D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Aldarc]

I'd also rearrange, put the Running the Game chapter towards the front of the book, not chapter 8. The Multiverse stuff, if it's even needed, should be one of the last things. I'd consider putting that kind of stuff into separate books, but DM specific supplements don't sell as well.

Thank you for answer, Oofta. I appreciate it. This IMHO would be a good start and I think that you make some good suggestions here.

Like you, I don't think that Master of Worlds or Master of Adventures chapters should be how the DMG should start. I think that the emphasis should be on Master of Rules or how to run the game. A new GM may pick up an adventure or use a starter set, so knowing how to run the game seems more fundamental than dropping them in the deep end about worldbuilding, the D&D multiverse, crafting long campaigns, or playing god over the players. The bottom line, IMO, is that it's important for the DMG to present the game into digestable chunks that do not overwhelm the DM. Layout and good writing, again IMHO, are key components there.

IME, there are a LOT of Game Mastering chapters for other D&D adjacent games that I have found FAR MORE helpful at presenting how to run the game than the 5e DMG. These games often present the game in a cogent manner: the content is presented neatly in a good page layout with a good use of space and text; they build up from the basics of the rules; they provide practical advice, guidelines, and principles for running the game, etc. One does not have to find guidelines for running the game buried within walls of text.

We are not talking about the oft-mentioned games like Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World here, but, rather, games that are fundamentally rooted in D&D: e.g., Index Card RPG, Black Hack, Old School Essentials, etc.

It astounds me that a game company of WotC's caliber has such horrible page layout and presentation of vital game content, especially when compared to many of these one-person operations.

I've already given some of my thoughts on that. Have a link to how-to videos that pair with small encounters walking through the options of how to handle it. They've already started doing that. In the future you will be able to purchase an online version of the book along with the physical (it will be interesting to see how that's implemented) so you could include an entire tutorial series with the book.

Maybe there should be a central repository for blogs submitted and voted on by users then give people the option of ranking. That is more of a pipe dream than anything though, I doubt WOTC would want to promote unaffiliated blogs for a variety of reasons.

Admittedly one of my own personal issues with directing people to blogs or online content is that this content tends to be a bit too ephemeral. Imagine the 4e DMG directing people to WotC's websites, but those pages are no longer available anymore as they took them down. And there are a fair number of blogs and YouTube channels that have dropped out of circulation. And much as you say, promoting unaffiliated blogs can lead to some nasty guilt by association should the channel start promoting things that are harmful to WotC's brand.

I still think there is a place for starter sets because those should be geared towards absolute newbies. A lot of people who DM already have had some experience before they get the DMG either through watching live play or being a player in someone else's game. They will need some general advice but not as much hand holding. There will always be a difference between people trying to grok what the game is about and people who have a decent grasp but want to become DMs. We need to have some of both, but the main focus will likely remain the latter.

I agree. What I see in a lot of other starter sets is actually presenting a modified and more simplified version of the rules.

And, if they actually think the DMG is great as it is?

I would still be curious what they would change if they were required to change something for One D&D, as changes of some sort will likely be coming in the One D&D DMG. After all you said that there is always room or even a wish for improvement. From WotC's end, they do not seem to share the sentiment that the DMG is great as it is.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I started play AD&D 2e in 1997 when I was like 12. We never really had a good handle on it. Started running games in 2000 when 3e came out. Lots of starts and stops. Never could really find my groove until I started running 4e and Sorcerer in 2008.

Okay that makes sense to me. My entry was much easier than yours with Basic/Expert in '88-89. I feel the 2e DMG I read around '91 when I was 13 was a much less intimidating book than the 3.x DMG, so when 3.x came out I was in my 20's and had already done my DMG doctorate by gazing upon the purplish High Gygaxian Verbiage as Snarf Zagyg calls it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's fundamentally Survivor Bias because there are a lot of GMs (or even potential GMs) who failed without good guidance. We really only see the ones who made it and conclude that the advice must be "good enough" while ignoring the ones who didn't make it and asking how we could have helped them make it.

Over and above this, there's some big differences between a GM who is functional and one who's good. There were absolutely habits I picked up early on that stuck with me for years that would have made a better experience for both me and my players if I'd never acquired them. There's no assurance better advice would have prevented this, but it absolutely wouldn't have hurt (of course, given some of the assumptions going through D&D back in the day, I'm not at all convinced the advice I'd have gotten would have actually made things better, but that's another issue).

 

[Campbell]

So when I think of effective texts (for learning to run and play) I think Stars Without Number / Worlds Without Number is a high watermark for me personally. It lays out very simple recipes for putting short adventures together and a session by session approach to prep that makes running trad games feel much more manageable. It's also pretty much just D&D with more approachable instruction. It's also wildly popular for a game designed and marketed by a single human being.

I think Wizards and most trad publishers could learn a lot from the way Kevin Crawford puts a text together.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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....

I don't see how these things need to be at odds. Many folks say that 5e supports multiple playstyles. I'm not quite sure what that means (in that it seems it means different things to different people), but if it's the case, then they should be able to offer rules/procedures/advice for more than one playstyle.

I'm not trying to get D&D to be a different kind of game. I just think the work that the books are doing can be a lot clearer. That they can say what they want to say without beating around the bush.

