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

[Maxperson]

I want the section on using the dice to talk about how to use the dice. I do not want a sentence of "you might do this" and a sentence of "players might think that." Saying that rolling for everything conveys the sense that anything is possible is I think flat wrong. What you roll for and what is possible are two different categories that do not particularly relate.

The bolded is correct for 5e. The 5e PHB rules explicitly state that the DM only calls for a roll if the outcome is in doubt, therefore if you roll for everything, everything must be possible.

I want the section on using the dice to talk about the effects of rolling for everything and rolling for nothing and how those effects are different.

How is that difference not incredibly obvious? It's literally the difference between night and day. For me the pro(it gives the players the sense that anything is possible) and the con(players can feel that the die rolls and not their decisions and roleplay matter more) is sufficient to help a new DM decide whether to use that style or not.

I want someone who hasn't run before to be able to figure out how they want to run at least to start by reading the DMG.

See, they already can. All the information that a beginner needs is there, it's just not organized well. That's where the DMG really needs work. And the lack of organization is also why a beginner should start with the 5e starter set.

 

[pointofyou]

The bolded is correct for 5e. The 5e PHB rules explicitly state that the DM only calls for a roll if the outcome is in doubt, therefore if you roll for everything, everything must be possible.

How is that difference not incredibly obvious? It's literally the difference between night and day. For me the pro(it gives the players the sense that anything is possible) and the con(players can feel that the die rolls and not their decisions and roleplay matter more) is sufficient to help a new DM decide whether to use that style or not.

See, they already can. All the information that a beginner needs is there, it's just not organized well. That's where the DMG really needs work. And the lack of organization is also why a beginner should start with the 5e starter set.

I do not think there's any difference in what's possible between a game where the DM decides based entirely on their sense of realistic or narrative sense and a game where the DM calls for rolls all the time. There are real differences between those games but what's possible isn't among them.

Most of what I want from a revised DMG seems as though it could be accomplished through the reorganization you acknowledge it needs.

 

[Maxperson]

I do not think there's any difference in what's possible between a game where the DM decides based entirely on their sense of realistic or narrative sense and a game where the DM calls for rolls all the time. There are real differences between those games but what's possible isn't among them.

You're wrong about that. There are lots of unrealistic things like my halfling running up the fighter and being tossed up onto a dragon that is in mid flight. It's not realistically or narratively possible, but absolutely possible in a roll for everything game. There are a bunch of ridiculous scenarios where the DM deciding based on realism or narrative sense will say no, but roll for everything makes it possible.

Now there is some overlap where a DM deciding everything will say yes on things that the Rolling With It allows a roll, but those are also not the same, because the on the one hand success is guaranteed because the DM said yes, and on the other hand you can fail a roll.

There is always a difference between the two styles. How much of a difference is the only thing to figure out.

Most of what I want from a revised DMG seems as though it could be accomplished through the reorganization you acknowledge it needs.

Then we agree about that anyway.

 

[pointofyou]

You're wrong about that. There are lots of unrealistic things like my halfling running up the fighter and being tossed up onto a dragon that is in mid flight. It's not realistically or narratively possible, but absolutely possible in a roll for everything game. There are a bunch of ridiculous scenarios where the DM deciding based on realism or narrative sense will say no, but roll for everything makes it possible.

Now there is some overlap where a DM deciding everything will say yes on things that the Rolling With It allows a roll, but those are also not the same, because the on the one hand success is guaranteed because the DM said yes, and on the other hand you can fail a roll.

There is always a difference between the two styles. How much of a difference is the only thing to figure out.

Then we agree about that anyway.

If the DM decides it's possible it's possible. It doesn't matter whether dice are involved.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM decides it's possible it's possible.

That's not what Ignoring the Dice means, though. The DM isn't deciding if it's possible, he's saying yes or no to everything, which is very different. There are no possibilities. Either you do it or you fail, nothing is up in the air. Whereas with Rolling With It, everything is possible and there are no yeses or noes.

One quite literally cannot be like the other.

 

[pointofyou]

That's not what Ignoring the Dice means, though. The DM isn't deciding if it's possible, he's saying yes or no to everything, which is very different. There are no possibilities. Either you do it or you fail, nothing is up in the air. Whereas with Rolling With It, everything is possible and there are no yeses or noes.

One quite literally cannot be like the other.

If the DM calls for a dice roll it's possible. If the DM decides it happens it's possible. The limits are not different.

 

[Maxperson]

If the DM calls for a dice roll it's possible. If the DM decides it happens it's possible. The limits are not different.

The limits are entirely irrelevant. Deciding, rolling for everything, a mixture of both, the limits are never different. This is about the process, not the limits and the difference in processes between Rolling With It and Ignoring the Dice are profound.

 

[AnotherGuy]

It certainly sounds from this conversation 1 has not actually read the DMG or is just making a case for personal preference. Especially when there are calls for "real advice" and when asked what that may entails, the answer comes back as I'm not a games designer as if one was asked to work the mechanics of the game.

Supposedly one can have the language capacity to critique the DMG for an entire week in discussion with multiple posters but when it comes to real advice, the language fails one.

What we (general) appear to agree upon is that the 5e DMG needed a better structural layout, a better index and that there is no "example of play" within the book. The rest of the criticism seems to be personal preferences and various biases showing.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I want the section on using the dice to talk about the effects of rolling for everything and rolling for nothing and how those effects are different.

That is all on pages 236 and 237, I believe you have been pointed to these pages multiple times by a number of posters who went to the effort and time to look it up in their DMG and reply to you, but you may have missed these replies each and every time. It is wonderfully written in the DMG.

There is a paragraph under Rolling with It which states Replying on the dice gives the players the sense that anything is possible. A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success.

There is a paragraph under Ignoring the Dice that actually begins with This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look at the situation you have 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 favour certain players or approaches, or even works against good ideas if they send the game in the direction he or she doesn't like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on the "correct" action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle.

I'm curious does anyone still reading this thread believe the DMG has not actually explained how the process of Ignoring the Dice plays different to Rolling with It? If you believe @pointofyou's query is still not satisfied, please explain to me in which way it has not.

 

[Iosue]

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).

The interesting thing about this is, the 80s Basic Sets have pretty good reputations as introductions to the game. I, for one, think they are excellent (that's right, I used italics for emphasis!). But what makes them so good is just how extraordinarily constrained they are. They don't examine differing player agendas, they don't even cover adventuring in the wilderness. The focus solely on running a dungeon-crawl game, and their practical, procedural advice in terms of creating adventures is purely on creating dungeons. They take a tiny sliver of the potential of RPGs, and double-down on that.

But I've come to the conclusion that, actually, the best, most efficient way to teach someone to DM is to teach them how to create and run dungeon-crawls. Even if eventually they will go off and do Critical Role/Dragonlance type narrative-heavy campaigns, or urban campaigns centered on social interaction or West Marches sandbox. The constrained, highly focused style of play is easy to pick-up, and the skills the players and DMs learn there provide a solid foundation upon which the skills for handling the many other styles of game (indeed, many other game systems) can be extrapolated.

But, such an introductory product would never fly today. Not only because dungeon-crawls are passé, but because no one would be on-board with introducing the unlimited freedom and potential of TRPGs by focusing on a highly focused, highly constrained aspect of them.