D&D 5E (2014) Regarding DMG, Starter Set and Essentials kit: Are they good for the starting DMs?

[Zaukrie]

We can theoretically make anything better by adding more to it since nothing is perfect... what practical purpose does that serve?

I think we've beaten this horse enough in this thread.

 

[Imaro]

Do you think basics exist that are generally applicable?

Insofar as the actual rules yes... but beyond that I'd have to see some examples of what is meant.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

We can theoretically make anything better by adding more to it since nothing is perfect... what practical purpose does that serve?

In fairness, I'm all for people proposing ideas for a better starter set. In my mind (and ... as the DMG says) if you are a new player or DM, that's the right place to start!

I think the issue is what you wrote about earlier- people learn differently. And D&D is not like other games - it does have a privileged position from being so prevalent. Finally, how people choose to engage today is different than it was in the past.

I think you have to be cognizant of those three factors when thinking about the best way to on-board new players. I think that saying, "Well, here's {insert other RPG game's book} this book, and it does it this way," is to miss the point.

Most other games don't have the luxury of a starter set. Or a large web presence. Or a massive fanbase. Or a large streamer community.

 

[Imaro]

I think we've beaten this horse enough in this thread.

Nevermind...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it's at it's most useful when it provides options and tools for me to use however I want... but hey we are all looking for something different out of D&D.

Aren't those examples? "Hey, here's some options you can use, and also they serve as a template for you to come up with your own options."

Can' you use (or not use) the Eladrin example of a subrace however you want?

No, but claiming it's a bad starter set because it didn't provide these is what some people feel is silly. Yes it could have examples but again there are other logistics like page count, price etc. that providing copious examples will affect. If the price increases to $30 will the number of DM's put off by that increase be made up for because now their are more examples? Will the DM's lost to the extra page count they now need to read will be made up for by these extra examples.

No one said it was bad. People said it would be a good idea to offer examples of the things it suggests you do. I don't think that such lists need to come at such a cost as you claim RE word and page count. They can be added with a little bit of editing to allow for them.

Insofar as the actual rules yes... but beyond that I'd have to see some examples of what is meant.

I mean... look up "examples" in the dictionary!

 

[pointofyou]

Insofar as the actual rules yes... but beyond that I'd have to see some examples of what is meant.

The basics people are thinking would be useful for new DMs aren't just rules. Do you think there are basics about "How to DM" that are generally applicable? Or do you think anything that sets out to answer "how" will inevitably specify an end goal? Is there something in learning to DM that is conceptually similar to learning the C-Major scale early in piano lessons?

 

[Imaro]

Aren't those examples? "Hey, here's some options you can use, and also they serve as a template for you to come up with your own options."

Can' you use (or not use) the Eladrin example of a subrace however you want?

By this definition everything in the book is an example of something... So I guess you win.

No one said it was bad. People said it would be a good idea to offer examples of the things it suggests you do. I don't think that such lists need to come at such a cost as you claim RE word and page count. They can be added with a little bit of editing to allow for them.

See this isn't the first and only call for examples though... expanded player types, how to achieve different playstyes, setbacks... my point is achieving all of these is significant page count at some point.

I mean... look up "examples" in the dictionary!

I know what examples are... I'm unclear on what exactly I am providing examples of... but wow that was clever...Soooo clever.

 

[Imaro]

The basics people are thinking would be useful for new DMs aren't just rules. Do you think there are basics about "How to DM" that are generally applicable? Or do you think anything that sets out to answer "how" will inevitably specify an end goal? Is there something in learning to DM that is conceptually similar to learning the C-Major scale early in piano lessons?

Yes I agree with you there are basics for how to DM... but I'm not sure there wouldn't be cries of not enough and/or disagreement on what they are. Again not saying it couldn't be done just skeptical on how it would be accomplished and whether we all agree on the "basics".

 

[pointofyou]

Yes I agree with you there are basics for how to DM... but I'm not sure there wouldn't be cries of not enough and/or disagreement on what they are. Again not saying it couldn't be done just skeptical on how it would be accomplished and whether we all agree on the "basics".

What seems like the crux to me is that some people think "basic how-to" automatically means insistence on One True Way and others think "basic how-to" inherently includes introductions to many possible ways.

 

[Composer99]

On the other hand let's look at the videogame industry... nowadays hardly any videogames include the obligatory introduction tutorial and/or the vast strategy guides that used to be published for the games that were staples in the late 80's up into the late 90's (they may have faded even before then)... why do you think that even though the average videogame today is more demanding, has a greater number of combinations (button wise) are magnitudes larger and in general are more complex than those that came before, they no longer do either of these? My bet would be that they realized most people really don't have a problem figuring it out on their own and for a large number of people this approach may even be more fun to figure it out themselves. Add on top of that easily searchable resources on the internet for those who want to use them and you have a situation (very similar to ttrpg's) where there's no need to spoon-feed to players in excruciating detail everything about the game.

