D&D 5E Are we banking too much on the DMG?

[Ruin Explorer]

WotC's dislike for aasimar based on what seems to be their name alone makes me sad.

Pretty sure it's also based on extensive customer surveys in 3.XE and 4E and the 5E playtest. I really don't think there is much real PLAYER demand to PLAY them. Not to restart all that, but WotC put in races people actually want to play generally (which probably proves me wrong about no-one playing Halfling/Gnomes!).

 

[delericho]

Are we setting ourselves up for disappointment here?

Sort of.

The DMG will no doubt include some, but not all, of the desired modules. Of those modules it does include, some will scratch the relevant itch and others will fall short. (And, of course, for any given module it's likely some people will like it and others won't.)

So, some people will be happy, and some will be disappointed. But that's inevitable whether the DMG includes 2, 20, or 2,000 modules - they simply cannot cover every possibility.

 

[SteveC]

I would say "sort of" to answer the original question.

If you pretty much like the core 5E as presented, but are hoping for a tweak or minor option here or there, you'll be happy with the book.

If you don't like how the game is presented, but are looking for (say) a 4E take on classes, you're likely to be disappointed.

I expect we will see a lot of 1-2 page sections that are sort of a framework for different rules sets, but there will be a lot of them, and detail will be necessarily lost.

I know that a fair bit of the game will be "how to GM ... err DM," so some portion of the book will be rather generic. Hopefully it will lay the grouindwork for further development.

 

[Thaumaturge]

I know that a fair bit of the game will be "how to GM ... err DM," so some portion of the book will be rather generic. Hopefully it will lay the grouindwork for further development.

I think we'll be surprised by how little of this kind of thing is in the DMG. Mearls has mentioned...somewhere...that he wants to put DM advice on the website not in the DMG. They play to have video tutorials, and the like, for DMs. I think the DMG will have much less on "how to DM" than in previous editions.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Boarstorm]

They plan to have video tutorials, and the like, for DMs.

I must admit, I'm very curious as to how these will work.

 

[DMZ2112]

I must admit, I'm very curious as to how these will work.

Well, if we're lucky:

[video=youtube;B8LBpMuSTrQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8LBpMuSTrQ[/video]

For my part I'm not counting on the DMG at all. Basic D&D is what I'm most excited about -- the rest is gravy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

All I'm hoping for is that the DMG has enough replacement or additional parts that it finally gets all of us players into the mindset that there is absolutely no reason why you HAVE to have a set way to have your game. And thus... actually houseruling your own game (including houserules you yourself create rather than are found in the DMG) is part of the base game experience.

That way we never again have the mindset where someone actually feels like they have to say "If this game doesn't have X, I'm not playing!" Because the game instead might provide us with T, U, V & W in the DMG all with the expectation that you'll probably use any one of them... and thus you deciding to MAKE your own X (so that you get exactly what you want) that is all well and good, and an expected part of the D&D experience.

The DMG isn't going to include every version of every house or alternate rule you're probably going to want. But hopefully at the very least it will inspire you to just make up your own version and have fun playing it... rather than spend the next six years complaining about it. There is no SET GAME. The game is what you make of it (literally.) So actually make it... or just be happy choosing not to play it (which is absolutely fine) without feeling the need to spend years ranting to people as to WHY you aren't playing it (which is "Hey, look at me!" disease). Cause none of us really care.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think we are banking too much on the DMG.

The things we are "banking on" are rules modifications. Lots of them. If we are seriously hoping for them, the underlying game must be pretty robustly accepting of modification. If that is true, then GMs will modify it, whether WotC wants them to or not! Kind of like we always have. D&D is not like an iPhone, glued together so you can only take it back to the manufacturer to get it changed.

 

[JonWake]

No, I don't think so. Though honestly, I think some people saying 'wait for the DMG' mean 'my god won't you shut up about X rule oversight?' They're just being polite.

What I want from the DMG is a set of hacks. I don't need it to cover all my bases, or all my tweaks, but having some examples makes hacking much easier. There might be solutions I hadn't thought of, and even better if the book guides you through some of the consequences of changing things.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I feel like the supposed rules modules have given 5e a bit of a pass so far from a lot of people. When something someone really wants isn't in the rules, there's always, "Oh, maybe it will be in a module!" This way, 5e can be the perfect game everybody imagines in their heads... up until the day the DMG is actually released.

Is there going to be some disappointment on that day? Oh yes.

I remain skeptical that a short section in the DMG can really do justice to, for instance, robust gridded combat rules. But I guess we'll find out soon enough.