A detailed town in the DMG: your preference?

[Nifft]

I don't even like the sample NPCs or encounter tables from the 3.5 DMG and DMG II.

Some of those have been useful for me. If nothing else, I think they served as an object lesson as to how fscking hard it is to stat out high-level spellcasters in 3rd edition.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Little Raven]

Should it? It's one thing to not assume expertise, but another to then assume complete noobness as the only alternative.

To assume someone has experience with the game prior to opening the core book dedicated to that task is a fallacy. That's like opening up "Introduction to Programming" and it says "This book assumes you are already proficient in C++."

The first time I cracked open a rulebook, it was along side the Keep on the Borderlands. In fact, the Village of Hommlet followed soon after that, and was much more compelling as a settled location than the Keep was (with it's relatively faceless and nameless inhabitants). When I was done with Hommlet, I made up my own Hommlet rip-off and ran that. At that point I was glad to not have to drag around my copy of Hommlet. Nor was any experienced DnDer forced to buy these things that I was using at the time.

That was then, this is now. We learn from the mistakes of previous editions. That's why the books get better in how they organize and present information.

Well the DM needs dice, doesn't he?

So, in lieu of anything resembling a valid point, you're going to get into nitpicky semantics? "Well, the DM also needs pencils!"

Try addressing the issue instead of trying to obfuscate it

What happened to the concept of the Basic Set?

It comes out later, and is an introduction to get NEW PLAYERS into the game. There's a vast difference between the Basic Set introducing someone to the entire concept of a roleplaying game, and a book that claims to be a guide to Dungeon Mastering the game.

Why would a noob be sold on a 200 page monster manual for a game he's never played?

What are you talking about? This is exactly relevant to any point I was making in no way.

Try to understand what I'm writing.

I am. You're saying "Because I'm an experienced DM, the DMG should not contain anything I would find to be less than useful. It should assume experience and not be the starting point from which new DMs learn the trade."

My road map doesn't teach me how to drive.

No, but your driving instructor did. He didn't assume you came with previous experience. A road map is used by a driver (someone who has learned to drive). Trying to compare it to the DMG in it's purpose is trying to cloud the issue.

Since you guys are defining the DMG as a guide for new dungeon masters then I guess the rest follows logically. Have at it.

You're a fairly new player, and decide to try your hand at running the game since noone else in your group does so. Upon cracking open the DMG, you learn that it assumes you have previous experience as a DM, and provides you with absolutely no examples, or glosses over topics since you already (supposedly) have experience with them.

How much use would that book be to you if you're trying to learn? Not much.

It doesn't, like I've said. If it did then I would just buy the PHB and not the rest.

I didn't say it has what you need to run the game. Just everything to play it. Players don't actually need anything outside the PHB. DMs do.

Now that you're yelling this is all much clearer. I suppose the monster manual should have a sample adventure in the back featuring some of the monsters.

No, it shouldn't. It's a book of monsters. It's entire point is to have monsters. Just like the DMG is supposed to be a guide to running the game.

"The first DMG" ?! Are there others?

Uh, yeah. This news was revealed in August. There will be a new PHB, DMG, and MM each year.

Part of my opinion stems from the perspective of looking at the DMG from the core rules.

It is the core rules. If it was going to be the only DMG, and it didn't teach new people to be DMs, then it's really a waste of paper. Sure, you can learn through trial and error like many of us did, but that does nothing to encourage people to get into it, which is why there's a shortage of DMs.

This whole 4E pill would go down easier if it weren't just going to be a rehash of the same basic ideas as have existed in the prior DnD editions with some tweaks for the new rules mechanics.

If this pill is so bitter, then how did you swallow it with 1e? 2e? 3e? 3.5e?

I know everyone's a little panicky about the future of the hobby, but a mad rush to cater to your concept of a new gamer at the expense of veterans IMO is not desireable.

Catering to veterans at the expense of new blood stagnates your hobby. Veterans have their old editions that they swear are the epitome of game development, so they can keep those. To get new people you have to try new things, and one of those new things is making the DMG even more focused on helping you learn to run the game.