IMO the quickest way to kill interest in DM'ing would be to create a document so comprehensive and so detail and example laden that most people's eyes glaze over shortly after starting it or better yet... they just don't start it because it's too much.

EDIT: Just to address your question about chapter 10... you're comparing apples and oranges... these are game rules being explained... the rule to add a setback is stated and it is explained when a DM can choose to use it. I mean the word range is used in chapter 10... but I don't see example of what range is because we assume the reader knows what is meant when the word range is used.

Your particular video game analogy, which refers to tutorials, does not hold in specific reply to my post, because I am talking about DMG-as-reference-manual.

It also doesn't hold up, as it turns out, with respect to reference manuals. Here is a list of video games I own that have been published in the last 10 years that have separate user manuals (I looked them up):

• Fantasy General II
• Pillars of Eternity
• X-Com 2
• Divinity: Original Sin (1 and 2)
• Fell Seal: Arbiter's Mark
• Phantom Doctrine
• D&D Tales from Candlekeep - Tomb of Annihilation

Honourable mentions go to Age of Wonders 3 and Age of Wonders Planetfall, which, while they do not have separate user manuals, have in-game "cyclopedias" that serve the same function. I stopped playing Stellaris after maybe 15 minutes, so I couldn't say for sure whether it has an in-game "cyclopedia" or not, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it did.

There is no expectation that players will read them cover-to-cover, or even that they will look them up at all, whether during or outside of gameplay. Nevertheless, they are available for those who want to make use of them. I am sure that if I cared to search more, I would find other games in my library that also have these manuals, to say nothing of how many video games I don't own that might have in-built or separate reference manuals.

Finally, and most importantly - running a game of Dungeons and Dragons, the TTRPG, is not in any way, shape, or form, the same as playing a video game. Not in the slightest.

---

You'll notice that my remark about chapter 10 of the PHB was using your own words; it's pointing out that the line of thinking you use follows to an absurd ending. After all, if the game is about "rulings, not rules", and if people are big kids who can look words up in the dictionary, you could scrap almost the entire chapter and just have a definition for concentration in a glossary. Certainly I expect plenty of folks reading off their class description's spellcasting feature and the description for, say, bless, could probably figure out how to cast that spell without ever looking in chapter 10. And yet, there chapter 10 still is!

---

Frankly, what you're coming across (especially in later posts) as arguing is that the DMG ought to be written or structured so as to cater specifically to what you personally want out of it - or at least that it ought not be written or structured so as to cater to anyone who wants or might want something else (or something more). That is an argument that, to my mind, is without merit on its face. Maybe that's not what you're meaning to argue, but I can't respond to what you intend, only what you write.

That's on top of the blatant strawmen, which are becoming exceedingly tiring - whether or not that's your intent, it's pretty hard to parse loaded language such as "spoon feed [...] in excruciating detail" as anything other than a strawman argument that is intentionally inflammatory. Other reference or instructional manuals for hobbyists - gardening, model trains, cross-stich, you name it - have concrete examples where the writers feel they are warranted, meaning it is an industry standard, accepted by professional writers across multiple hobbies and disciplines, that such documents ought to have concrete examples to assist in making their concepts clear to new and experienced users alike. And on your say-so alone, I and folks of like mind are supposed to agree that the DMG or a starter set would be made worse by hewing closer to such a standard? I think not.

The DMG is at its most useful when it provides examples. Which it does, often and of all sorts.

But if I've followed correctly, people are saying the DMG should not be for new DMs, the Starter Sets should... but suggestions to provide examples of a setback in the Starter Set are met with indifference or outright disagreement.

I can't even follow the logic to this at all.



You don't think that examples of rulings can be given?

Something like "In this situation, you might decide to do X, or perhaps Y. Think about the situation and what makes sense, and what make for an interesting situation for the characters. Here's a short list of other suggestions to serve as inspiration."

In all fairness, I would agree with such people that the DMG does not have to be structured as an instructional manual for new DMs - much like how the user manual for Finale 2009 is definitely not an instructional manual for new users of Finale 2009, much less a teaching tool for learning how to write music generally.

I'm also not sure that a starter set is meant to serve as a generic instructional manual - instead, the adventure included is the instructional manual. That being said, I do own the first starter set and while it mentions that you might have to make improvised calls about ability checks on the fly, it doesn't provide any concrete examples.

With all that said, I expect the DMG would be used by new and experienced DMs alike, so it probably shouldn't be devoid of guidance for newer DMs, even if it's not structured specifically to help them learn to run a game.