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

[Imaro]

Alright. You want an example? I'll quote an example. This is something I'm pretty reluctant to do, because while rules text is unambiguously something you can clearly share, developer commentary is...a lot more questionable. But you've been so strident in your requests, and made rather a lot of silence or refusal to provide such things. So here you go.

First example is rules text, so I can post that without much difficulty. These come from 13th Age, a game which I think has an excellent core book. It's for the Linguist feat. Though the whole feat is good, the relevant part is underlined (which is not in the original; all other emphasis is.)


Second example: the developer commentary about the One Unique Thing feature. TL;DR: Every character gets some thing which makes them unique in all the world. It can't have combat applications, but it can be whatever the DM and player agree on.


Finally, a bit simply from Rob Heinsoo, discussing why they went with average damage for monster attacks.


Each of these demonstrates an actual delving into the how and why, a discussion of the interaction between players and DM, ideas on the act and process of running. It's conversational, which might not necessarily be the right tone for every part of the DMG, but it helps make it feel like amiable instruction from a person. I find it extremely helpful for thinking about how I could run the game, and in helping me make my own decisions about how I will run my game.

I always thought this was meant for those concerned with the design behind the game... not practical advice and direction for beginners. How does stating make it up if you want an epic linguist feat (with no examples of what that might encompass) help a new DM or player? Is the point there shouldn't be one... then just say that, if not give some examples (That's been one of the major points in this thread, right?)

They also don't discuss how the different variations of OUT actually affect gameplay, narrative, or give many if any examples of them. It boils down to I like these and you like these... but how do these actually change the tone, theme, etc. of the game? What are some examples of them? These are all things the DMG guide is being taken to task for and are not present in this advice being praised.

Again how does telling me why you made a design choice to use average damage translate to actually helping a beginning DM run the game? It's great you're explaining design choices but I just don't see the value of this to someone totally new to ttrpg's.

All of these examples seem, IMO, to be something for someone who has experienced the game, gotten comfortable with it and now wants to understand the why's of it (perhaps to modify and change it or to gain a deeper understanding of it). In other words someone who is intermediate to advanced in running games not a totally new DM. You honestly believe these excerpts provide greater value to a starting DM than what is in the starter sets and DMG?? I just don't see it.

 

[Oofta]

Sure I can. The "guidance" it provides is crap. Woefully inadequate for actually supporting the kinds of decisions and evaluations DMs need to make. The quotes I gave from the 13A core book (which is PHB, DMG, and MM all in one) give clear, concise, effective descriptions of how things could be done, of places where the DM needs to make decisions for themselves. They explain decisions, and show how two different people (the game's two lead designers) can implement a single rule in very different ways, sometimes based on context, sometimes based on preference, etc.

Just throwing a pile of rules options at people does not actually help them figure out how to use them. Telling them why a rule is what it is, telling them how different people can view the exact same rule differently, explaining why alternatives weren't used, etc. THAT is guidance.

We all know you don't like or actually play the game. I find some of the advice useful and think it's a decent book. It does give options and advice on why you would choose one over the other. Something anyone who actually reads the book (if anyone actually does) would know.

Saying the book doesn't have guidance because you don't like the guidance doesn't make your proclamation true.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

One thing I am noticing is that there doesn't seem to be many if any examples when something is introduced.


I always thought this was meant for those concerned with the design behind the game... not practical advice and direction for beginners. How does stating make it up if you want an epic linguist feat (with no examples of what that might encompass) help a new DM or player? Is the point there shouldn't be one... then just say that, if not give some examples (That's been one of the major points in this thread, right?)

It is an explicit statement that the player (and DM) needs to make a decision for themselves, and that the book cannot even in principle meet their needs.

They also don't discuss how the different variations of OUT actually affect gameplay, narrative, or give many if any examples of them. It boils down to I like these and you like these... but how do these actually change the tone, theme, etc. of the game? What are some examples of them? These are all things the DMG guide is being taken to task for and are not present in this advice being praised.

...yes, because I didn't quote the entire chapter wherein all of that stuff is given. There are literally dozens of examples, and multiple paragraphs of actual text discussing it. I couldn't post all of that because, y'know, that would literally be stealing their rulebook. I quoted the part that did the most work with the smallest word count.

Again how does telling me why you made a design choice to use average damage translate to actually helping a beginning DM run the game? It's great you're explaining design choices but I just don't see the value of this to someone totally new to ttrpg's.

