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

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.

I guess we should just be happy they didn't have the DMG be a modular three ring binder like the monstrous manual (I actually liked that for the manual but imagine flipping through the binder for DM information)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I really appreciate how this thread made me really consider my DM'ing and how I learned. I've never really thought about it that deeply before.

I started with the AD&D 1st ed. DMG, and my two conclusions were 1) I'm a referee and 2) this game is real hard as a DM (I was about 10 years old). I ran a couple of introductory modules for some friends, which made me realize it really isn't that difficult. From then on, Dragon and Dungeon magazines gave me the rest of the advice I didn't know I needed.

Since then, I have merely skimmed through the DMGs of other editions.

People have mentioned how the 5e DMG was lacking. When I did my skimming through it, the book seemed to be written with the assumption that the reader was coming in from a previous edition and had experience. I can see how someone new to D&D could find its DMG pretty useless.
 

People have mentioned how the 5e DMG was lacking. When I did my skimming through it, the book seemed to be written with the assumption that the reader was coming in from a previous edition and had experience. I can see how someone new to D&D could find its DMG pretty useless.
This has been a recurring issue with DMGs. 1E and 2E* absolutely had this problem. 3E and 3.5 I'm less sure about, as it's been years since I spent any real time with them. The 4E DMGs are praised and I think part of why is because I don't think they made this error. Or not as much.

I really have hopes that the new DMG coming soon will be another good one- WotC has plenty of reason to believe that there will actually be lots of new players using it. Whereas the 2014 one was written trying to bring the existing factions together in peace but not expecting the enormous surge of new players 5E wound up seeing.

*(I wonder to what extent 2E had it because they were expecting newbies to start with the BECMI sets)
 

On the GMing side Aaron Allston's Strike Force, for Champions (now Hero System) 3rd was formative for me, about understanding types of players and catering to them as well as other advice.

It was a campaign setting, not a dedicated DMG, which limits how many pages were dedicated to GMing vs. a GMing-only book like a DMG, but quality of info, especially this early in the RPG timeline -- it came out in 1988 -- makes this foundational in GM advice.
 


4e's DMG is a pretty useful resource, even for those of us who don't particularly like 4e. It splits up a lot of the specific topics and processes of DMing and deals with them individually and succinctly. So if there's a particular aspect of DMing giving you trouble, you can dig in and read up on that section quickly and in a format fairly easy to digest and remember. At times it may feel a little disjointed because it's harder to see DMing as a broader whole, but it offers solid advice on a lot of nitty-gritty topics.
 

I found Moldvay B/X clear and concise and a good formative base for me when I was learning D&D and becoming a DM. Mostly for style of DMing, thinking through how monsters and NPCs will react and making things feel immersive and dynamic and real.

4e is pretty good for tools, I love their individual monster math for creating or adjusting individual monsters and the encounter math and the four magic item paradigm for standard play and the fantastic DMG2 inherent bonuses to keep everything balanced without magic item treadmills and the loose concept of skill challenges for when you want more drawn out and dynamic non combat action with some mechanics.
 

People have mentioned how the 5e DMG was lacking. When I did my skimming through it, the book seemed to be written with the assumption that the reader was coming in from a previous edition and had experience. I can see how someone new to D&D could find its DMG pretty useless.

This has been a recurring issue with DMGs. 1E and 2E* absolutely had this problem. 3E and 3.5 I'm less sure about, as it's been years since I spent any real time with them. The 4E DMGs are praised and I think part of why is because I don't think they made this error. Or not as much.

I really have hopes that the new DMG coming soon will be another good one- WotC has plenty of reason to believe that there will actually be lots of new players using it. Whereas the 2014 one was written trying to bring the existing factions together in peace but not expecting the enormous surge of new players 5E wound up seeing.

*(I wonder to what extent 2E had it because they were expecting newbies to start with the BECMI sets)

Stumbled across my answer in an old interview with Steve Winter on Grognardia, from 2009!

5. David Cook credits you with the organization of AD&D Second Edition. What principles did you bring to bear when undertaking the task of making such a complex game easier to understand?