I'm not saying there can't be sidebars and stuff in the DMG for new DMs.

I get what you're saying. You're not a noob, so you want the DMG to be all super advanced for you. Well, that's not the case, because that's not a good way to develop a game that you want new people to get into, play, and run with relative ease.

 

[FadedC]

Just out of curiosity has there EVER been a version of DMG that didn't contain lots of advice and sample encounters/adventure locations/NPCs and similar things for the DM? I know 3.5 has a ton of that stuff (way more then a town would take up) and I'm pretty sure 3.0 did as well. 1.0 was infamous for it's crazy mishmash of things that were supposed to help a new DM but in some cases ended up as a confusing mess. The only thing I'm not sure about was my 2.0 DMG which I don't remember quite well enough.

 

[Klaus]

Note that the town needs 20 pages to be described. For one thing, "town" makes it sound like a smallish place, which keeps in line with the points of light setting. And for another, you don't need tons of NPCs statted. If the DMG has pregenerated stats elsewhere, these can be used for Starter Town NPCs.

 

[The Little Raven]

And for another, you don't need tons of NPCs statted. If the DMG has pregenerated stats elsewhere, these can be used for Starter Town NPCs.

Yeah, I never stat out minor NPCs like that. If a player wants to run a cheeky shopkeeper through, he does it, because unless that shopkeeper is a former adventurer or whatever, he's not going to be a combatant.

 

[Betote]

The DnD "trio" of books should be able to be played right from the start. That means a sample town and a sample adventure in the DMG.

I and my friends learned to play role-playing games by ourselves. Each one of us bought a bunch of books from several games. RuneQuest had a sample town and a sample adventure. AD&D2 didn't. We played an awful lot of RQ before any other game, just because of that.

 

[Mistwell]

I like how they did Saltmarsh in the DMGII, so I can see how it would be cool to have that. I just hope it doesn't take up a huge chunk of the book.

 

[Mercule]

I thought the idea of having a town in the DMG2 was great, when I heard about it.

In practice, I haven't gotten a lick of use from it.

I'm fine with 10 pages, max, on a town. If it's a whole chapter, like Saltmarsh, then it stinks.

 

[gizmo33]

To assume someone has experience with the game prior to opening the core book dedicated to that task is a fallacy. That's like opening up "Introduction to Programming" and it says "This book assumes you are already proficient in C++."

If the book were titled "introduction to Dungeon Mastering" then I would find the analogy useful. Otherwise, it seems to be that it assumes that thing which is debateable.

That was then, this is now.

Change is not better by virtue of the fact that it was a change, so this establishes nothing.

We learn from the mistakes of previous editions.

Who's we? You don't mean me. We would have to agree on what those mistakes were. The previous editions used dice. That's not semantics, that's an appeal for you to clarify.

That's why the books get better in how they organize and present information.

Do they? That's the whole point. You're assuming the thing that is the point of debate. Including a module within the DMG IMO is *not* getting better about how to organize the game. Beginner material and example material (also useful to experienced people) IMO is best handled in another book.

So, in lieu of anything resembling a valid point, you're going to get into nitpicky semantics? "Well, the DM also needs pencils!"

My point is to illustrate that the concept that you have of what consitutes appropriate material for the DMG and what doesn't is not fully developed IMO. For example, your criteria does not exclude dice AFAICT. I think your use of the word semantics here is just making plain that you're not understanding what I'm saying.

Try addressing the issue instead of trying to obfuscate it

Your confusion about what I'm saying is not necessarily my fault. If you're not having an easy time being patient and reading what I'm writing, or you feel the need to continue to ascribe fanciful motives to why I'm writing this then we're both wasting our time.

It comes out later, and is an introduction to get NEW PLAYERS into the game. There's a vast difference between the Basic Set introducing someone to the entire concept of a roleplaying game, and a book that claims to be a guide to Dungeon Mastering the game.

