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

[Dannyalcatraz]

First rule of holes, hombre. First rule of holes.

Mod Note:

The First Rule of Holes applies to everyone.

 

[pemerton]

I think there's a point we have to give the DM's some credit. The age of the game is 12+, your average 12 or 13 year old knows what a setback is. I understand guidance but there's also a point of too much/unnecessary handholding.

No one is saying the definition of "setback" is confusing. They're talking about explanation and examples of what counts as a setback in the context of DMG gameplay.

This is not cutting edge RPG tech. There are dozens of RPGs in print, produced on budgets far smaller than that available to WotC, that actually explain to a GM of the game what a setback looks like in the context of that game, and provide examples.

I can even provide contrasting examples from the same rulebook: Classic Traveller, Book 1, 1977, p 16:

Vacc Suit - The individual has been trained, and has experience, in the use of standard vacuum suits (space suits), including armored battle dress and suits for use on various planetary surfaces in the presence of exotic, corrosive or insidious atmospheres.

Non-breathable atmospheres or hostile environments can be easily overcome by use of protective equipment, but the danger of minor mishaps becoming fatal is great. A basic throw of 10+ to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual while wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc).

DM: +4 per level of expertise.

When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+.

DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: −4.​

This provides a good list of circumstances that count as "non-ordinary" manoeuvres, that trigger the need for a vacc suit check. But it provides no examples of what a "dangerous situation" or "incident" might look like that results from a failed check. This is the sort of thing that made it very hard for me to understand what Traveller game play was meant to look like when I first read the rules. It's only when I came back to the game with a couple of additional decades of experience as a GM that I was able to apply techniques that other games had explained and taught to me - like the soft/hard move approach in Apocalypse World, for instance - to successfully resolve situations involving vacc suit complications.

There's no reason in principle why the rules for Classic Traveller couldn't be written in the same way as those other RPGs.

EDIT: And just for the sake of clarity, that last sentence applies equally to D&D.

 

[Oofta]

No one is saying the definition of "setback" is confusing. They're talking about explanation and examples of what counts as a setback in the context of DMG gameplay.

This is not cutting edge RPG tech. There are dozens of RPGs in print, produced on budgets far smaller than that available to WotC, that actually explain to a GM of the game what a setback looks like in the context of that game, and provide examples.

I can even provide contrasting examples from the same rulebook: Classic Traveller, Book 1, 1977, p 16:

Vacc Suit - The individual has been trained, and has experience, in the use of standard vacuum suits (space suits), including armored battle dress and suits for use on various planetary surfaces in the presence of exotic, corrosive or insidious atmospheres.​

​

Non-breathable atmospheres or hostile environments can be easily overcome by use of protective equipment, but the danger of minor mishaps becoming fatal is great. A basic throw of 10+ to avoid dangerous situation applies whenever any non-ordinary maneuver is attempted by an individual while wearing a vacc suit (such as running, jumping, hiding, jumping untethered from one ship to another, etc).​

​

DM: +4 per level of expertise.​

​

When such an incident occurs, it may be remedied by any character with vacc suit expertise (including the character in danger himself) on a throw of 7+.​

​

DM: +2 per level of expertise. No expertise DM: −4.​

This provides a good list of circumstances that count as "non-ordinary" manoeuvres, that trigger the need for a vacc suit check. But it provides no examples of what a "dangerous situation" or "incident" might look like that results from a failed check. This is the sort of thing that made it very hard for me to understand what Traveller game play was meant to look like when I first read the rules. It's only when I came back to the game with a couple of additional decades of experience as a GM that I was able to apply techniques that other games had explained and taught to me - like the soft/hard move approach in Apocalypse World, for instance - to successfully resolve situations involving vacc suit complications.

There's no reason in principle why the rules for Classic Traveller couldn't be written in the same way as those other RPGs.

EDIT: And just for the sake of clarity, that last sentence applies equally to D&D.

I think the type of setback you could encounter would be so varied that any examples probably wouldn't apply. Could they provide examples? Sure. Would they be useful? Eh. I doubt it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the type of setback you could encounter would be so varied that any examples probably wouldn't apply. Could they provide examples? Sure. Would they be useful? Eh. I doubt it.

What?

Examples aren't helpful now?

 

[Oofta]

What?

Examples aren't helpful now?

I thought I was clear. I don't think examples necessarily add much value.

 

[Imaro]

What?

Examples aren't helpful now?

Thats not what he said at all. The point is that there is such variation in the situations where any individual DM could ask for an ability check that a smattering of generic examples would add little to no real value. And, like the examples given for ability checks themselves more than likely only lead to calls for more and/or specifics...

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thats not what he said at all. The point is that there is such variation in the situations where any individual DM could ask for an ability check that a smattering of generic examples would add little to no real value. And, like the examples given for ability checks themselves more than likely only lead to calls for more and/or specifics...

Yeah, that’s what he said and why I was amazed. I think that’s a terrible approach to instruction, whether in a starter kit or a DMG or pretty much anything.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, that’s what he said and why I was amazed. I think that’s a terrible approach to instruction, whether in a starter kit or a DMG or pretty much anything.

Eh, I think if people figured out when the various DC's for ability checks should be used in their games with minimal if any examples, they would be able to figure out their own setbacks as well... Rulings not rules was the mantra for 5e, what im seeing is some people trying to codify and define those rulings... all that does is make them rules...

 

[pemerton]

I think the type of setback you could encounter would be so varied that any examples probably wouldn't apply. Could they provide examples? Sure. Would they be useful? Eh. I doubt it.

So why does the Basic PDF have examples of possible ability checks, and examples of actions that might fall within the scope of the various skills?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I dunno. The example of The First Dungeon Adventure from the 1e DMG is still with me 40 years after reading it (and probably 35 years since I last read it). Anecdotal, sure. N=1, yep. But maybe there is something to having examples of play in the rulebooks...