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

[pointofyou]

AD&D had Basic (and maybe the PHB) as the training manual for beginners.
2e had Basic and there was an example of play in the PHB
3.5 DMG had an example of play
4e DMG had an entire Starter Set at the back of the DMG, because they made so much space in the book by inserting all the magical items in the PHB, as the 4e PHB only covered 1/2 of the playable options that existed in previous editions.
In 5e, they decided to not include an example of play (its not worth talking about the excerpt in the PHB) and stuck it in the Starter Set.

The books can always improve, but what my point is, the decision not to include an example of play in the 5e DMG was purposeful, and not a failure of the DMG itself, but rather indicative of who, WotC believed, each product they published was marketed for.

The 1e DMG has several examples of play but they aren't much like any of the play I remember. It's possible that examples of play are not the best way to teach play. This would include watching streamed play.

The 1e DMG has several strongly-worded passages explicitly telling the DM to run certain things in certain ways. There is none of that in the 5e version. Most of the variant approaches and optional rules are presented without comment or any reason why a DM would choose them.

I think your bolded text includes an important truth. WotC were publishing the 5e books including the DMG for people who'd played previous editions. Now they are in a position where there are players and DMs coming to the game without that previous experience and they are finding the rules need revision and reorganization.

 

[Xamnam]

You are exceptional in my eyes because most people I have gamed with, are not reading through nearly 900 pages of material to play a game... Much of D&D's marketing material, intros, advice, etc. make it point to stress you don't need to read all of that to play because they know it would kill the game.

Well aw shucks. Admittedly, skipping those specific aspects cuts a lot of the page count in many texts, especially 5E, and it's not like 5E isn't on the bloated side of most other games.

Admittedly, what I find confusing is the idea that people would prefer and seek out third party overviews and explanations over primary text. I'm not going to say they can't be better, but I'd never expect them to be. There's an absolute embarrassment of bad resources out there. Especially for something that is trumpeted to be as mutable and personal as 5E/ttrpgs are. Not even to mention how much longer it takes to watch videos than read.

 

[AnotherGuy]

“People managed” is an astonishing low bar for a consumer product.

20 years ago, I managed without my smartphone. Doesn’t mean I want to go back to that.

Your reply hinges on a single word that I could have easily not have used.

 

[Xamnam]

I think your bolded text includes an important truth. WotC were publishing the 5e books including the DMG for people who'd played previous editions. Now they are in a position where there are players and DMs coming to the game without that previous experience and they are finding the rules need revision and reorganization.

Very much agreed, very along the lines of this Alexandrian article.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Much of it is buried in stuff that might not seem relevant to someone looking for it.

This is spot-on. The amount you have to dig to find stuff - even rules you know exist - is staggering. The DMG is a masterpiece of confounding and vexing arrangement. The PHB is not at all like that.

And yeah the lack of much in the way of "why" is a huge problem, particularly for newer players. It's weird when contrasted against something like VRGtR which has a hell of a lot on the why.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The 1e DMG has several examples of play but they aren't much like any of the play I remember. It's possible that examples of play are not the best way to teach play. This would include watching streamed play.

The 1e DMG has several strongly-worded passages explicitly telling the DM to run certain things in certain ways. There is none of that in the 5e version. Most of the variant approaches and optional rules are presented without comment or any reason why a DM would choose them.

I cannot see myself discarding those books. I find there is much for me to re-learn.

I think your bolded text includes an important truth. WotC were publishing the 5e books including the DMG for people who'd played previous editions.

True. They were trying to unite a fractured player base at the time.

Now they are in a position where there are players and DMs coming to the game without that previous experience and they are finding the rules need revision and reorganization.

Very much agree.

 

[pointofyou]

This is spot-on. The amount you have to dig to find stuff - even rules you know exist - is staggering. The DMG is a masterpiece of confounding and vexing arrangement.

And yeah the lack of much in the way of "why" is a huge problem, particularly for newer players. It's weird when contrasted against something like VRGtR which has a hell of a lot on the why.

I'm sorry to be this guy but VRGtR?

EDIT: Wait wait wait that's the Ravenloft setting book isn't it? I apologize for the dumb.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm sorry to be this guy but VRGtR?

Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, sorry! It talks a lot about running different horror styles and the merits thereof.

 

[pointofyou]

Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft, sorry!

Because I was dumb I thought you were talking about a game instead of a sourcebook. Maybe "thought."

 

[el-remmen]

All the DMG needs is a better index then it won't matter where things are buried.