D&D 5E People don't read the 5E DMG for a reason

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't like a 1E DMG published today. It's terribly organized and full of random things that seem to have fallen straight out of EGG's head and onto the page.

However, as an inspirational text, it's amazing. I don't think I've ever used the magical properties of gems table in the 1E DMG, but if I ever need a magical gem (not my thing, personally), I will 100% be grabbing my 1E DMG reprint from a few years ago and going to that table.

And the Gygaxian prose, while not the way I'd write a DMG today (although it helped my spelling and vocabulary immensely, leading to a lot of confused adults wondering how I knew what a "carbuncle" was), evokes a strange tome full of semi-forbidden knowledge better than anything since, even the 3E faux magical tome covers, ever did.

I would like a modern-day equivalent to the 1E DMG as a supplemental work after the DMG. (In fact, that's one of the reasons I have Goodman Games' Dungeon Alphabet and Monster Alphabet, for that kind of inspiration-on-demand.) But I think the main DMG should be a more practical volume.

1E DMG best DMG for the vibe/inspiration.

Not as a functioning game manual imho.

I've never really had any struggle with any DMG so don't really have a favorite.

 

[Micah Sweet]

1E DMG best DMG for the vibe/inspiration.

Not as a functioning game manual imho.

I've never really had any struggle with any DMG so don't really have a favorite.

Fortunately for me, vibe/inspiration was what I wanted at the time, and it served me well. Vibe/inspiration is still very important to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Fortunately for me, vibe/inspiration was what I wanted at the time, and it served me well. Vibe/inspiration is still very important to me.

I got into D&D via the 1E stuff. Didn't have a 1Ebphb just the DMG, MM, OA, UA and FF.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I got into D&D via the 1E stuff. Didn't have a 1Ebphb just the DMG, MM, OA, UA and FF.

The Fiend Folio has to be one of the big sign posts for one's D&D tastes. It's objectively full of some very silly and weird monsters and I don't think I've met anyone who didn't either totally love it or find it to be hot garbage. (I love it, myself, and it made me sad that WotC reprinted Unearthed Arcana but not the Fiend Folio during their reprint-a-palooza a decade back.)

 

[Oofta]

Agreed. You can discuss whether the 4e DMG did a good job of supporting 4e DMs - and whether that approach and presentation could be good for future editions - without commenting on the relative merits of 4e compared to other editions.

This is an unrealistic, unfair standard for improvement.

I think a DMG should discuss different options and how they work well for different people. Because using iserith's style and definition of how the game "should" be run doesn't work for me. A different style does. The DMG already does that in various places.

The 4E DMG doesn't particularly stand out to me as good or bad, I just think it's a mistake to think that 1 book or style is better for everyone. We'll never have another product published if the standard is that it works for everyone. I also think if we talk about specifics of changes we should discuss what that means not just throw around editions like everyone has photographic memories of how books were laid out and what the text actually was.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Fiend Folio has to be one of the big sign posts for one's D&D tastes. It's objectively full of some very silly and weird monsters and I don't think I've met anyone who didn't either totally love it or find it to be hot garbage. (I love it, myself, and it made me sad that WotC reprinted Unearthed Arcana but not the Fiend Folio during their reprint-a-palooza a decade back.)

I didn't care for the silly stuff just ate up the fluff on things like Drow, Githyanki, Death Knight etc.

I got to play B/X and BECMI then 2E before I ever got to see a 1E phb. Half Orcs, Assassin's etc were the forbidden fruit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think a DMG should discuss different options and how they work well for different people. Because using iserith's style and definition of how the game "should" be run doesn't work for me. A different style does. The DMG already does that in various places.

The 4E DMG doesn't particularly stand out to me as good or bad, I just think it's a mistake to think that 1 book or style is better for everyone. We'll never have another product published if the standard is that it works for everyone. I also think if we talk about specifics of changes we should discuss what that means not just throw around editions like everyone has photographic memories of how books were laid out and what the text actually was.

Everything WotC has published for 5e was done with the intent that it should work for everyone.

 

[Oofta]

Everything WotC has published for 5e was done with the intent that it should work for everyone.

Working for everyone should be the goal. It's just a goal that can't be achieved.

In any case, my only real point was that there is no one true way and that the DMG should give options on styles and how to run things. What they do with The Role of the Dice in the DMG is an example.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Working for everyone should be the goal. It's just a goal that can't be achieved.

In any case, my only real point was that there is no one true way and that the DMG should give options on styles and how to run things. What they do with The Role of the Dice in the DMG is an example.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I didn't care for the silly stuff just ate up the fluff on things like Drow, Githyanki, Death Knight etc.

Most of those are pretty weird, as are the slaadi and the elemental princes of evil. Even the stuff everyone liked was weird. (Even the drow art was edgier and more interesting, helping to weird up an EGG original.)

I'm not sure what was going on in the TSR UK offices, but they were clearly having a good time.