D&D 5E In Search Of: The 5e Dungeon Master's Guide

[cimbrog]

Can you go into why you think it was a good DMG for both new and experienced DM's?

I don't have it with me at the moment to reference but it had all sorts of advice on scene structure, combat structure, adventure structure and campaign structure. It also talked about practical matters like player types, preferences and goals. This was on top of all the 4e specific information that was included like the famous Page 42.

What I can't really put into words is why it was so readable even for a very experienced GM. It wasn't really new information but it was written and arranged in such a way that it felt informative anyways. Pushed all of the "you're never too experienced go over the basics" buttons really well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Did anyone say they wanted to make the game harder for people? The fact is there's been no evidence that 5e is harder to pick up then any other edition and what little evidence we have seems to suggest, regardless of how, its actually easier than many.

So why the resistance to making the book clearer? Or friendlier to new DMs?

I can't see how that's a goal that people would shoot down. Why?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I mean.... do people want the book to make things harder for people? I really don't get some of the sentiment expressed in this thread and the closed one that spawned it.

No. Someone on page 2 suggested Basic and Advanced and this was thumbsed-up, which if you think about it is essentially a Starter Set and the Core. Earnestly what makes Basic and Advanced more attractive than Starter Set and the Core?

 

[Imaro]

So why the resistance to making the book clearer? Or friendlier to new DMs?

I can't see how that's a goal that people would shoot down. Why?

Who is doing this? Again the disagreement I see is on whether 5e was bad, terrible, whatever at getting new players into the game or not (along with whether that should or should not be the focus of the DMG vs. starter sets). The problem is that instead of starting from a position of anything can be better... the argument is starting from the position that 5e was actively bad at it and not everyone agrees.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It IS possible to write a DMG that teaches you how to run the game AND is still useful to experienced GMs. The 4e DMG is an example of this. I had been a DM for over 20 years when I picked it up and it was still a great read.

I have found all the DMGs to be a great read.

 

[LordEntrails]

You might as well argue with my description of the mating habits of the sasquatch.

I don't need someone to tell me how sasquatch mate. I already know how I want them to mate. I've been watching them mate for decades. I don't need someone to tell me what I'm watching. What I do want is a bunch of tools I can use to watch. Such as tables for random acts. References on how challenging the mating ritual I'm watching should be. And the treasure they might spawn when the mating is over. That's what's useful to me. (And a good pair of binoculars!)

As for learning to play or DM. No one good way to do that in a single medium. Why? Because first, people learn differently. Remember all those theories of learning talk about different methods. Second, there are a near unlimited number of ways to play. Trying to detail all of that in a book would overwhelm most people. IMO the Basic Rules and various Kits do a fine job of introducing DMs and players.

 

[Imaro]

I don't have it with me at the moment to reference but it had all sorts of advice on scene structure, combat structure, adventure structure and campaign structure. It also talked about practical matters like player types, preferences and goals. This was on top of all the 4e specific information that was included like the famous Page 42.

What I can't really put into words is why it was so readable even for a very experienced GM. It wasn't really new information but it was written and arranged in such a way that it felt informative anyways. Pushed all of the "you're never too experienced go over the basics" buttons really well.

Thanks. I asked because admittedly, I wasn't really a fan of 4e core (though I liked essentials) and I don't remember the DMG making a great impression on me as an experienced DM. Like the 5e one I never could get through the entire thing and mainly used it as a reference for when I needed to look something up or read up on a specific topic. I also think it's language as well as the way it assumed certain things was a little off-putting unless it aligned with how you wanted to run a game... as an example I don't remember it addressing a sandbox playstyle at all... though I could be mistaken.

 

[Cadence]

So why the resistance to making the book clearer? Or friendlier to new DMs?

I can't see how that's a goal that people would shoot down. Why?

I wonder if it's the difference between picturing (A) a DMG with the current stuff that is better organized / more friendly / with some pages of material that is legitimately helpful at launching new DMs / still brings the rose-colored feels of their favorite of 1e and 4e DMGs for experienced DMs vs. (B) a DMG that's designed for new players and pretty sub-par as a reference.

Being the internet I'm pretty sure we are all supposed to pick an extreme that best backs up our initial point. Being us and them being WotC, I'm not sure we're supposed to give them enough credit to make something that works like (A).

Edit: And I think some is probably leakage from other threads where it's clear some folks really hate some of the ways D&D is commonly played, and those who like that style imagine a prescriptive DMG that nukes it. Because, internet.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I wonder if it's the difference between picturing (A) a DMG with the current stuff that is better organized / more friendly / with some pages of material that is legitimately helpful at launching new DMs / still brings the rose-colored feels of the ir favorite of 1e and 4e DMGs for experienced DMs vs. (B) a DMG that's designed for new players and pretty sub-par as a reference.

Being the internet I'm pretty sure we are all supposed to pick an extreme that best backs up our initial point. Being us and them being WotC, I'm not sure we're supposed to give them enough credit to make something that works like (A).

Edit: And I think some is probably leakage from other threads where it's clear some folks really hate some of the ways D&D is commonly played, and those who like that style imagine a prescriptive DMG that nukes it. Because, internet.

For the 50th Anniversary, I was hoping that they would release a DMG that was the ultimate homage to Gygax.

Just tables. All tables. 100% tables. Do you want to know what table to use? Why, there's a table for that. And, of course, the 50th Anniversary DMG will come exclusively as a coffee table book. It's tables, all the way down.

It will be like the OG 1e Rogue's Gallery, except less exposition and hand holding ... and more random tables.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Who is doing this? Again the disagreement I see is on whether 5e was bad, terrible, whatever at getting new players into the game or not (along with whether that should or should not be the focus of the DMG vs. starter sets). The problem is that instead of starting from a position of anything can be better... the argument is starting from the position that 5e was actively bad at it and not everyone agrees.

You are. Go back and look at nearly all your replies in this thread. You have responded mostly to both @Xamnam and @pointofyou. Both made suggestions about things that could be included to make the DMG more new user friendly, and you've shot each of them down, mostly in favor of having such in a starter set.

But why? Why can't the DMG be made more new user friendly? Even in a world that also contains a starter set?

What's lost if that happens?