Your time is valuable and spending that precious commodity on something you're more interested in isn't a sign of arrogance.I did read most of the 5e DMG, but like 4e DMG I feel like I skipped around and only read 75% of reach. Not sure if that is arrogance on my part.
Thanks, I was more wondering that since I have been playing and DMing for all the editions, if I was just assuming I knew how to DM and if there is enough in the new editions that I should have read more closely before thinking that DMing is basically all the same.Your time is valuable and spending that precious commodity on something you're more interested in isn't a sign of arrogance.
This is me. I've definitely completed reading a DMG, but the way I read one is all over the place. Not even sure if I've read all of the 5e DMG, but I'd have read through all of the 2e one and the combined basic rules cyclopedia which might count even though it isn't strictly a DMG.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.
If you set aside assumptions based on your experience with previous editions (especially 3e and 4e), and read all the rules of 5e on their own terms alone, I think you’ll find there’s a pretty significant change to the intended play dynamic. However, the game still works fine when run like 3e or 4e.Thanks, I was more wondering that since I have been playing and DMing for all the editions, if I was just assuming I knew how to DM and if there is enough in the new editions that I should have read more closely before thinking that DMing is basically all the same.
3e was a larger change, so I think that took more rules reading and playtesting by my group. 4e/5e feels like changes was more player focused and the DMG is more just looking at items and such.