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

[FrogReaver]

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.

I get the feeling that 4e and PF2 were both much more prescriptive in how their games should be played when compared to 5e. Do you think that's accurate?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

IMO, whether or not a specific way of running the game produces the outcome you desire depends just as much on the players as the techniques you employ while DMing. To summarize, your players are usually the most important variable.

 

[pointofyou]

IMO, whether or not a specific way of running the game produces the outcome you desire depends just as much on the players as the techniques you employ while DMing. To summarize, your players are usually the most important variable.

I've found you can get very different play experiences with the same people at the table by playing different games or by changing up some rules. Which is not to say the people don't matter. The game and the rules matter too.

 

[pointofyou]

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?

How about actual guidance? There are platitudes but no actual guidance. How about actual descriptions about how actually using the dice actually changes the way actual people actually play?

I'm not suggesting the DMG should specify One True Way to play the game. I'm saying it should help DMs figure out how to run the games they want to run whatever those are. I am not sure why this seems so difficult to grasp.

 

[pointofyou]

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.

What is motivating me is a desire for new DMs to get actual guidance from the Dungeon Master's Guide to help them run the games they want to run.

What about that is motivating you to argue so vociferously against it?

 

[FrogReaver]

I've found you can get very different play experiences with the same people at the table by playing different games or by changing up some rules. Which is not to say the people don't matter. The game and the rules matter too.

Sure. I never claimed otherwise.

 

[FrogReaver]

How about actual guidance? There are platitudes but no actual guidance. How about actual descriptions about how actually using the dice actually changes the way actual people actually play?

I'm not suggesting the DMG should specify One True Way to play the game. I'm saying it should help DMs figure out how to run the games they want to run whatever those are. I am not sure why this seems so difficult to grasp.

Do you mean something like the following:

Rolling with It​

Some DMs rely on die rolls for almost everything, Whe a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check an picks a DC* As a DM using this style, you can't rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction* You must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation.

Relying on dice also gives the players the sense that anything is possible. Sure, it might seem unlikely that the party's halting can leap on the ogre's back* pull a sack over its head, and then dive to safety, but with a lucky enough roll it just might work.

A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations* always determine success.

I guess my question is, doesn't this do exactly what you are asking for - provide a description of how actually using the dice changes the way actual people play? If not, what's missing?

 

[pointofyou]

Do you mean something like the following:

I guess my question is, doesn't this do exactly what you are asking for - provide a description of how actually using the dice changes the way actual people play? If not, what's missing?

It's a start if a bit of a half-assed one. Why would a DM choose to run the game this way? What types of games does it best support? What types of games does it not support well?

 

[FrogReaver]

It's a start if a bit of a half-assed one. Why would a DM choose to run the game this way?

Okay. For the answer. Consider the option it contrasts with:

Ignoring the Dice​

• One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat* and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.
• With this approach* the DM decides whether an actio: or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the player- make their case, how thorough or creative they are* or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so*
• This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you've described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities* A downside is that no DM is completely neutral* A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one “correct " action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle*

What types of games does it best support?

Doesn't the quote in my prior post answer this. Games where:
'You want the players to have the sense anything is possible'

What types of games does it not support well?

Again, the quote provides the answer. Games where:
'You want players feeling their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success"

Do you possibly have something more complex in mind with these questions about 'types of games'. If so maybe providing an example would be beneficial?

 

[pointofyou]

Okay. For the answer. Consider the option it contrasts with:



Doesn't the quote in my prior post answer this. Games where:
'You want the players to have the sense anything is possible'


Again, the quote provides the answer. Games where:
'You don't want players feeling their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success"

Do you possibly have something more complex in mind with these questions. If so maybe providing an example would be beneficial?

Still seems more like platitudes than anything else to me. How is play at a table where the DM almost never calls for rolls different from one where the DM almost always call for rolls? How would a DM know where in this particular range they wanted to be?

How constrained do we mean "anything is possible" to be? How constrained are the players' decisions?