D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[hawkeyefan]

With all due respect, your guess at the motivation does not stand as evidence of an actual problem.

In my house, I often work as a sort of sous chef for my wife - I do a lot of the most basic food preparation tasks - the chopping, slicing, peeling, rinsing and draining, minding of the rice or pasta, and so on. I am good enough at making things seamless for my wife when she's cooking that people watching us prepare Thanksgiving have used the word "dance " to describe it. There is no problem, no "symptom" here. We work really well in the kitchen.

I wouldn't describe what @Aldarc said as a guess: Chris Perkins flat out said that "One of my focuses, specifically, will be the Dungeon Master's Guide. I'm going to be making some... structural changes to make it more friendly to new DMs."

One D&D

You can contact reality at about the 2:13 mark!

 

[Oofta]

I wouldn't describe what @Aldarc said as a guess: Chris Perkins flat out said that "One of my focuses, specifically, will be the Dungeon Master's Guide. I'm going to be making some... structural changes to make it more friendly to new DMs."

One D&D

You can contact reality at about the 2:13 mark!

Most things can be improved, the DMG is no exception.

 

[Imaro]

I think there's two different topics kind of being conflated....

1. Can and should WotC try to improve their books (with a focus on the DMG)

2. Can and should WotC define a specific playstyle, specific procedures, etc for those running D&D (With a focus on the DMG)

I have no doubt they will and should do number one. Its number two I feel there's a problem with since it also seems to get tangled up in what a particular posters preffered playstyle is being promoted as what should be used....

 

[Baron Opal II]

Can you cite where there is any components of player authorship in 5e...

Does it matter? It happens as time goes on and people become comfortable with one another. It happens when people play other games with explicit changes in "authorship", and come back to D&D.

 

[gorice]

Again, this isn't "hedging." The DMG is designed (for those who read it) to provide multiple options.

That assertion needs support. As for options: telling me I can ride, walk, or drive is giving me options. Telling me I can ride, walk, and drive simultaneously is not.

As for arguments that "go to the text," let's pretend you didn't say that, given I just had to "go to the text" just previously to this to point out how you were not representing the full options on the page of the text.

This borders on juvenile. My argument is based on quotes from the text, in context with the text as a whole. Looking for 'gotchas' like this does nothing to engage with my position that the text assumes or implies a particular style of play from the outset, which it then hedges.

Simply put- the DMG is descriptive, not prescriptive. But I just said that.

It's a manual. It can be used for teaching, or reference. It requires a degree of prescription, or it has no value.

Because this conversation is about the effectiveness of 5e as a teaching tool- teaching people to play 5e, teaching them to play D&D. Now, we can argue over and over about whether or not people are best served by reading the DMG, or playing starter sets, or learning by playing with other groups, or watching CR, or watching other youtube videos, or watching Twitch streams, or reading websites, or going to an AL game, or any one of the many ways that people pick up D&D ....

What are people actually doing, when they 'play 5e'? What are the common features of play? I'm starting to think that this activity might just be an empty signifier.

But the proof is in the pudding. Which is to say- the reason people mention the popularity is obvious. Player numbers are the ultimate indicator that the game is successful at bringing in new players. That it is not teaching them "Gorice's play" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it is bringing in more new players.

What is your metric for success? 'Numbers go up' doesn't really tell us anything about what is actually happening.

In the end, there is an objective measure (new players joining) and your measure (are they playing a game I think is quality). We can agree on one, and we can agree to disagree on the other.

'X can be quantified' does not mean that 'X is significant'.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Most things can be improved, the DMG is no exception.

I think that it would be interesting to hear what Perkins really wants to do with the DMG with regard to new DMs.

I always joke about how "No one reads the DMG," but the joke contains a kernel of truth. In almost every thread on enworld (well, a fair number of them) someone will complain about how there is nothing about X, or Y, or Z in D&D. And eventually and inevitably, someone will point out that ... in fact ... there is something about X and Y and Z ... in the DMG. Over and over again-

A. There's nothing about dungeons! There's a section, the first one in Adventure Environments, on Dungoens, and Appendix A is about Random Dungeons.

B. There's nothing about players being able to control the narrative! There's a lot of advice throughout the book, and optional rules for plot points.

C. There's nothing about actually running the game! The whole third part is about how to apply the rules, and the Eighth Chapter is called, "Running the Game" for a reason. Of course, it is descriptive, not prescriptive, explaining (for example) that some DMs roll dice for everything, some DMs roll dice for almost nothing, and some fall in the middle.

D. It's so stupid that a player with a skill in something can't just auto-succeed, and that a player who is really good at something would fail. If a player spends 10x the amount of time necessary to complete a task, they auto-succeed. And there's a rule for auto-success, too!

I think that some people believe that Perkins is going to write a new DMG that is prescriptive- that it will tell new DMs, in a step-by-step fashion, how to run games. Personally, I don't think that's accurate. Instead, I think that we are likely to see a DMG that is better organized as a resource for New DMs, and is more inviting to use.

