Which Edition of D&D (or OSR Ruleset) Has the Best GMing Advice?

[Mannahnin]

But 3.0 and 3.5 were also pretty bad in many respects.

Man, I never even IMPLIED that they were good.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Man, I never even IMPLIED that they were good.

No you didn't. That just prompted the thought on my part

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't remember them being particularly bad, though. There were flaws, certainly. Trying to codify a magic item pricing system inevitably left open a lot of min-max options, of course.

And although the way a lot of people used the CR system to try to obsessively balance encounters was misguided, to be fair, the books don't actually tell you to do that, as I recall.

My bigger issues to do with 3.x have to do with complexity, and the decision to rationalize monsters to work using the exact same rules framework as PCs, and all the crazy homework and effort that created for the DM. But that's a mechanics issue, not a GM advice issue. I'd have to go back and review the GM advice sections to form a strong opinion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't remember them being particularly bad, though. There were flaws, certainly. Trying to codify a magic item pricing system inevitably left open a lot of min-max options, of course.

What I should have said was they proved bad for me. If I had to sum it up, it was that codification if everything. But admittedly that is either a flaw or feature depending on your taste. The books are good advice in that the GM material is highly consistent with the rules and concepts of 3E. The issue for me is over time I found the more closely I cleaved to 3E GM advice (especially on things like structuring adventures around CR/EL, but also just because of how comprehensive everything was—-to me it felt a bit over engineered), I found myself just not enjoying the game.

That said I like 3E. You can do a lot with that edition and when I came back to it after a break I realized that an important part of appreciating it was knowing before hand which aspects of it you wanted to lean into (for instance leaning away from the emphasis on CL structure and away from its advice on settlement economies but leaning into the way multiclassing worked, worked great for running a wuxia campaign (the multi classing was excellent for this).

Also what was frustrating me prior to that wasn’t just the GM advice alone, but the culture that emerged around play (which was a culture of RAW and that meant you felt pressure to employ every ounce of Gm advice). So in fairness I was probably applying more GM advice from 3E than previous editions (in 1e and 2E, if felt easier to be more selective)

 

[Mannahnin]

What I should have said was they proved bad for me. If I had to sum it up, it was that codification if everything. But admittedly that is either a flaw or feature depending on your taste. The books are good advice in that the GM material is highly consistent with the rules and concepts of 3E. The issue for me is over time I found the more closely I cleaved to 3E GM advice (especially on things like structuring adventures around CR/EL, but also just because of how comprehensive everything was—-to me it felt a bit over engineered), I found myself just not enjoying the game.

That said I like 3E. You can do a lot with that edition and when I came back to it after a break I realized that an important part of appreciating it was knowing before hand which aspects of it you wanted to lean into (for instance leaning away from the emphasis on CL structure and away from its advice on settlement economies but leaning into the way multiclassing worked, worked great for running a wuxia campaign (the multi classing was excellent for this).

Also what was frustrating me prior to that wasn’t just the GM advice alone, but the culture that emerged around play (which was a culture of RAW and that meant you felt pressure to employ every ounce of Gm advice). So in fairness I was probably applying more GM advice from 3E than previous editions (in 1e and 2E, if felt easier to be more selective)

My recollection is still that the 3.x DMGs didn't push hard for you to balance encounters/adventures around CR. That they gave you it as a tool but had similar language to 5E in saying that this was one approach to use but that even if you did use it, you should have some "too weak" and "too strong" encounters mixed in as well.

I definitely had issues with a lot of the online culture around 3.x.

The 2E DMG I have a lot of issues with in that I think it's way too wishy-washy and doesn't give a new DM strong advice at all. It's trying hard to be all things to all people and super inclusive of all existing play styles (Trad and Classic, most prominently, but leaning toward Trad) and not offend any existing players, but in so doing it fails to give any direction to the newbie.

The 1E DMG I've discussed already.

The top books for DM advice that I can think of off the top of my head were Jaquays' Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide for 2E (though it's pretty edition-neutral), and the 4E DMG and DMG2, which have a lot of good table management and campaign running advice, though the encounter stuff is naturally edition-specific.

For OSR/Classic D&D there are some great tips in the back of Moldvay Basic and a few really good nuggets in OD&D (treasure placement never really properly clicked for me until I read Gary's original advice in Monsters & Treasure, which is the rare topic he covered better, more explicitly and clearer than Moldvay or Holmes). But the volume of advice and guidance in those is still too thin.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My recollection is still that the 3.x DMGs didn't push hard for you to balance encounters/adventures around CR. That they gave you it as a tool but had similar language to 5E in saying that this was one approach to use but that even if you did use it, you should have some "too weak" and "too strong" encounters mixed in as well.

