D&D General Dmg previews up

[dave2008]

I just don't see how people can be this excited about it...

I am not sure what you mean. I see an appropriate amount of interest, not some overwhelming display of excitement here.

Personally I am interested in the art, lore glossary, and revised monster creation rules. I like art, I don't like looking up D&D lore (I have mostly ignored for 30+/- years) and having it one place is great, and I make a lot of monsters and I want to make sure they don't mess up the monster creation guidelines from the 2014 DMG.

But I would not call myself excited and definitely not that excited.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I could see some rules stuff that was in the 2014 DMG exchanged with the MM, for that matter: take some high level lore and put it in the DMG, take some Monster math stuff and put it in the MM...

I think that makes sense. We were told a few months ago that they approached these books as though they were writing one large book, and this seems to be a facet of that. Big definitional things (how to the hells and their denizens work) in the DMG which talks about world-building and religion. Monster math for how to make monsters in the book about monsters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I just don't see how people can be this excited about it...

I'd probably be more excited about it, if every time I turned around I didn't have people going on about how it was the worst decision ever, how it is completely immoral for me to buy it, how my taste must be trash to like it, how it is a scar and a stain upon the pristine reputation the game had back in the 80's, ect ect ect.

I think there is a lot of potential for the game to get bigger and more awesome over time with some of the decisions made here. I just wish other people could see this too (I know some of you do, it just gets hard when we spend all out time arguing with people who insist it is garbage, sight unseen)

 

[mamba]

I did

then show me where it did, because it absolutely did not ask that

For your convenience, here is the post you replied to that supposedly asked who would watch that video. Now tell me where it does so

it is not the only thing they talked about, is it? Also, I would go by how many pages are devoted to what topic, not by what one video (that most people won’t even watch) chose to highlight for whatever reason

 

[Maxperson]

I bought them, but a must have… more like the least important of the core books to entirely optional

This. Once you are experienced, you just don't need it. I bought the 3e DMG when 3e came out, but rarely used it. When 3.5 arrived, I didn't bother to buy the updated DMG. We played 3.5 until right before covid hit and I never once regretted not buying it.

 

[Maxperson]

insert joke about no one reading the DMG

and then point out that the 2014 DMG is one of the worst RPG books ever while the 1e book was tiny and mostly weird charts that didn't matter

The 2014 DMG was actually a pretty decent book. It was just less organized than a house after a major earthquake. The poor organization is why it gets the flak that it does.

 

[Guest 7037866]

I think there is a lot of potential for the game to get bigger and more awesome over time with some of the decisions made here.

That's the issue though... "bigger and more awesome" to you is MOAR POWER and garbage to me. I am just hoping, in the end, there might be something I can glean from it--like Sidekicks in Tasha's, which was the only thing I adapted from that book.

I seriously wish you well in getting something that appeals to you. I have no issue with that at all, it just isn't my taste or what D&D means, and always has meant, to me.

 

[Remathilis]

It was always a good read, at least.

1e, if you take it as Gary's manifesto (with rules), is an interesting read. It's a terrible at-table game manual though.

2e: the most boring D&D book I ever read.

3e: pretty solid, though I think it's forgettable in that I literally forgot much of what's in it.

4e: the only readable core book in 4e prior to Essentials. I might not enjoy much of 4e's style, but the DMG actually explained it.

5e: As an experienced DM, it's an interesting treatise on the roles of the DM. But it's a bloody nightmare for a new or inexperienced DM.

 

[dave2008]

then show me where it did, because it absolutely did not ask that

For your convenience, here is the post you replied to that supposedly asked who would watch that video. Now tell me where it does so

Nah, I don't care that much., but I quoted two people. That might help

 

[Zaukrie]

1e, if you take it as Gary's manifesto (with rules), is an interesting read. It's a terrible at-table game manual though.

2e: the most boring D&D book I ever read.

3e: pretty solid, though I think it's forgettable in that I literally forgot much of what's in it.

4e: the only readable core book in 4e prior to Essentials. I might not enjoy much of 4e's style, but the DMG actually explained it.

5e: As an experienced DM, it's an interesting treatise on the roles of the DM. But it's a bloody nightmare for a new or inexperienced DM.

This looks accurate. I still think 4e dmg2 is the best written ever. And I wish we were getting Nentir Vale and not GH, but that's fine, I can always use it w/o WotC updating it.