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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Cool. I must have missed the part in the DMG where it gives actual guidance about deciding how much to rely on the dice while running a game. How would someone new to DMing figure that out from reading the the putative guide?

I was wrong. It's not that no one reads the DMG. It's that you haven't. Or, at least, the two posts on the subject so far.

How much to rely on the dice is covered in the DMG. (pp. 236-37). Just like all the other topics that you quoted yourself on.

Seriously-

I want a basic explanation of what people usually expect from the game as players. This might need some granularity and some acknowledgment that people sometimes want and expect different things. It should probably include some specific advice for meeting those expectations.

THAT'S IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DMG.

When was the last time you actually read it?

 

[Imaro]

Cool. I must have missed the part in the DMG where it gives actual guidance about deciding how much to rely on the dice while running a game. How would someone new to DMing figure that out from reading the the putative guide?

I agree we need re-organization, maybe expansion on some areas... but how does the DMG (without prescribing a specific style) tell one how much they should rely on the dice while running the game. this is again what I am pushing back on... prescription of the "right" way to run D&D... I don't want that.

 

[pointofyou]

I was wrong. It's not that no one reads the DMG. It's that you haven't. Or, at least, the two posts on the subject so far.

How much to rely on the dice is covered in the DMG. (pp. 236-37). Just like all the other topics that you quoted yourself on.

Seriously-



THAT'S IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DMG.

When was the last time you actually read it?

There's not much actual guidance there but since it's only like a column of text there's really not much room is there?

And I read that specific column of text before mentioning it. Did you perhaps think it was some random whim?

 

[pointofyou]

I agree we need re-organization, maybe expansion on some areas... but how does the DMG (without prescribing a specific style) tell one how much they should rely on the dice while running the game. this is again what I am pushing back on... prescription of the "right" way to run D&D... I don't want that.

What I'm advocating for is making if very clear that if you want to run a game a specific way you do these things. Or that if you do these specific things the game will run like so. There really is not adequate actual guidance of this sort in the 5e DMG.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There's not much actual guidance there but since it's only like a column of text there's really not much room is there?

And I read that specific column of text before mentioning it. Did you perhaps think it was some random whim?

I honestly don't know what is motivating you. You are asking for things (such as the typologies of different players, and how to meet those expectations) that the DMG does a very good job with.

There is a section that specifically talks about different methods of dice adjudication, and discussed the pros and cons of it. I don't know what else to tell you- the things you claim it doesn't have, it does. I am assuming at this point, you just enjoy arguing. Good luck with that.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not thinking what I want, I'm only able to respond to what you share. I don't know anything about your game beyond what you tell me, and your previous post listed a few things very generally, and none of them sounded all that challenging to me.

You got a bit more specific with this response, so I have a clearer idea.

No worries and I think some of my tone may be apprehension at sharing details of my actual game because it does feel like being judged on a different level than talking in general.

So you have two groups of players with different levels of experience with your chosen style of game. Do you think that's more the issue than the lack of proactivity on the part of the newer group? Is it a case of them not being as interested in being proactive? Is that kind of self directed play with their own goals more your expectation for them or theirs?

Admittedly I think that is a factor in it... but I think if I had ran some sort of starter campaign or short series of sessions in this open sandbox style then the problem wouldn't have arisen (or would have been hashed out in that intro game). I think I messed up in setting the expectations of a D&D game as an adventure path style quest... instead of setting the expectations of a D&D game as the open sandbox type of game I run.

having progressed some I can honestly say I think they are interested in being pro-active but are unsure and unfamiliar with what that means in a game of D&D and that was on me but also opened my eyes to how something as simple as that can be jarring for players with no knowledge of different styles of play. On top of that from a DM's perspective I wanted to run a hexcrawl but 5e doesn't really explain how to at all. I did some research online but eventually ended up instead choosing a pointcrawl methodology for the game with stuff mostly pieced to together from OSR supplements and sites. It honestly has me debating whether to switch to Worlds Without Number as opposed to D&D 5e.

I mean, whatever the situation, it sounds like the game is functional, and that everyone is involved, though perhaps in different ways.... so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Is the game not working due to this issue? Are you or other participants frustrated in some way?

I'm not sure what you mean by functional if it wasn't we wouldn't be playing it. Was it more work and effort and hiccups then it needed to be... from my perspective yes because I started with a different type of D&D game than what I wanted to run.