It has been ages and I don't have my 3E books on hand to check. My memory was the GM was strongly encouraged to structure adventures themselves around the CL system (but it is possible that was more in the air and I am misremembering)

I definitely had issues with a lot of the online culture around 3.x.

The 2E DMG I have a lot of issues with in that I think it's way too wishy-washy and doesn't give a new DM strong advice at all. It's trying hard to be all things to all people and super inclusive of all existing play styles (Trad and Classic, most prominently, but leaning toward Trad) and not offend any existing players, but in so doing it fails to give any direction to the newbie.

I actually liked this about the 2E books. It is just rare for me to play with a group with a unified style, and my own style has changed enough over the years, that I think covering lots of different approaches is the most helpful way for D&D to give advice. The 2E DMG has some significant flaws though. My big beef with the 2E DMG is they left like half of it out and you had to get the campaign and catacomb guide in order to make sense of the game as a game master (but this wasn't that clearly explained: it may have been somewhere in the DMG text but I recall essentially just picking up the CS&CG by chance and suddenly boosting my game). I will say though I understand your position, as I often find books that adhere to a particular style of GM and playstyle to be more engaging.

The 1E DMG I've discussed already.

The top books for DM advice that I can think of off the top of my head were Jaquays' Campaign Sourcebook & Catacomb Guide for 2E (though it's pretty edition-neutral), and the 4E DMG and DMG2, which have a lot of good table management and campaign running advice, though the encounter stuff is naturally edition-specific.

I agree 100% on the Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide

 

[Mark Hope]

The Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide is excellent and was meant to be part of the 2e DMG but was cut for space reasons before being expanded into a full book. The stuff that remains in the 2e DMG I find pretty good - I refer to it more often than the 1e DMG these days tbh.

Also excellent are Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft articles - a really excellent compilation of advice that originally appeared in Dragon magazine, iirc. Should have been made into a book.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide is excellent and was meant to be part of the 2e DMG but was cut for space reasons before being expanded into a full book. The stuff that remains in the 2e DMG I find pretty good - I refer to it more often than the 1e DMG these days tbh.

Also excellent are Ray Winninger's Dungeoncraft articles - a really excellent compilation of advice that originally appeared in Dragon magazine, iirc. Should have been made into a book.

I agree it is a good book. But I do think leaving out the campaign and catacomb guide was very confusing to first time GMs. I started playing in the mid-80s during 1E (and mostly played 1E and basic). But I didn't start GMing myself until the 2E books came out (I think 89 or 90 or so). I do realize the 2E books point you towards the basic books, but even then I found it kind of confusing until I got the CS&CG (there were just basic steps I didn't know how to do as a GM at that time, and the campaign source book walks you through it all). On the other hand, the expansion of the CS&CG may have helped so who knows. Ultimately my preferred edition is 2E these days

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

2e's Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide - Jennell Jaquays's DM advice

That book was the first time I felt like I got good DMing advice that really helped me grow as a DM. It both inspired with new ideas and analyzed problems without relying on punitive measures to deal with them.

DMG2 of 4e is very highly praised.

I'm no 4e fan, but the DMG2 is a great resource, absolutely.

 

[Mark Hope]

I agree it is a good book. But I do think leaving out the campaign and catacomb guide was very confusing to first time GMs. I started playing in the mid-80s during 1E (and mostly played 1E and basic). But I didn't start GMing myself until the 2E books came out (I think 89 or 90 or so). I do realize the 2E books point you towards the basic books, but even then I found it kind of confusing until I got the CS&CG (there were just basic steps I didn't know how to do as a GM at that time, and the campaign source book walks you through it all). On the other hand, the expansion of the CS&CG may have helped so who knows. Ultimately my preferred edition is 2E these days

From what I understand, the expanded content is largely the stuff on dungeons at the end - the first 100 pages were meant to be in the DMG but the rest of the DMG ran too long. That said, I don't see why it wasn't included anyway - it would have brought the DMG to about 290 pages, some 50 pages longer than the PHB. Cost reasons perhaps? I still think it could have been included with a different approach - much of the DMG repeats content from the PHB which, while helpful, undoubtedly contributed to the decision to cut the CS&CG content.

I can totally see how the absence of that material would have been confusing. I recall really looking forward to seeing what the 2e DMG had to say on how to be a DM, given the overall improvement in organisation and general advice and was really disappointed that there was so little of it. Must have been super frustrating for a new player.