D&D 5E Regarding DMG, Starter Set and Essentials kit: Are they good for the starting DMs?

[Imaro]

But I'm not expecting them to even look at the core books to start. That's my point. The core books are way too much to start with. That's why I'd want stuff like that in the starter set. Just a simple table of examples would be much more useful than any NPC backstory.

I'm with you.

 

[pointofyou]

Yes... that's my point. Proponents of the DMG for beginner's expect them to read 200+ pages comprehend it and apply it before running a game. But can't fathom, especially since 5e uses natural language that a teenager would know what a setback is... that's my point.


That answer is helpful it let's a DM know he can rule in two ways on a failure. And assuming one knows what the word setback means... it's not that hard. It's one of the reasons age ranges are called out specifically for games.

The reason they can't fathom the DMG is because it's written for people with experience DMing. Circular logic is circular.

Anyone new to GMing might need to have what setbacks are in TRPGs unpacked for them in the sense of knowing what is reasonable and what players will deal with. That's not a matter of being 12 or 21.

 

[Imaro]

The reason they can't fathom the DMG is because it's written for people with experience DMing. Circular logic is circular.

There is literally nothing supporting this assertion except your oppinion and possibly anecdotal evidence... vs the immense growth of the game. Let's just agree to disagree here.

Anyone new to GMing might need to have what setbacks are in TRPGs unpacked for them in the sense of knowing what is reasonable and what players will deal with. That's not a matter of being 12 or 21.

Well then how granular do you go? There's a reason 5e uses natural language and it's because certain things by meaning exactly what they mean in conversation can be quickly understood. So I ask again how granular of an explanation is needed for your criteria to be met in order for teenagers to be able to learn D&D and how do we determine what does or doesn't need more granularity?

 

[pointofyou]

There is literally nothing supporting this assertion except your oppinion and possibly anecdotal evidence... vs the immense growth of the game. Let's just agree to disagree here.


Well then how granular do you go? There's a reason 5e uses natural language and it's because certain things by meaning exactly what they mean in conversation can be quickly understood. So I ask again how granular of an explanation is needed for your criteria to be met in order for teenagers to be able to learn D&D?

I think the fact they're rewriting the DMG might turn out to be evidence supporting my assertion if and only if they rewrite it to be more useful for new DMs. I otherwise agree there's no evidence to argue about.

I thought the reason 5e uses natural language is because they were hoping to avoid endless arguments over the rules. Insert maniacal laughter here. If your new DM happens to have paid attention in class when narrative structure was discussed they might be able to work it out from something like first principles but even so GMing a TRPG is not like writing a novel so some explanation of what a setback is in the context of a TRPG might be useful. Especially if that new DM is also trying not to let that one failed roll send the game skittering in a direction they are not prepared to handle.

 

[Imaro]

I think the fact they're rewriting the DMG might turn out to be evidence supporting my assertion if and only if they rewrite it to be more useful for new DMs. I otherwise agree there's no evidence to argue about.

I thought the reason 5e uses natural language is because they were hoping to avoid endless arguments over the rules. Insert maniacal laughter here. If your new DM happens to have paid attention in class when narrative structure was discussed they might be able to work it out from something like first principles but even so GMing a TRPG is not like writing a novel so some explanation of what a setback is in the context of a TRPG might be useful. Especially if that new DM is also trying not to let that one failed roll send the game skittering in a direction they are not prepared to handle.

Again we'll just have to agree to disagree... I think a teenager is perfectly capable of not only knowing what a setback is but also coming up with one if they wish in the game. Again how granular do we go and how often? What age level are we writing for?

 

[pointofyou]

Again we'll just have to agree to disagree... I think a teenager is perfectly capable of not only knowing what a setback is but also coming up with one if they wish in the game. Again how granular do we go and how often? What age level are we writing for?

Seems to me like those two questions could be answered by market research. Poll recently new DMs on what would have been helpful for them. I suppose it'd be possible to do something like a focus group and see what grade-level they're reading. To answer your questions in order. I'd be interested in those results aside from whatever changes in the DMG they led to.

 

[Composer99]

There is literally nothing supporting this assertion except your oppinion and possibly anecdotal evidence... vs the immense growth of the game. Let's just agree to disagree here.


Well then how granular do you go? There's a reason 5e uses natural language and it's because certain things by meaning exactly what they mean in conversation can be quickly understood. So I ask again how granular of an explanation is needed for your criteria to be met in order for teenagers to be able to learn D&D?

Your argument comes down to - or comes across as coming down to - two forks:

(1) An argument from popularity. Not a good look, and certainly not a sound support.
(2) An argument from "kids can read the dictionary" - this is... well, let me put it as below.