The game is working but the point is it took alot more effort to get there (and some players are still adjusting) because I set expectations that D&D was played like A but my preferred way to play it was B. If you are looking for a problem that is insurmountable I don't have it (and for me in a leisure activity I probably would only spin my wheels on it for so long) but I also don't agree that all D&D games are basically the same from a player or DM perspective and these problems are some of the reasons why.

I actually find running the prewritten adventures to be tougher than my own stuff. Others likely would say I'm nuts... but I find it much easier to just make up stuff than to try to stick to something someone else already made up. I know that even when I'm using premade material, I'm free to go "off script", but just the existence of that premade stuff makes me second guess myself.

I have this issue with the larger D&D adventures (thus why I don't run AP's), the smaller ones in the starter set though haven't caused the same issues for me and so I have used them more as introductions to mechanics, what an actual game might look like, etc. Usually with pre-gens and then we make characters up and start the real game. I don't have to do this often but since we started playing in person again this year I had 3 new players join and have a total of 8 which is probably the largest my group has ever been.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would certainly argue that it is really hard for a book to efficiently do a good job of all of: teaching beginners, teaching folks just past the beginner stage, and being a useful reference to advanced users. And I would further argue that an expensive book is often a poor choice to teach beginners, especially given all of the other tools available.

I would disagree with this. Both the 4e DMG and the PF2 Gamemastery Guide did an excellent job at all 3. I’m sure other posters will pop in with their own examples from different games.

 

[Cadence]

I think starter sets are where most truly new DMs should start because there is only so much you can do in one book. A starter set has multiple encounters, a setting, potentially details talking about how to handle things and so on. LMoP is 64 pages. Are we supposed to increase the size of the DMG by a third to include all of that content? What they've started doing is releasing free encounters with a video explaining how to run it, I could see an entire set of encounters and videos that do the same. That way it can be tweaked and adjusted based on feedback.

I also think the DMG should be arranged a bit, and no I have no problem with a "getting started" section but that would probably be only a few pages and does not offer as much as a starter set. Get a copy of the free rules, grab a starter set and you should have all you need for a while for most people.

Well, I did write an entire additional thread.

D&D 5E - The 5e DMG Part 2- The Purpose of the DMG

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process. 1. Introduction- What Does "No One Reads the DMG" Actually Mean? So my undying love of Leonard Nimoy, long-running jokes, and the many nifty and obscure things tucked away in the 5e DMG led...

www.enworld.org

I think that this debate is fundamentally a category error. People that keep saying that the DMG must include a chapter (or whatever) instructing new DMs who have never DM'd before ... are (IMO) missing the purpose of the DMG. It's a reference guide for DMs, not a "learning how to DM manual."

The links I provided make that explicitly clear. The best way to learn to DM is to combine instruction with practice. So the website has a tutorial along with a sample encounter. And then it provides additional instruction along with showing that the preferred starting point if you're new to DMing is ... A STARTER SET. It's in the name!

In order, it's Starter Set - Essentials - Core Rulebooks.

Even when we discuss ye olden days, when "they did it right" (or whatever), and they didn't have streaming video, and twitch, and the ability to learn in so many ways, do you know what they did have? The example everyone thinks about is Moldvay and Mentzer Basic. Which is the equivalent of a Starter Set- stripped down and with a simple module to run (and the module has additional explanation).

I think reorganization of the DMG (esp. wrt a better index) would be great! I also think that they could re-visit the material they include and remove based upon the experiences of tables. But the demand that the DMG be used for onboarding brand new DMs is ... IMO, misplaced. That's not the purpose of the book, and (TBH) reading a chapter is not a very good way to learn to DM. The best way is to do it- as in running a starter set adventure.

I was originally thinking a section called something like "So, you just DMed folks through the starter set..." several pages back. And then of course assumed you were all telepathic. I assume some folks would want even more than that... and I don't think anything put there would work as well as online help and/or the starter set for new brand new folks.

 

[Oofta]

Cool. I must have missed the part in the DMG where it gives actual guidance about deciding how much to rely on the dice while running a game. How would someone new to DMing figure that out from reading the the putative guide?

There is no one true way. The Roll of the Dice explains the options and why you would use them. What more do you want?

 

[FrogReaver]

Not enough for new DMs.

Okay.
1a) What additional advice do think new DM’s need that the DMG should provide?
1b) Why specifically should it be the DMG providing this?
2) Do you think that such advice can be presented in a playstyle neutral way?