Search results

I think there are approaches more new DMs are going to find easier and/or quicker and I think it's a reasonable choice for the DMG to prioritize those. I am also operating on the presumption that someone who just bought the books wants to get to playing the game as quickly as possible. Clearly...

Yes. All the new DMs that are going to be any good think like me. That is exactly what I have been saying. Without sarcasm what I am advocating for is making it as unintimidating as possible for new DMs. I actively want as many people becoming DMs as can and want to and I think presenting them...

Do you think there's conflict between what you want and that discussion saying something like "starting small usually gets play happening more quickly?" I also started pretty big-picture for what are probably pretty similar reasons to yours. I also was working entirely for myself with no time...

Yes. I think starting with a more inside-to-out approach might be less intimidating to new DMs. There's no reason to even imply they need to establish the entire multiverse before starting on their starting town or city or whatever. One need not invent the universe in order to bake a pie.

Shockingly I can manage to be consistent over short stretches.

How is a new DM supposed to know what details they need and what details they don't if there's no advice on the topic?

I enjoy worldbuilding too. I worked out more details than strictly necessary for my setting overall before starting to work out starting locales. I do not think pointing newcomers to the quickest way to get to play needs to make any other path more difficult.

I don't want it to label anything as wrong either but it doesn't seem problematic to me to label the approach that gets to play more quickly as "quicker to play" and I believe the DMG should focus on getting to play quickly or at least not make that more difficult than necessary.

Some context is good but trying to fill in all the details from the outside in is a most excellent way to drive yourself barking mad before you even start play. It's also unnecessary.

I see no reason not to provide as many on-ramps as possible and I see no reason not to make them as easy as possible. If you look at my ideal process above you'll note it does not include trying to teach yourself to DM solely by reading published materials. That does not mean the published...

Yes. The structure of the DMG implies that you should build from the outside in with all the details. This both incorrect and a path to madness.

I haven't either but it's consistent with arguments against making it easier for new DMs to avoid the classic mistakes. I would much rather the new DM's I've helped make their own mistakes than repeat mine.

I realize you are making a joke about worldbuilders but a whole detailed world or multiverse is not a requirement to start play. Broad strokes for the setting. Details for where you start. Fill things in as they become necessary. I have occasionally found the random tables useful for...

But if we actually encourage people to become DMs the people who already are DMs will lose their mystique and their aura and that is an unacceptable outcome.

I'm sure it has worked out well for you and that you miss your cousin dearly.

The problem is you need to consume the flesh raw and that exposes you to more parasites than most people are comfortable with and it tastes nasty. That's what I heard anyway.

As much as I want the books to be better there is no substitute for experience. Nothing else comes close. Probably the ideal sequence is Play with an experienced DM Talk with that experienced DM about DMing DM with people who have played and/or DMed before Talk with those people about how things...

Seems legit.

We figured this stuff out by exegesis and the grace of Gygax. Let the noobs do the same.

There is also the question of whether 320 pages is a truly magical number.