As much as it pains me to say this, reading rules is not how most people learned to play D&D in the past, and it certainly isn't the way they do now (what with video so easily accessible). I am guessing that they will have increased emphasis on starter sets and/or online resources and/or organized play (both AL and DDB) for truly new players, but the DMG, while redone in an attempt to be more useful for new players, will not become a step-by-step guide.

But we will find out soon enough!

 

[Imaro]

Can you cite where there is any components of player authorship in 5e it seems an unsupported roll your own concept ( other than maybe I selected this feat at level 4 or this spell during level up therefor it happens that my character learns this thing to be clear that is more than in yee old RuneQuest where if he wants to be trained in some spell he needs to find a willing master ).

It is my own concept... I added it because I wanted to try it out and as GM with total authority in a game that is rulings instead of hard rules I can and my players are ok with it.

This also gives me the latitude to try it out for a few sessions and if it doesn't suit the type of game I want to run... let my players know its not working and we stop doing it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What are people actually doing, when they 'play 5e'? What are the common features of play? I'm starting to think that this activity might just be an empty signifier.

No, it's an empty signifier ... for you. Because you want all people to play games the same way. The whole point is that people play 5e in different ways.

Some of us (most of us, those us who play 5e and enjoy it) think that this is not just fine for a broadly-popular game, but is, in fact, the entire point of it. That you disagree with this is fine, and your opinion. You are welcome to take your "empty signifier" and keep complaining that 5e doesn't succeed at bringing in new players, while WoTC counts the revenue, I count the new players, and other people wonder what it is you are complaining about.

I think we understand each other, and we're good.

 

[Oofta]

I think that it would be interesting to hear what Perkins really wants to do with the DMG with regard to new DMs.

I always joke about how "No one reads the DMG," but the joke contains a kernel of truth. In almost every thread on enworld (well, a fair number of them) someone will complain about how there is nothing about X, or Y, or Z in D&D. And eventually and inevitably, someone will point out that ... in fact ... there is something about X and Y and Z ... in the DMG. Over and over again-

A. There's nothing about dungeons! There's a section, the first one in Adventure Environments, on Dungoens, and Appendix A is about Random Dungeons.

B. There's nothing about players being able to control the narrative! There's a lot of advice throughout the book, and optional rules for plot points.

C. There's nothing about actually running the game! The whole third part is about how to apply the rules, and the Eighth Chapter is called, "Running the Game" for a reason. Of course, it is descriptive, not prescriptive, explaining (for example) that some DMs roll dice for everything, some DMs roll dice for almost nothing, and some fall in the middle.

D. It's so stupid that a player with a skill in something can't just auto-succeed, and that a player who is really good at something would fail. If a player spends 10x the amount of time necessary to complete a task, they auto-succeed. And there's a rule for auto-success, too!

I think that some people believe that Perkins is going to write a new DMG that is prescriptive- that it will tell new DMs, in a step-by-step fashion, how to run games. Personally, I don't think that's accurate. Instead, I think that we are likely to see a DMG that is better organized as a resource for New DMs, and is more inviting to use.

As much as it pains me to say this, reading rules is not how most people learned to play D&D in the past, and it certainly isn't the way they do now (what with video so easily accessible). I am guessing that they will have increased emphasis on starter sets and/or online resources and/or organized play (both AL and DDB) for truly new players, but the DMG, while redone in an attempt to be more useful for new players, will not become a step-by-step guide.

But we will find out soon enough!

Some people never seem to read how to run their own PC as far as I can tell. People expect new DMs to read through an entire chapter on how to do things? With people's attention spa... [SQUIRREL!!!] ... wait where was I?

 

[Umbran]

What would make the GM advice in the DMG more cogent and useful for you?

What would make the DMG a better quality product for a new GM?

So, having said what I did above, how about I also address these questions. These are two extremely different questions. I have been gaming for decades. The things that are useful to me, and those that are useful to new GMs, are usually not going to be the same.

We then come to the first question we ought to ask ourselves - do we want the book to have multiple agendas at cross purposes? Probably not, but if really well done it might be bearable.

Then, I draw back to my own teaching experience, and find another question we ought to ask ourselves - is a book of text the best (or even a very good) teacher? No, it isn't. We usually pair a book with exercises, and a living being we call a teacher, to get maximum effective learning.

So, by insisting this material we are insisting on a book whose attention is split, and we already know won't be a really great way to learn the material. That's not a great start.

The least we can do, then, is split such content out into a separate, dedicated book. Monte Cook has already taken a stab at this, with Your best Game Ever. It is not D&D-specific, but it is more appropriately constructed for teaching than any DMG that also has to be a reference work for a veteran GM.

So, my answer is that WotC can make the DMG better for me, and for new GMs, by largely removing teaching elements to their own separate works - possibly tied to Starter Sets or online content that are more appropriate for teaching.