D&D 5E DMG: hard rules or just DM advice?
dave2008
Legend
I like that for board game, but not a TTRPG. A game of imagination and fantasy should not be governed by rules IMO. Advice and guidelines do just fine and better yet, they don't constrain our imagination to go were no rules can take us.
TBH most of the DMG isn't rules anyway; it's about how to design and run a campaign. Except for a handful of things, most of it is suggestions and variants. The few rules that are there are useful, but still seem more like advice, rather than hard rules. Because of this, plus the fact that I use a lot of houserules anyway, makes it all just advice IMO.
Chapter 8, DM guide, the role of dice section give to DM a lot of interpretation power. The section allow DM to ignore dice for the outcome of an action. At first read it seem to apply only to check, but nothing specify that the DM cannot choose the outcome of a save or an attack roll, or any other roll in the game. This power can be feel awful to certain players but it is within the standard design and assumption of the game.
Oofta
Legend
Most of the rules in the book are, to some degree, just suggestions. As others have stated, the DMG is mostly DMing advice and most of the rest is explicitly optional. So I use some of it, other parts I don't.
I think that works for D&D and part of what makes it so popular. Enough of a structure with limited constraints. There's another thread talking about exploration and some of the system that other praise, to me, would get in the way of the story I want to tell with my group. I don't want a book that tells me explicitly how to run my game because what works for me may not work for anyone else.
I think that works for D&D and part of what makes it so popular. Enough of a structure with limited constraints. There's another thread talking about exploration and some of the system that other praise, to me, would get in the way of the story I want to tell with my group. I don't want a book that tells me explicitly how to run my game because what works for me may not work for anyone else.
A good rule book for an RPG is well-considered and tested suggestions by someone who should know more than me about the generalities of game design and what the game intends to do.
I, however, know my own table and what I am trying to do at it better than the author of the game, and may adjust those general bits accordingly.
I, however, know my own table and what I am trying to do at it better than the author of the game, and may adjust those general bits accordingly.
WayOfTheFourElements
Hero
Wise words
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
For me the entire point of playing a roleplaying game instead of just like roleplaying where we just decide things on consensus is the way the game constrains and shapes play. I have a preference towards games that provide a certain amount of latitude to the GM, but those constraints are what make games fun to me - particularly when the GM is me. I like not being able to control how things turn out. I like us all being surprised by the direction of the story. I like that when I sit down to run Blades in the Dark, Apocalypse World, B/X D&D, The Nightmares Underneath, or Sorcerer that I need to approach and think about running the game differently even if I am playing it with exactly the same other players.
Just like any other game we can make changes, but those changes should be a group level decision in my opinion.
dave2008
Legend
Did I ever suggest otherwise?
OK. What I have found is that my group (we've being playing together since the 80s) pretty much plays the same no matter the system or we stop playing that system. We started with a BECMI / 1e hybrid (we didn't know they were different), tried some CoC, Palladium, Gurps, Gama World, Conan, MERP, but always migrated back to our version of D&D, then migrated to 4e when it came out and then 5e when it came out. The D&D we play has always been to take the "rules" with a grain of salt and use what we like and pitch or revise or add to what we think doesn't work or needs some fixing. However, playing a game we know and like has never prevented us from "not being able to control how things turn out," or being "surprised by the direction of the story." I really don't understand what that has do with my comment at all.
Look, I don't have any issue with you liking what you like. I was just saying I like something different. It would have been best if I had just made my comment and not quoted you, my apologies if you felt attacked. We can both enjoy what we enjoy and different systems can be correct for us. There is no right or wrong answer and it is not competition.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
I strictly follow all rules in the core books and if I ever find myself deviating, I apologize to my players and correct myself for future games.
It's not because I believe the rules are absolutely perfect, just the opposite. My group agreed to have our campaign to also be a sort-of late playtest of the entire cycle of 5e campaigns according strictly to RAW.
I find that once you distill all of the "It should be this and it must act like this" and take things for what they are, the actual problems with the system rear their head while a good portion of the problems presented by the community self-corrects in ways that seem unsatisfying to those that'd consider themselves grognards who must anticipate everything from in front of the screen.
One such issue would be the uncanny ability to metagame that all casters on a forum somehow are able to do. Forum Wizards know exactly the stats of a Balor and exactly how to incapacitate one in one turn. In play, such a problem doesn't exist without metagaming. A wizard can try forcecaging a Balor because it sounds reasonable but the Balor may be able to escape fairly easily from it's abilities. People underestimate that in order for a wizard to be successful they must choose a correct spell from their long list of prepared spells and hope the enemy doesn't counter it easily.
It's why I've never had a problem against a high-level Tarrasque encounter with anyone that doesn't metagame. The characters are too busy thinking "How do we stop this thing quickly?" Than hoping to chip the monstrous beast away. Who knows? it might be able to use an AoE so it's best to not assume anything.
Real problems show up in combat and balancing, in my experience. Combat is often way too difficult compared to what the DMG suggests, even at higher levels. I don't correct if the combat shifts to be too difficult so creatures that shouldn't have been a problem become a massive problem.
This all being said, even though I'm religious about how I use the core rules, the DMG is mostly a guide anyways. I can balance an encounter to the T with it, but I still must choose the monsters, and I'm running a campaign, so I have them make sense.
It's not because I believe the rules are absolutely perfect, just the opposite. My group agreed to have our campaign to also be a sort-of late playtest of the entire cycle of 5e campaigns according strictly to RAW.
I find that once you distill all of the "It should be this and it must act like this" and take things for what they are, the actual problems with the system rear their head while a good portion of the problems presented by the community self-corrects in ways that seem unsatisfying to those that'd consider themselves grognards who must anticipate everything from in front of the screen.
One such issue would be the uncanny ability to metagame that all casters on a forum somehow are able to do. Forum Wizards know exactly the stats of a Balor and exactly how to incapacitate one in one turn. In play, such a problem doesn't exist without metagaming. A wizard can try forcecaging a Balor because it sounds reasonable but the Balor may be able to escape fairly easily from it's abilities. People underestimate that in order for a wizard to be successful they must choose a correct spell from their long list of prepared spells and hope the enemy doesn't counter it easily.
It's why I've never had a problem against a high-level Tarrasque encounter with anyone that doesn't metagame. The characters are too busy thinking "How do we stop this thing quickly?" Than hoping to chip the monstrous beast away. Who knows? it might be able to use an AoE so it's best to not assume anything.
Real problems show up in combat and balancing, in my experience. Combat is often way too difficult compared to what the DMG suggests, even at higher levels. I don't correct if the combat shifts to be too difficult so creatures that shouldn't have been a problem become a massive problem.
This all being said, even though I'm religious about how I use the core rules, the DMG is mostly a guide anyways. I can balance an encounter to the T with it, but I still must choose the monsters, and I'm running a campaign, so I have them make sense.