Here's how you can make your game do this, here's how you make it do that. The DMG already does this in some ways. I'd just like to see them focus less on the options in play (new races, new items, grittier healing) and more about options for how to play (here's how to make a game more or less linear, here's how to make your players more proactive, etc.).

Yes. Now please contact the reality of what I wrote again.

I didn't say Aldarc was guessing that Perkins would be writing, and making changes. I said he was guessing about the MOTIVATION for doing so. That's... kind of important, so please don't ignore it.

Also, structural changes to make it friendly doesn't actually mean enhanced content teaching you how to run the game.

Do you really think it's guessing at his motive when Perkins says he's going to be making the book more new-DM friendly? It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to make that he feels that it is not as friendly to new DMs as it can be.

As for teaching, that's not really been my focus in this discussion, though it is related. But my concern is less that the books teach the game than that the books give clear advice on how to play. That they be more willing to talk about the nuts and bolts of things... if you want X, you should do Y.... and so on.

There's some of that in the books to be sure. But there's also a lot of vaguely worded non-advice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd also rearrange, put the Running the Game chapter towards the front of the book, not chapter 8. The Multiverse stuff, if it's even needed, should be one of the last things. I'd consider putting that kind of stuff into separate books, but DM specific supplements don't sell as well.

Agreed 100% with that. Start off with that before getting into all the worldbuilding and adventure design stuff.

Like you, I don't think that Master of Worlds or Master of Adventures chapters should be how the DMG should start. I think that the emphasis should be on Master of Rules or how to run the game. A new GM may pick up an adventure or use a starter set, so knowing how to run the game seems more fundamental than dropping them in the deep end about worldbuilding, the D&D multiverse, crafting long campaigns, or playing god over the players. The bottom line, IMO, is that it's important for the DMG to present the game into digestable chunks that do not overwhelm the DM. Layout and good writing, again IMHO, are key components there.

I feel like the book almost goes in reverse.

I'd love to see certain pages where they kind of brush up on some of the things I see as vital, and only discuss them in a minimal way. Like page 6 and "Know Your Players". Each of those little sections could be expanded to show how to do the things suggested. Some of those things do come up in the later sections of the book, but I'd make it clear. Use these seven player types throughout the book and show how you design encounters, etc. with each in mind.

Page 34's bit about "Play Style" offers two takes, and then a blend. Very similar to the "Role of the Dice" section later on in that it feels more like lip service than an actual analysis of a technique and its advantages and/or disadvantages.

games that are fundamentally rooted in D&D: e.g., Index Card RPG, Black Hack, Old School Essentials, etc.

I think Wizards and most trad publishers could learn a lot from the way Kevin Crawford puts a text together.

Yup. Many modern games benefit from this sense of layout. Focusing on easily referenced lists and keeping information contained to pages or spreads and so on. With the resources at their disposal, I really hope to see improvement on this with the 1D&D books.

 

[Xamnam]

Like you, I don't think that Master of Worlds or Master of Adventures chapters should be how the DMG should start. I think that the emphasis should be on Master of Rules or how to run the game. A new GM may pick up an adventure or use a starter set, so knowing how to run the game seems more fundamental than dropping them in the deep end about worldbuilding, the D&D multiverse, crafting long campaigns, or playing god over the players. The bottom line, IMO, is that it's important for the DMG to present the game into digestable chunks that do not overwhelm the DM. Layout and good writing, again IMHO, are key components there.

All they need to do is steal the organization of the 4e DMG1. The first two chapters are perfect.

Heck, they could get away with stealing the text of it as well. Hardly any specific rules come in until chapter 3.

 

[Umbran]

Do you really think it's guessing at his motive when Perkins says he's going to be making the book more new-DM friendly? It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to make that he feels that it is not as friendly to new DMs as it can be.

So, with respect, there's a big difference between, "this is not as good as it can be," and, "this has actually been a problem we noted, and it needs fixing". Those are not the same motivation.

 

[Campbell]

So a large part of my personal issue with encultured play comes from a tendency to enforce standards of play through bullying and name calling within our community. Like there are rules and standards. You just don't know them until you are initiated. The sneering derision towards playing the game as a game, "doing what my character would do", metagaming, caring about the rules, etc. There is a verifiable minefield of play standards to navigate through within traditional play culture. Also GMing standards like the expectation of world building, never assuming player characters feel a certain way, being careful about obviating space and time, having to be in charge of pacing, etc.

You can be shamed and shunned without knowing anything about the expectations you are failing to meet. In general this sort of invisble rulebook you need to be initiated into vibe can often make our hobby feel exclusionary and unwelcoming in my experience. Things have improved dramatically on this score since the 90s, but it's still an issue I tun into here and elsewhere.

 

[gorice]

All they need to do is steal the organization of the 4e DMG1. The first two chapters are perfect.
View attachment 263193

Heck, they could get away with stealing the text of it as well. Hardly any specific rules come in until chapter 3.

4e completely passed me by at the time, though I've heard people sing its praises since. I just cracked open the DMG, and... It's pretty good! I might quibble about some things, but this seems like a much better text for teaching people to DM.