Rulebook organization was a regular subject for theological debate among the editors, and I preached the Gospel of Steve to anyone who would listen. Here's the quick version.

A set of game rules needs to decide up front whether its job is teaching the material to newcomers or serving as a reference manual for people who already know the fundamentals. I don't believe it can do both. All through the '80s, we'd been producing D&D products aimed at teaching the basics to newcomers. That's not what AD&D was about. We assumed that AD&D players already understood roleplaying and had at least a rudimentary grasp on the rules. They didn't need a training manual; they needed a reference book that made information easy to find during play. Reading the original hardcover books was like having a one-on-one conversation with Gary. They were charming but not much help when a question arose in the middle of a battle.

When we got the green light to start working on 2nd Edition, the first thing I did was grab spare copies of the PHB and DMG, slice them into pieces, and start taping them back together the way they belonged. (We were working on word processors by then, of course, but the PHB and DMG didn't exist in electronic form.) It didn't take long to fill a big, fat, 3-ring binder with clippings of rulebooks, all taped together like some insane kidnapper's ransom-note manifesto. Some material from both books was combined into one section, some material that had been joined was split between the books, some sections were torn apart sentence by sentence and reassembled in more logical order. It was terribly tedious work, but it was also something I'd wanted to do for a decade.

The point of this exercise wasn't really to reorganize the books; that was done (eventually) with a massive outline that stretched down the wall and across the floor on about a dozen sheets of accordion-fold paper. The giant cut-and-paste was done to demonstrate to those up the chain of authority that the job was too big to be handled by a simple reorganization, which is what some of them were hoping for at the time.

Through the whole 2nd Edition development process, the goal was to put everything the players needed into the PHB and everything else into the DMG. Players needed the rules on creating and equipping characters, on magic, and on combat. The DM needed the rules on world building, running adventures, and all the little things that crop up often enough to need rules but not often enough to deserve space in the PHB.

Finally, I wanted both books to have comprehensive indexes. They were created the old-fashioned way, by actually reading the final galleys of the books and noting down every instance of a rule or a subject that should be indexed, under every category where someone might search for it. That job took several days, but the resulting indexes were well worth it.
That whole second paragraph is basically Steve confirming my guess. YES, they wrote the 2E AD&D books figuring that newbies would already have been introduced to the main concepts through the B/X and BECMI lines.

I wonder if I was vaguely remembering that somewhere in the back of my head from the last time I read this interview. :ROFLMAO:
 

I'm pulling the ol' blue cover Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide off my shelf to reread it. If nothing else, I will forever fondly remember it for the phrase "multi-barrel wand of megadeath" that has delightfully been lodged in my brain for 34 years. :D
 

So, out of all of the editions of D&D and all of the OSR rulesets and NuSR spinoffs, which do folks feel have the absolute best GMing advice?
The Gamemastering section of Dungeon World, followed by Shadowdark, and distantly B/X, and then even more distantly the 4E DMG 1 and 2.

Outside of D&D-derived games, Star Wars d6 both 1e rulebook and 2e Gamemaster's Guide, and various Cortex RPGs are really strong. They do a better job of laying bare concepts of pacing, "dramatically appropriate" moments, and the sorts of useful storytelling analogues in film and shows that carry over to RPGs well.

As a related point, which have the best GMing tools as well (I'm imagining Crawford's 'Without Number" RPGs will probably claim the tools crown)? For dungeon creation? For hexcrawls?

Tell me which rulesets have had you read 'em and go, "Wow, that advice was actually really good."
Which have had you look at the tools, think, "Yeah, that's really useful." and then find yourself actually using them.
Shadowdark, by a million miles. I even just wrote a whole article about it.

The Leverage RPG (long OOP, unfortunately) has an absolutely stellar "heist-generator."

I picked up several of the Crawford games and while I did love the idea, they were often over-explained and wordy to the point that I found it all harder to use than I expected, given the consensus on how good his stuff is. I get why people love it, I just didn't find it as immediately useful as I hoped.
 

Remove ads

Top