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

[FrogReaver]

To be clear, I'm not saying it is primarily for beginners.

Then I think we agree here.

All I'm saying is I understand why people think it is/should be.

I can understand why people think it should be. I just disagree with them.

I cannot understand why people think it is when it tells new DM's to go elsewhere right at the start. When the blurb at the bottom of the cover doesn't indicate it's for learning to play the game but instead indicates it's for something else.

And if that's a common misconception, it's probably worth addressing.

I don't really buy that it's a common misconception.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because they must figure it out for themselves the way we did.

From where I sit, those that disagree with you are advocating for new DM's to use all the resources available, including online tutorials, watching livestreamed games, etc.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

To be clear, I'm not saying it is primarily for beginners. All I'm saying is I understand why people think it is/should be. And if that's a common misconception, it's probably worth addressing.

I am going to point this out again.

Point 1
5e is the most popular version of D&D in history.
It's the most popular TTRPG in history.
While I can't pull the numbers, I would wager very good money that 5e has introduced more new people to the hobby than any other TTRPG in history.

So, something good is happening?

Point 2
Most people who come to D&D aren't completely new.
They have either learned to play by joining another group, or learned to play by watching other people play extensively.
For the people who come in completely, 100% new, there are things called "Starter Sets," which are designed for completely new people and are sold through mass-market retailers.

Point 3
The "core three" books are, and will remain, that way because we've always had that. A PHB, a DMG, and an MM. Now, someone could order a MM from an online retailer, thinking it's a book about playing as a monster (it's a manual, after all, not a compendium), but they aren't going to change the name.
In addition, given the easy availability of video and on-line resources, using a non-interactive text to teach people how to DM seems like it is not the best way to do so- which is why WoTC is using videos in conjunction with the Starter Set (for example).

Point 4
The complaints you are seeing are not, for the most part, from people that are playing and loving 5e. If you look closely, you might notice that it is mostly people who (1) don't play D&D (or 5e); (2) don't particularly care for D&D (or 5e); or (3) are very keen on telling people to play games in a certain way.

When you combine these issues, I think you understand the skepticism. Can the DMG be better and more accessible? Certainly. But I would take the complaints on this forum with a few pounds of salt.

 

[pointofyou]

From where I sit, those that disagree with you are advocating for new DM's to use all the resources available, including online tutorials, watching livestreamed games, etc.

From where I sit those that disagree with you are advocating that "all the resources available" include a Dungeon Master's Guide written at least in part with the new DM in mind.

 

[Oofta]

From where I sit those that disagree with you are advocating that "all the resources available" include a Dungeon Master's Guide written at least in part with the new DM in mind.

Where do you draw the line? It is, in part, written with a new DM in mind just like the PHB and MM. It's just not a starter set.

It's probably not the place to start if you've never even seen a game. But the percentage of people who want to play the game who have never played in a game, seen a streamed live play, taken a look at the free encounter with accompanying video has got to be small. How much do you want to add going after fractions?

Last, but not least, is there any evidence anywhere that this not a complete strawman? Because there's plenty of evidence that millions of people have started playing D&D with 5E.

 

[Xamnam]

I cannot understand why people think it is when it tells new DM's to go elsewhere right at the start. When the blurb at the bottom of the cover doesn't indicate it's for learning to play the game but instead indicates it's for something else.
-
I don't really buy that it's a common misconception.

Then I think we're at an impasse. I can understand, but firmly disagree with your interpretation of that text, and I've seen/heard enough people complain about it that it's a worthy concern in my eyes.

 

[Xamnam]

Point 1
So, something good is happening?

Yep!

Point 2
Most people who come to D&D aren't completely new.

Yeah, not unlikely.

They have either learned to play by joining another group, or learned to play by watching other people play extensively.
For the people who come in completely, 100% new, there are things called "Starter Sets," which are designed for completely new people and are sold through mass-market retailers.