Because it explains why...? I don't understand how that's not revelatory. "We did X because it has Y useful properties. You can do Z instead, but you should know that has consequences. We made the game so X would be fun. Tread lightly" is WAY better than simply saying, "The game currently does X, but you can do Z instead," which is what the current 5e DMG does. Repeatedly!

All of these examples seem, IMO, to be something for someone who has experienced the game, gotten comfortable with it and now wants to understand the why's of it (perhaps to modify and change it or to gain a deeper understanding of it. In other words someone who is intermediate to advanced in running games not a totally new DM. You honestly believe these excerpts provide greater value to a starting DM than what is in the starter sets and DMG?? I just don't see it.

Again, absolutely not. Explaining to people the reason you do something is incredibly important. It's much easier to learn things when you understand why they're valuable and what things are relevant. That's what all of these discussions do.

 

[pointofyou]

We all know you don't like or actually play the game. I find some of the advice useful and think it's a decent book. It does give options and advice on why you would choose one over the other. Something anyone who actually reads the book (if anyone actually does) would know.

Saying the book doesn't have guidance because you don't like the guidance doesn't make your proclamation true.

You probably won't believe it but I don't think the book is much less horrible than you do. I think it's written much more for people with experience of past editions and could be changed to better suit the majority of new DMs coming to the game without that experience. I think much of the guidance in it is weak and wishy-washy and could be stronger in the sense of helping a new DM decide without telling them what to decide. I think it could be organized so running the game was first not last.

Much of what has happened here I think is people disagreeing and drifting further apart as they do so. Not all. Much.

 

[Imaro]

Let me just say this... any time we've reached the point where actual design notes are being cited as the "guidance" needed to be provided for absolute beginners to start running a ttrpg... I just... yeah I don't even know what to say to that.

 

[Oofta]

You probably won't believe it but I don't think the book is much less horrible than you do. I think it's written much more for people with experience of past editions and could be changed to better suit the majority of new DMs coming to the game without that experience. I think much of the guidance in it is weak and wishy-washy and could be stronger in the sense of helping a new DM decide without telling them what to decide. I think it could be organized so running the game was first not last.

Much of what has happened here I think is people disagreeing and drifting further apart as they do so. Not all. Much.

I think everyone agrees that the book could be improved. I've given a few thoughts myself. On the other thread I mentioned how I'd reorganize it (I agree running the game should be in the front, building a campaign world goes towards the back). Add in examples that are in both the PHB and the DMG from the different perspectives - I mentioned combat but it could also be in the ability check/skills section.

Whether the guidance is wishy-washy is harder and more of a preference. The previous 2.5 editions tried to lock down a specific game style, the idea that if you want to a convention everyone would be running the same game. I prefer more open ended and less prescriptive.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Let me just say this... any time we've reached the point where actual design notes are being cited as the "guidance" needed to be provided for absolute beginners to start running a ttrpg... I just... yeah I don't even know what to say to that.

Also, not to make a hash out of this exciting debate, but a "Guide" (in terms of a book) is not the same thing as a guidance.

If I purchase a Guide to Birds of Eastern Atlantic Seaboard, I do not expect the book to provide me with step-by-step instructions on what I need to do to be a birder. I do expect it to provide information about the subject (the Birds of the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard).

 

[pointofyou]

I think everyone agrees that the book could be improved. I've given a few thoughts myself. On the other thread I mentioned how I'd reorganize it (I agree running the game should be in the front, building a campaign world goes towards the back). Add in examples that are in both the PHB and the DMG from the different perspectives - I mentioned combat but it could also be in the ability check/skills section.

Whether the guidance is wishy-washy is harder and more of a preference. The previous 2.5 editions tried to lock down a specific game style, the idea that if you want to a convention everyone would be running the same game. I prefer more open ended and less prescriptive.

How prescriptive prior editions were might be debatable but having a default expectation as to style has the advantage that instruction is possible. I might like the new book to pick one or two most-popular approaches and give how-tos for those. Then talk about how to get from those to other approaches.

It is certain and clear however that there is no way to best please everyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also, not to make a hash out of this exciting debate, but a "Guide" (in terms of a book) is not the same thing as a guidance.

If I purchase a Guide to Birds of Eastern Atlantic Seaboard, I do not expect the book to provide me with step-by-step instructions on what I need to do to be a birder. I do expect it to provide information about the subject (the Birds of the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard).

Only a bard would purchase such a book. Your a bardocrite!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Only a bard would purchase such a book. Your a bardocrite!