually (or even always) DM and have read at least one DMG cover-to-cover.

"Sometimes" (while technically ok) doesn't quite sit will considering I DM over 90% of the time. shrug

 

[Helldritch]

I voted 1 but it is far from my reality.
I always read each DMG of each editions three or four times when it gets out, and yes that is cover to cover. (I have a speed reading technique).

Then, I check back whenever I need a refresh.