D&D (2024) Experienced DMs, how useful is the 2024 DMG to you?

[Stormonu]

The more I look at the book and talk about it here, the more I get the impression I shouldn't have bought it in the first place, and just tabbed my 2014 DMG.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I like it a lot. Even the introductory sections had some useful advice, like tips on running exploration, which can be a weak spot for me.

And I LOVED how it calls out antisocial players.

 

[Imaro]

As an experienced DM, I think it would 100% be fair to lambast the 2024 DMG if it included the 2014 Optional Rules reprinted without alteration, because they were terrible (some even didn't do what they set out to do - they weren't just "OP" or whatever, they literally didn't work right!), and mostly an ill-considered and obviously un-playtested waste of space that were clearly down to the DMG being extremely rushed (as was the whole release of 5E, just like 4E). I actually applaud the 2024 DMG for not attempting to replicate that section, because really very little of value was lost.

I find the wide range of opinions, even on this board, around the usefulness of the '14 optional rules interesting.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I find the wide range of opinions, even on this board, around the usefulness of the '14 optional rules interesting.

Yeah it is for sure interesting. I've always been kind of mystified by people who valued them because most of them are literally stuff most experienced DMs (which is most of us) could just come up with on the spot (which seems kind of like literally the design process here... ) , and the ones that aren't like that tend to be even worse, like the Sanity rules which literally don't work the way they say they do! (I am not going to have that particular discussion again before anyone asks lol, you can search ENworld and find the previous discussion!). But it is clear people valued even what to me seems like the most superficial possible set of optional rules like "You could make long rests be more or less frequent!". Ooooh yeah real game-designer-needed stuff there guys! Especially as it's obvious you didn't even playtest this stuff!

I guess I'm glad some people got value from it, but for me that all being gone from the DMG, even if there are some questionable inclusions (14 pages of maps, really? Okay...) is overall an actual win.

And I genuinely would like to seem some carefully-considered and fully playtested (yeah you heard me WotC, playtest or don't include them!) optional rules in a future book, perhaps covering a lot of the same ground as the DMG 2014 ones did (and more, I'd hope).

 

[grimmgoose]

Do we really need things like a random dungeon generator table when a quick Google takes me to the donjon website that does all the work for me with a click?

I get people wanting more stuff, but there's still limits on page count. They can't include everything we might want and this is more of a guidebook than a detailed instruction manual. There are detailed instructions a click away nowadays.

I mean, same thing could be said of advice that could be found in a quick Google search. Basically everything in Chapter 1, most in Chapter 2 (barring "improvising damage"), most in Chapter 4, most in Chapter 5, most in Chapter 6 are all things that can easily be found on the internet, and likely in greater detail than what is in the DMG.

I think improvising damage, the subsystems (Chases, backgrounds, mobs, curses, etc.) magic items, and (despite what I think about it) Bastions is the stuff that should be in a DMG. Tools. Options. Subsystems. Give me toys to play with.

The reason why people don't read the DMG is because it's easier to google advice than to crack open a book.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, same thing could be said of advice that could be found in a quick Google search. Basically everything in Chapter 1, most in Chapter 2 (barring "improvising damage"), most in Chapter 4, most in Chapter 5, most in Chapter 6 are all things that can easily be found on the internet, and likely in greater detail than what is in the DMG.

I think improvising damage, the subsystems (Chases, backgrounds, mobs, curses, etc.) magic items, and (despite what I think about it) Bastions is the stuff that should be in a DMG. Tools. Options. Subsystems. Give me toys to play with.

The reason why people don't read the DMG is because it's easier to google advice than to crack open a book.

I think there's a pretty clear difference between organised advice on a subject by essentially a single voice, with a consistent approach (which, as I understand it, is how DMG 2024 does it) and a random generation system. It's much more useful to a new DM (and sometimes even to an experienced one) to read advice that's consistent in that way, and think on it, than to get a ton of brief or sometimes very lengthy, conflicting, often intentionally "controversial" or gonzo-style-written or overstated advice from the internet. Plus WotC would prefer it if you weren't being pitched on other systems at the time, which a lot of DM advice will do!

I agree with what you want to be see, to be clear - but I think some of that goes in the DMG that is the "true" DMG (and indeed has), and some of it can be in later books, whether it's a DMG2 like 4E, or Tasha's or w/e.

EDIT - And re: "greater detail", yeah that's part of the problem. Advice for new DMs doesn't benefit from huge detail in a lot of cases. I've seen some really good essays on how to DM, but a lot of them are like, crazy numbers of words, high reading level (which not all the people reading the DMG will have), often intentionally rather obscurantist or nerd-referential, and generally not designed as like, an actual resource, as much as a discussion. And some will have suggestions that are just not likely to work for new DMs.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Chase rules and mob combat is kinda neat and useful, but I haven't been reliant on a DMG since the early 80s. That said, it's way better than 2014, and for newer DMs (who it's designed for) should find a lot of good helpful information.

 

[grimmgoose]

It's much more useful to a new DM (and sometimes even to an experienced one) to read advice that's consistent in that way, and think on it, than to get a ton of brief, conflicting, often intentionally "controversial" or gonzo-style-written or overstated advice from the internet.

I get that, but as someone who got into D&D ten years ago (and my experience is the only one I can go off of), I read the DMG back in 2014. Cover to cover. Then I went and searched through the same advice on reddit, and got more actionable advice from the internet (stuff I still use to this day).

Could you make the argument that I wouldn't know what to search for without the DMG? Yeah, probably. It was that or it was watching Critical Role. Or it was stumbling into problems in my own campaigns.

Maybe there isn't a solution to this problem. Maybe the DMG is doomed to be "baby DM's first book" that gives people a starting point, but is otherwise forgotten about/eclipsed by third party/advice you can find on the internet.

Plus WotC would prefer it if you weren't being pitched on other systems at the time, which a lot of DM advice will do!

Guilty as charged

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe there isn't a solution to this problem. Maybe the DMG is doomed to be "baby DM's first book" that gives people a starting point, but is otherwise forgotten about

That's the main point of the DMG, no? To teach people how to DM from the basics?

 

[grimmgoose]

That's the main point of the DMG, no? To teach people how to DM from the basics?

I think that's WOTC's intent, but the argument then becomes: is that effective? If the advice isn't actually that helpful or actionable?

And to specifically reference the point of this thread: is it what I want, as an experienced DM? Decidedly no.