D&D (2024) The New DM Tools In The New Dungeon Master's Guide

The 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide contains a 'toolbox'. The DM's Toolbox is the third chapter in the book, presented as an alphabetical miscellany of varied things to help you prep or run a game.

Each entry is 1-2 pages long and includes things like creating monsters, fear and mental stress, chases, firearms and explosives, and traps. For example, it goes in depth into chases, with details about wilderness or urban chases.

Much of the topics were already in the 2014 DMG--albeit organized differently. Some new topics include character death, and more detailed look at alignment--and how actions determine alignment and not vice versa.

Also included is a big table of 'dungeon quirks'--why, then, and by whom was it built? Examples include made by giants (with everything being larger scale), built on top of a cloud, and so on.

There's plenty more stuff--environments, a settlement tracker (Chris Perkins and James Wyatt roll up a random settlement in the video), hazards, mob rules, marks of prestige (rewards like deeds, medals, or titles).

 

[overgeeked]

Not just weird, I would say it's downright arrogant on their part to think they could create "content" for a game they haven't even read all of the basic rulebooks.

At least in Dungeon Craft’s case it makes sense as he’s been running D&D games for decades. He knows what he’s doing. Ginny started with 5E, so it’s really weird she’d not read the how to run the game book before running games.

 

[MockingBird]

The 2014 DMG was probably one of the three core books I read and referenced the most. It was my favorite book of the 3. I never understood the hate it got when I remember it getting some praise upon release. That book was stacked with great info and inspiration. I get it could have be organized better but I loved it. It felt like book of tools. I suspect the 24 DMs Guide will be just as good since they added a small campaign setting into it.

 

[overgeeked]

The 2014 DMG was probably one of the three core books I read and referenced the most. It was my favorite book of the 3. I never understood the hate it got when I remember it getting some praise upon release. That book was stacked with great info and inspiration. I get it could have be organized better but I loved it. It felt like book of tools. I suspect the 24 DMs Guide will be just as good since they added a small campaign setting into it.

Even if ot were a pure reprint of content with improved organization, it would be a better book.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

At least in Dungeon Craft’s case it makes sense as he’s been running D&D games for decades. He knows what he’s doing. Ginny started with 5E, so it’s really weird she’d not read the how to run the game book before running games.

Yes, but if you're going to talk on a system, shouldn't you have at least read 1/3 of the system books?

Would you trust someone reviewing the Star Wars original trilogy, only to find out they didn't even watch Empire Strikes Back? They're not really reviewing the whole system, or series.

And again, it was a newsflash that these two creators hadn't read the DMG. There's been no mention over the past ten years that Dungeon Craft had never even read the DMG - it would be different if he had ever said 'I never looked at the DMG or Monster Manual because I've gamed so long'

 

[Nefermandias]

I've been DMing for quite some time and have never read the DM or any of the "basic rulebooks". To me they are reference material to be used as needed. Does this make me less of a DM?
The "content" I create is for my players and it's based on my experiences and vision of how the game is played.

The "content" they create is for their viewers based on their experience. There are infinite versions of the game because everyone who plays sees things differently. Calling someone arrogant because they see things different than you seems problematic.

I have stated my opinion. Your experience seems to be very different from mine, to a point where a conversation wouldn't even go anywhere useful.
I'm just moving along.

 

[overgeeked]

There's been no mention over the past ten years that Dungeon Craft had never even read the DMG - it would be different if he had ever said 'I never looked at the DMG or Monster Manual because I've gamed so long'

He’s read the thing. He’s posted videos about the content. I think we’re hitting a vague patch in the language.

There’s “read it” as in looked up things and referenced it when necessary.

Then there’s “read it” as in consumed every single page of the content.

The very start of Ginny’s video is her admitting she’d done the former, but not the latter until recently. And how there’s great stuff buried in the text. The whole premise of Dungeon Craft’s video is that’s how it’s always been done so lay off giving Ginny a hard time for not reading it cover-to-cover. We also see this mirrored in old-school D&D. Questing Beast read the AD&D DMG cover-to-cover a few years ago and surprised a whole lot of grognards with what he’d found because they hadn’t read the AD&D DMG cover-to-cover either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, but if you're going to talk on a system, shouldn't you have at least read 1/3 of the system books?

Would you trust someone reviewing the Star Wars original trilogy, only to find out they didn't even watch Empire Strikes Back? They're not really reviewing the whole system, or series.

And again, it was a newsflash that these two creators hadn't read the DMG. There's been no mention over the past ten years that Dungeon Craft had never even read the DMG - it would be different if he had ever said 'I never looked at the DMG or Monster Manual because I've gamed so long'

Had it been mentioned over the past ten years it might have affected their bottom line. These folks are always chasing that paper, and uncomfortable truths would only slow them down.

 

[Parmandur]

I've been DMing for quite some time and have never read the DM or any of the "basic rulebooks". To me they are reference material to be used as needed. Does this make me less of a DM?
The "content" I create is for my players and it's based on my experiences and vision of how the game is played.

The "content" they create is for their viewers based on their experience. There are infinite versions of the game because everyone who plays sees things differently. Calling someone arrogant because they see things different than you seems problematic.

Make you "less"? No. But a decade of experience does mean it is more likely tgsy you could post a frustration online thst had a solution in the DMG.

I think people would be less down on the content creators in question if they hadngone negative in their messaging previously

 

[Arilyn]

I agree with your point about newer players and evolving views, but there is a very large amount of content creators that players and viewers take as the final word on the subject, to the point that their insight on DPR and theorycrafting your character is considered the be-all end-all.

To hear that the man behind Dungeon Craft has said he hasn't read the 5e DM Guide is pretty insulting when you look back at his videos attacking WotC etc. He literally says, in ten years, he's never read the 5e DMG. And yet, 136,000 subscribers and who knows how many random viewers have listened to his views on the way to run D&D and taken it as valuable.

Professor DM's style of D&D is pretty far from WotC 5e, and he is very upfront about it, so not reading the DMG isn't that big a deal. He runs his own mashup of basic, 5e and his own additions.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I remember it getting some praise upon release.

From a then much smaller audience primarily made up of returning DMs.

That's not the audience that the 2014 edition ended up having, overall.

What might have worked for a smaller group of veteran DMs doesn't mean it would work for a larger audience of newbie DMs.