D&D General A DMG for all of us

[sevenbastard]

I'd be fine with a 2 page section on why this is the best style of D&D. I could easily fit my dice in the open, low magic, combat as war, xp advancement through gp/monsters killed, sandbox player agency driven adventures, etc. Including my house rules on two pages with a decent explination why to boot.

I'd also be cool if they just released adventures of diffrent styles with DM advice for that style in the front. I mean the old 1e Dragon Lance modules came with DM advice on how to railroad for the story game style they wanted.

 

[Chaltab]

Ii feel like a lot of suggestions like this forget that books are expensive to make & publish. I also believe that for some people no DMG will ever be good enough because they like being aggrieved.

 

[Umbran]

So what if someone created a DMG (or GMG) for a given playstyle specifically. Then imagine others create the same for other playstyles. If the rules were genuinely flexible enough, they aren't now but they could be, we could all play the same rules but with different underlying assumptions. Campaigns might even be named after particular DMGs. I'm playing with the Gygaxian philosophy.

Aside from how you'd get folks arguing over what is, and is not, truly "Gygaxian", you mean?

I am not interested in books that, in effect, are positioned to define the orthdoxy of various styles.

A series of articles discussing the broad strokes of some styles, would be fine.

A series of articles discussing the implications and/or what changes to play experience you can support or produce with certain mechanical changes, worldbuilding techniques, adventure designs, GM procedures, or levels of sharing narrative control? Totally on board.

 

[Yaarel]

How can the designers of a DMG go very deep when whatever the direction they take they will alienate someone.

A DM goes "deep" into a preferred gaming style, by choosing a setting that emphasizes and supports it.

 

[Yaarel]

Considering a number of us (its me!) said for years "Hey Wizards pick a lane!" it would be...unfair of me to now go "No, not like that!"

Wizards picked a style, tone, and approach, and now it is what it is.

I respect the democracy of what most players want (and purchase), and try to go with it as much as I can.

 

[Remathilis]

A series of articles discussing the implications and/or what changes to play experience you can support or produce with certain mechanical changes, worldbuilding techniques, adventure designs, GM procedures, or levels of sharing narrative control? Totally on board.

This is EXACTLY what D&D Beyond should be publishing as the home page of D&D. The issue I see is that they don't seem to have permission to publish new rules, so they are limited to discussion and analysis rather than expanding what is in the official books.

For example, an article on making new backgrounds that is unique to Greyhawk would be a great article to show customizing and making world specific backgrounds, but everyone would treat them as Official rather than examples and there would be people raising issues about these being or not being in the character builder, being AL legal, etc.

Still, it would be nice if we could get articles that feel closer to old Dragon Mag articles rather than Dragon+ fluff to discuss these kinds of things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was thinking of how many playstyles now exist side by side in D&D. And more than one is pretty popular. Often they are not compatible. Often people in a particular area don't even realize the other styles exist.

How can the designers of a DMG go very deep when whatever the direction they take they will alienate someone. They can't. The book ends up being a bunch of tables and some very light advice.

One thing about the 1e DMG. It was dripping with opinion. Gygax presented his way and taught players how to manage games his way. He ignored all other ways. For me, that approach really resonated and I learned what he was teaching and I made it work and work well. Others though may have been driven mad by it. I do also notice that many new games present their playstyle front and center and make few bones about it. Only D&D is caught in this web of making everyone happy. I do though think though that some version of D&D could be played in many different styles.

So what if someone created a DMG (or GMG) for a given playstyle specifically. Then imagine others create the same for other playstyles. If the rules were genuinely flexible enough, they aren't now but they could be, we could all play the same rules but with different underlying assumptions. Campaigns might even be named after particular DMGs. I'm playing with the Gygaxian philosophy.

The generic stuff would then be left in the official DMG.

The 4e DMG (and all of 4e) pretty explicitly leaned into its chosen playstyle. I've come to really expect it for that. And to be fair, the 5.5 DMG is also being more explicit in the playstyle it supports, so I suppose I should respect that too (although like 4e, the playstyle it supports is not one I like all that much).

That being said, I do like the idea of different DMGs catering to different playstyles, or a single book explicitly providing options for multiple. It just seems like you're going to have to look outside WotC for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Or…and hear me out…there’s nothing wrong with playing an older version of the game that suits your preferences and style without care for what the current or upcoming version’s perspective is.

I think people get hung up on what the current game is doing for three reasons:

1. Obviously it's easier to find players for a game that's currently supported and marketed to heck and back.

2. The same company still controls the IP, old and new alike, and a person can easily get irritated with what they're doing with it.

3. The discussion in the community has always been and will always be overwhelmingly focused on whatever the owners of D&D are doing right now with the game. If you want to interact with other gamers in a substantial way it's very hard to avoid the current offering.

I know those are my reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I reckon a play style could probably be summed up on an A4 page if needed. Probably two sides of the page at most. Most of such a DMG would be duplicated. As mentioned in another thread there is far more that unites play styles than divides them.

One page to set down an approach to 5.5e. Most of it would be setting expectations.

What an A4 page? Otherwise, I'd love to see something like that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Considering a number of us (its me!) said for years "Hey Wizards pick a lane!" it would be...unfair of me to now go "No, not like that!"

Wizards picked a style, tone, and approach, and now it is what it is.

I'm still a little sad about it, but you're not wrong.