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

[Composer99]

Can't say I think much of the both-sides-ist take @FrogReaver. It's hard to strawman an argument that suggests adding in a handful of examples of what would reasonably be "progress with a setback" is unnecessary/bad/excessive because twelve-year-olds can read a dictionary - which is in fact an actual argument that has been put forth in this thread.

Not to mention that despite bemoaning strawmen, we're treated to...

Including 20 different examples of adjudicating a given situation isn’t going to make anything more clear.

One doesn't get much more straw-filled than that. If that wasn't meant to be sarcasm, I for one would appreciate a direct quote of someone saying examples need to be so abundant.

---

I think we can take it as fact that whether or not WotC intends for the DMG to be a teaching tool (and they do not at present; well and good), new DMs and experienced DMs alike are going to use it (edit to add - in fact, are meant to use it, else it wouldn't be a core book). That means that it ought to be able to cater to the needs of both categories of DM. What's more, DMs don't all have the same gameplay preferences or preferences with respect to running a game. The DMG ought also to be able to cater to the needs of multiple types of DM.

For my part, I'm assuming the DMG is, or at least ought to be, intended to function as a reference manual. To my mind the implications are as follows:
(1) There is no expectation that anyone will read the whole thing cover-to-cover or be obliged to memorise all its contents. (It's a reference manual, you refer to it at need.)
(2) It ought to be structured such that the most important and mission-critical tasks of being a DM (running a game session) are placed first, with less mission-critical tasks placed later. (I would go so far as to also say that mission-critical tasks should also be given a more comprehensive treatment.)
(3) It ought to be written and structured with a view to wider publishing industry standards for reference manuals, such as they are. Certainly if anyone can afford to have consultants or editors familiar with such things brought on board, it's WotC. I'm not aware of there being any compelling reason to think that being a Dungeon Master is such a unique and idiosyncratic thing to do that its primary reference manual wouldn't benefit from more closely resembling reference manuals for other hobbies.

If page count is a concern, I'm happy to point out that there is a 25-page chapter on various planes of existence that could easily be condensed (down to a few pages describing some alternate cosmologies and... wait for it... two or three examples of individual planes), and I am quite confident in saying that a more fulsome editing of the DMG would free up space to enable it to do a better job of being a more-or-less-one-stop reference for DMs.

 

[Imaro]

No. You do not need to create content to be the DM. There is plenty of content available. DMing is about running the game. That's quite enough for new players to take in.

Once they are no longer newbies they can, if they like, start to learn how to create content, but it is not an essential skill for a DM.

Which is exactly what the Essentials starter set does.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

got it. Can’t name anything ‘guide’ if it’s not geared toward novices.

For having literally just said...

I can misconstrue what you are saying to be that. It’s just not useful because you really aren’t saying that.

...as a form of chiding others for being non-contributing and unnecessarily combative, this seems to be the complete antithesis of your previous aims.

If leaping to the most uncharitable and extreme interpretations of what someone says is inappropriate, doing it yourself with pretty openly venomous sarcasm seems worse, not better.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is exactly what the Essentials starter set does.

You should not have to buy a separate product for $20 further, over and above the ~$150 price tag of the game overall, just to actually be told how to use the damn thing in the first place.

Nor should you have to turn to third-party sources to actually get told how to do things.

The books themselves should be adequate self-teaching aids for the average person. Someone who wants things that go above and beyond adequacy, things that provide a truly excellent introduction, should indeed expect that such above-and-beyond might come with a price tag, or with a need to seek out others with experience to guide them.

But the core books, the things the game explicitly says you need in order to play, should also do a sufficiently good job on their own that most people can get everything they need just from those things alone.

The starting books should teach. Teaching should not be the only thing they do. But they should teach.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The argument to keep the DMG as is seems to me like gatekeeping at its finest.

“This should be for me! Not for anyone else but MEEEEEEE!”

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The argument to keep the DMG as is seems to me like gatekeeping at its finest.

“This should be for me! Not for anyone else but MEEEEEEE!”

At the very least, if people want an excellent reference manual, we already have a name for that book too.

It's the Rules Compendium. Multiple editions have published such a book, usually 2-3 years after launch so that both updates (new content) and errata (edits to existing content) can be folded in. It's very useful to have an organized, focused, no-nonsense reference manual.

When an edition is brand-new, you don't need a book that is for old hands, because there are no old hands. Everyone is new to it. Sure, people may have familiarity, but if someone tries to DM 5e fresh without having ever looked at the 5e rules, they're gonna run into a LOT of issues because a ton of really basic things no longer work the same way (movement being the most obvious example), even though the overall structure is damn-near identical.

Hence, if the DMG is to be published as one of the very first books--that is, at a time when by definition literally all players are new to said edition--it should be written for the inexperienced. That doesn't mean it CANNOT also be written for experienced players, and ideally it should do what it can to support them too. But it should teach, because literally everyone needs some teaching at that point. If they didn't, there wouldn't be a need for a new edition!

 

[FrogReaver]

The argument to keep the DMG as is seems to me like gatekeeping at its finest.

“This should be for me! Not for anyone else but MEEEEEEE!”

I don’t understand this accusation

Can people not believe the changes to the DMG that you want to see would make for a worse DMG?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Which is exactly what the Essentials starter set does.

Indeed. You could discuss the exact content, but there is nothing wrong with the current approach. More online content needed though (with those examples!).

DMG needs to be renamed or junked though.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Many moons ago (alright, about 10 moons ago), I posted a list of the most important bits of the DMG for someone to read and the order in which to read them. Add a chapter on How to DM after the Intro, and I think we have a decent start to something:

• Introduction
• Chapter 3: Elements of a Great Adventure
• Chapter 6: Campaign Tracking
• Chapter 8: entire chapter except Siege Equipment and Madness
• Chapter 5: Wilderness Survival
• Chapter 6: Downtime Activities
• Chapter 4: NPC Party Members, Contacts, Hirelings
• Chapter 9: Ability Options, Adventuring Options, Combat Options
• Chapter 7: entire chapter (b/c treasure is fun)

Here's the full post for context:

D&D 5E - "People complain, but don't actually read the DMG!" Which sections specifically?

I think this matter goes a lot deeper than just not reading optional rules or the like. Many experienced DMs just assume "they got it," when it comes to new editions of D&D and they run their games pretty much as they've always done. So the thinking is, "who needs to read the DMG?" Now, to be...

www.enworld.org

 

[FrogReaver]

No, that's not what I said. There's plenty you can do, like using the supplementary front/back cover text to indicate it's an advanced text, for experienced users.

All I said is that without text like that, it makes sense that some people might think it's an introductory book. The multiple threads on it recently are decent evidence of that.

You mean like the text you cited?

The text on the bottom of the cover says "Everything a Dungeon Master needs to weave legendary stories for the world's greatest roleplaying game." That would also suggest to me that it would include instruction, not exclusively advanced resources.

To me that quote tells me the guide is primarily about weaving/creating legendary stories instead of a manual on 'how to run the game'. I really don't understand how you take that line to indicate instruction over content creation.