There are hundreds and thousands of books you can get that introduce you to new skills - learning how to play piano, learning how to code HTML, learning how to bake, and so on. None that I've ever seen is structured the way the DMG is structured. There is something very telling about that. What's more, none of them assume that just because you can read a word in the dictionary means you sufficiently grasp the concepts involved. Suffice to say that between your say-so and the work of professional pedagogues on how to write and structure an instructional manual - I find the latter group to be far more compelling.

Now, if the DMG's purpose as a book is not intended to help new DMs learn how to run a game, and is instead intended to be an all-purpose reference manual for running games - similar to way, say, the rulebook for Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg is not intended, as such, to help new players learn how to play the game - that's all well and good, as far as it goes. But if that's the case, it should be made explicitly clear in the DMG so prospective new DMs know that they should use a starter set or other resource to learn DMing skills, and use the DMG as a reference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes... that's my point. Proponents of the DMG for beginner's expect them to read 200+ pages comprehend it and apply it before running a game. But can't fathom, especially since 5e uses natural language that a teenager would know what a setback is... that's my point.

I don't think anyone has said that at all, across these recent DMG threads. It's not that the DMG needs to be read before someone can try DMing, it's that the book should be useful to someone learning to DM... as a reference during play and also in between sessions.

Sure, they may begin with one or more of the Starter Sets... but does anyone think running Lost Mines and then Icespire Peak is all a person needs to do to become a decent DM?

I think "proponents of the DMG for beginners" are more "proponents of the DMG for everyone, including beginners".

That answer is helpful it let's a DM know he can rule in two ways on a failure. And assuming one knows what the word setback means... it's not that hard. It's one of the reasons age ranges are called out specifically for games.

Adding a list of suggestions is pretty basic teaching. Your argument against it seems to be that people can teach themselves?

Again we'll just have to agree to disagree... I think a teenager is perfectly capable of not only knowing what a setback is but also coming up with one if they wish in the game. Again how granular do we go and how often? What age level are we writing for?

There are many experienced gamers who on this very site will show they do not know what things like fail forward or success with cost mean, or what they do for a game. I don't see why the books shouldn't educate people.

You seem very focused on people understanding what the definition of "setback" is, but that's not the issue. It's more what constitutes a reasonable setback given the circumstances of play.

 

[Imaro]

Your argument comes down to - or comes across as coming down to - two forks:

(1) An argument from popularity. Not a good look, and certainly not a sound support.
(2) An argument from "kids can read the dictionary" - this is... well, let me put it as below.

There are hundreds and thousands of books you can get that introduce you to new skills - learning how to play piano, learning how to code HTML, learning how to bake, and so on. None that I've ever seen is structured the way the DMG is structured. There is something very telling about that. What's more, none of them assume that just because you can read a word in the dictionary means you sufficiently grasp the concepts involved. Suffice to say that between your say-so and the work of professional pedagogues on how to write and structure an instructional manual - I find the latter group to be far more compelling.

Now, if the DMG's purpose as a book is not intended to help new DMs learn how to run a game, and is instead intended to be an all-purpose reference manual for running games - similar to way, say, the rulebook for Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg is not intended, as such, to help new players learn how to play the game - that's all well and good, as far as it goes. But if that's the case, it should be made explicitly clear in the DMG so prospective new DMs know that they should use a starter set or other resource to learn DMing skills, and use the DMG as a reference.

I don't think the DMG is the onboard for new DM's I think the starter sets are. As for an argument for popularity... it's no less sound than declaring something isn't working with no proof whatsoever...which is to say neither arguments amount to much... which was kind of my point.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Now, if the DMG's purpose as a book is not intended to help new DMs learn how to run a game, and is instead intended to be an all-purpose reference manual for running games - similar to way, say, the rulebook for Axis Empires: Totaler Krieg is not intended, as such, to help new players learn how to play the game - that's all well and good, as far as it goes. But if that's the case, it should be made explicitly clear in the DMG so prospective new DMs know that they should use a starter set or other resource to learn DMing skills, and use the DMG as a reference.

It would be really cool if the Introduction, the very beginning of the DMG, the VERY FIRST WORDS A READER ENCOUNTERS, had something like this:


IT'S GOOD TO BE THE DUNGEON MASTER! NOT ONLY do you get to tell fantastic stories about heroes, villains, monsters, and magic, but you also get to create the world in which these stories live. Whether you're running a D&D game already or you think it's something you want to try, this book is for you.
The Dungeon Master's Guide assumes that you know the basics of how to play the D&D tabletop roleplaying game. If you haven't played before, the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Starter Set is a great starting point for new players and DMs.

Oh ... that's the very beginning of the DMG? What have we learned?

....no one reads the DMG.

Heh.