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

[pemerton]

The whole back and forth on examples is a great microcosm for what goes on in these threads. It's all about dual strawmen.

A) I think more examples on this topic would be great.
B) I don't think examples on that topic would very useful.

The issue, from my point of view, is that (B) is so implausible it's hard to take it seriously. Is there any other field of instruction in which examples aren't useful? There are certainly many other RPGs where examples are useful. Why would D&D be so atypical?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is there any other field of instruction in which examples aren't useful?

Examples are usually useful (I've seen plenty of unclear and confusing examples though). However, TOO MANY WORDS is a big negative when it comes to teaching.

When it comes to things like Maths textbooks, you will often them broken up into a core book, which explains how to do things, and additional books full of examples. Usually one with simple examples for people who are struggling, and one with more challenging exercises for those who blasted through the basics to quickly and need to be kept entertained whilst everyone else catches up.

In education, this is known as differentiation*.


Which also means something else to mathematicians, because jargon has to be confusing.

 

[pemerton]

Examples are usually useful (I've seen plenty of unclear and confusing examples though). However, TOO MANY WORDS is a big negative when it comes to teaching.

This can depend on what's being taught. In the fields that I teach - law, theoretical sociology, philosophy - too many words is not a big problem. What matters is the right words, that will enable the student to bridge from their own "common sense" experience and orientation to the very different framework of thought that one - as the teacher - is inviting them to adopt and hoping they will learn to work within.

But in any event, does anyone think that it's impossible to write RPG examples without falling into the trap of using too many words?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Examples are usually useful (I've seen plenty of unclear and confusing examples though). However, TOO MANY WORDS is a big negative when it comes to teaching.

Certainly. Word economy matters. That's what editors are for. (And why my posts are always seven billion words too long.)

There's a ton of sloppy, roundabout, vague, or wasteful DMG prose at present. The editing is adequate (few to no typos/grammar errors.) It could be much better.

Even with that aside, adding more examples that are actually useful and effective, so long as doing so does not become cost-prohibitive, sounds like an unalloyed good to me. I genuinely don't understand how it could be harmful, so long as one remains aware that both books and reader attention are finite quantities.

Judging whether or not to add examples based on the concern that there could be bad examples doesn't exactly do you a service. It would seem that you thus grant that good examples do in fact add value, so long as they are in fact good. Which is what I asked for, however many pages back, and I can't imagine anyone else was asking for more examples with no regard for quality whatsoever.

 

[Oofta]

The issue, from my point of view, is that (B) is so implausible it's hard to take it seriously. Is there any other field of instruction in which examples aren't useful? There are certainly many other RPGs where examples are useful. Why would D&D be so atypical?

There are some topics where examples are quite useful and perhaps there should be more. There are other topics where they are less useful. Some would add no value at all other than to add extra page count.

I don't think anyone is saying that absolutely every rule needs examples. Which means there's a spectrum and which rule should have examples is always going to be a judgment call.

In addition i think that if something is complicated and potentially confusing enough to warrant an example you need multiple examples. Too often I see people pushing one true way because examples are taken out of context or the examples are not well designed.

I don't believe in absolutes. Sometimes examples are not necessary and if the examples aren't well thought out they can do as much harm as good. Sometimes examples are incredibly useful. Sometimes they're just "meh, I guess there could be some but I don't think they're necessary."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In the fields that I teach - law, theoretical sociology, philosophy - too many words is not a big problem.

Yeah. These are all supper-wordy subjects that people who don't like lots of words (e.g. a dyslexic like me) would run a mile from.

You want to teach D&D like that, you are going to lose a vast number of potential players.

But in any event, does anyone think that it's impossible to write RPG examples without falling into the trap of using too many words?

Do what many textbooks do. Break it down. Take the examples out of the rules. Easiest done digitally, have the examples separate for those who need them (a lot of textbooks ship with CDs, DVDs or links with the extra content).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Certainly. Word economy matters. That's what editors are for.

Editors can shave a bit off around the edges - say 20%. But when you are talking about the difference between an accessible 32 page booklet and a 320 page monstrosity, no amount of editing is going to turn the later into the former.

There's a ton of sloppy, roundabout, vague, or wasteful DMG prose at present. The editing is adequate (few to no typos/grammar errors.) It could be much better.

Sure, the DMG is terrible. But also, irrelevant to the discussion. It's purpose was never intended to be to teach new players how to be DMs. It's misnamed.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Editors can shave a bit off around the edges - say 20%. But when you are talking about the difference between an accessible 32 page booklet and a 320 page monstrosity, no amount of editing is going to turn the later into the former.

Sure, the DMG is terrible. But also, irrelevant to the discussion. It's purpose was never intended to be to teach new players how to be DMs. It's misnamed.

Given its prominence and centrality, wouldn't it be better to accept that that is a purpose it is going to be used for and thus write it accordingly, rather than doggedly insisting that it wasn't meant for that despite the name?

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure, the DMG is terrible. But also, irrelevant to the discussion. It's purpose was never intended to be to teach new players how to be DMs. It's misnamed.

I mean it’s not called NDMG. “New Dungeon Masters Guide”.

What other name would be better for a book about DMing topics?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah. These are all supper-wordy subjects that people who don't like lots of words (e.g. a dyslexic like me) would run a mile from.

You want to teach D&D like that, you are going to lose a vast number of potential players.

And it is not possible to create a game at the complexity of D&D--any version of D&D, including 5e--without including a lot of words.

Because if it were possible to do that, WotC would have done it long ago. D&D isn't an ultralight game and never will be.

I mean it’s not called NDMG. “New Dungeon Masters Guide”.

What other name would be better for a book about DMing topics?

What better title should there be for a book that guides people on how to be a Dungeon Master?