Ok, so you make a distinction between new DMs and new DMs that haven't played RPGs before. And the distinction is so firm that trying to write to both audiences is inappropriate, and yet you won't make a distinction between exprienced and inexprienced DMs? I don't see why one is worth it and the other isn't.

I am. You're saying "Because I'm an experienced DM, the DMG should not contain anything I would find to be less than useful. It should assume experience and not be the starting point from which new DMs learn the trade."

No, this is overstating what I'm trying to say. I'm not running a space exploration campaign but if they want to throw in a page or two about laser guns into the DMG I'm fine with that. What I don't want to see is what I saw in the DMG2, which was the Town of Saltmarsh. I would have just rather bought a module for Saltmarsh.

No, but your driving instructor did. He didn't assume you came with previous experience. A road map is used by a driver (someone who has learned to drive). Trying to compare it to the DMG in it's purpose is trying to cloud the issue.

No, I'm trying to establish something else. I think we both agree that new people - whether new to the hobby or new to DnD in particular, or new to DMing, or whatever need appropriate resources. What we disagree with is where you want this information to be. I'm a consumer of the DMG, my opinion counts for nothing more than that, and expressing it is designed to let other people know my perspective (and AFAICT) some others on this thread.

I would bet, with no evidence other than anecdotal, that experienced DMs are far more likely to bring new people into the game than a DMG is. Your comments about experienced players are overly dismissive of the contributions that veterans make to the longevity of the hobby.

You're a fairly new player, and decide to try your hand at running the game since noone else in your group does so. Upon cracking open the DMG, you learn that it assumes you have previous experience as a DM, and provides you with absolutely no examples, or glosses over topics since you already (supposedly) have experience with them.

Yes, IMO a new DM should buy a module. Each encounter area could break down the rules for each encounter. Again, this is mostly about where such information belongs. I just don't think that the DMG is going to provide the information to a level of detail sufficient for what you're saying the purpose should be. Do you think that Saltmarsh in the DMG II is sufficient for a new DM?

Uh, yeah. This news was revealed in August. There will be a new PHB, DMG, and MM each year.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have a link? What would they put in a 2009 DMG that wasn't in 2008? Would it be like the DMG2 with rules variants?

It is the core rules. If it was going to be the only DMG, and it didn't teach new people to be DMs, then it's really a waste of paper. Sure, you can learn through trial and error like many of us did, but that does nothing to encourage people to get into it, which is why there's a shortage of DMs.

The shortage of DMs IMO is a complicated subject and not done justice by your assertion of cause and effect. I don't think that a town write-up in the DMG is going to change this.

If this pill is so bitter, then how did you swallow it with 1e? 2e? 3e? 3.5e?

With increasing reluctance. This is the reason I'm speaking out here.

Catering to veterans at the expense of new blood stagnates your hobby.

This is not an either/or proposition. IMO this mistates my position.

Veterans have their old editions that they swear are the epitome of game development, so they can keep those.

This is a description of some bogeyman of your imagination.

To get new people you have to try new things,

Like playing WoW? Change for the sake of change IMO isn't sensible.

I get what you're saying. You're not a noob, so you want the DMG to be all super advanced for you.

Nope, I just want it to spare me from an inordinant description of the basics, and an entire town with detail sufficient to be enlightening to a beginniner is an inordinant amount of detail for a general audience. That's why they have the Dummies books.

Well, that's not the case, because that's not a good way to develop a game that you want new people to get into, play, and run with relative ease.

IMO it's a bad idea to put out books that are increasingly difficult for me to justify buying on the hopes that you'll attract new people to replace me. I've been playing DnD for 20 some years and it would make sense IMO to take that sort of loyalty seriously. As I've said, I believe my contribution (and those of others in my situation) to bringing new people to the game is worth considering. AFAICT from polls on these boards a large number of people learned to play DnD from the basic set, why such an idea is bad now when it seemed to work in the past is one of the questions I have.

 

[morbiczer]

I must say I'm quite surprised that the large majority of ENWorlders thinks this to be a good idea.