If that's how I learned to play, I'd still want to read the instructions if I was in charge of running it for the first time, and all the more so if I came in blind. That is how to I taught myself both to play, and to DM. That's why I disagree that Starter Sets are a functional replacement for a proper How to be a DM portion of the rule books. Starter Sets are an incredibly helpful different path, which lets you jump in and play with haste. More than enough for some people, for certain.

Point 3
The "core three" books are, and will remain, that way because we've always had that. A PHB, a DMG, and an MM. Now, someone could order a MM from an online retailer, thinking it's a book about playing as a monster (it's a manual, after all, not a compendium), but they aren't going to change the name.

Yep. That's why, as much as the easiest fix would be to give the DMG a different name, I recognize it is highly unlikely to change.

In addition, given the easy availability of video and on-line resources, using a non-interactive text to teach people how to DM seems like it is not the best way to do so- which is why WoTC is using videos in conjunction with the Starter Set (for example).

As above, I disagree. Nothing is more helpful to me for learning than a clearly written text. Videos as explanation for a thing largely without moving pieces or visuals to reference are a last resort. That form offers no advantages, and many drawbacks, for how I parse information. I'm glad they exist for the people they benefit, but I do not think they are such a clear unambiguous upgrade to the point of replacing instructional text.

Point 4
The complaints you are seeing are not, for the most part, from people that are playing and loving 5e. If you look closely, you might notice that it is mostly people who (1) don't play D&D (or 5e); (2) don't particularly care for D&D (or 5e); or (3) are very keen on telling people to play games in a certain way.

Your points aren't without merit, but they do stand in contrast to my personal experiences with friends and new players.

When you combine these issues, I think you understand the skepticism. Can the DMG be better and more accessible? Certainly. But I would take the complaints on this forum with a few pounds of salt.

Oh, certainly. As with everything here, we're largely coming with incredibly personal perspectives. That's why I want to argue for folks like me who are always going to read the whole book before they'll ever play the game.

 

[pointofyou]

Where do you draw the line? It is, in part, written with a new DM in mind just like the PHB and MM. It's just not a starter set.

It's probably not the place to start if you've never even seen a game. But the percentage of people who want to play the game who have never played in a game, seen a streamed live play, taken a look at the free encounter with accompanying video has got to be small. How much do you want to add going after fractions?

Last, but not least, is there any evidence anywhere that this not a complete strawman? Because there's plenty of evidence that millions of people have started playing D&D with 5E.

It's written more with someone new to the edition in mind than someone new to the game let alone someone new to the hobby. D&D is the game someone new to the hobby is most likely to play first so it seems reasonable to acknowledge that in the rulebooks. I see no reason not to include actual useful instruction and advice in actual useful quantities other than some need for people coming to the hobby now to have the same experience of learning the game as we had in the 1980s. I see no reason to expect people coming to the hobby in the 2020s to be OK with that. I see no reason not to meet the people coming to the hobby now where they are.

 

[Composer99]

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?

People can believe whatever they want. But I happen to think that we can go on more than solely what people believe when it comes to what makes a good DMG. Personally, I've tried to appeal to more than just my say-so. I'm not aware of, say, @Imaro having appealed to anything more than their say-so, or you appealing to anything other than yours.

If the DMG is meant to be an accessible reference tool for DMs writ large, then it should actually be written and structured to meet that intent. In the slogan you quote is the part where the DMG bills itself as "Everything" a DM needs. Not "Those things a few people specifically want out of it", but everything WotC thinks a "generic" DM needs.

Well, we're telling you that this "generic DM" needs to be more representative of both newer DMs and our own gameplay preferences as DMs. That includes having the DMG acting as a better reference for running a game (which is a thing literally every DM needs to do).

To my mind that's a pretty good reason for the DMG to revise its approach.

 

[Imaro]

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.

So how are you judging the "average" person? And what exactly do the 3 corebooks leave our that is essential to playing D&D 5e?