D&D General Does WotC use its own DMG rules?

Because IMO the core of a game should have a clearly explained and executed design philosophy
Then, whatever philosophy you go for, you are going to alienate a large portion of your players. That was 4e’s big mistake. D&D is a game played many many different ways. That’s why it is so popular. WotC has to try and keep people on board by avoiding telling anyone they are having badwrongfun. This requires a considerable amount of creative vagary.

It has a philosophy - sit on the fence.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It has a philosophy - sit on the fence.
Tim Allen Fox GIF by Last Man Standing
 

I can imagine that some of you at this point are already thinking, that maybe WotC doesn't really use any "rules" because building encounters and creating monsters "are an art, not a science". Well then, why doesn't WotC very honestly say so in the DMG? If the book's purpose is to teach people how to be an effective DM, and the truth is that you can't define "rules" for certain stuff, then it would be a good idea to teach that as well.

Edit: for whatever reason, the original quotation to which I responded is not showing. It was from the OP: "I can imagine that some of you at this point are already thinking, that maybe WotC doesn't really use any "rules" because building encounters and creating monsters "are an art, not a science". Well then, why doesn't WotC very honestly say so in the DMG? If the book's purpose is to teach people how to be an effective DM, and the truth is that you can't define "rules" for certain stuff, then it would be a good idea to teach that as well."

WotC does very honestly say in the DMG and elsewhere that, ultimately, it is up to the individual Dungeon Master to decide how to use any and all materials. The reality is that almost any experienced DM knows that any "rules" for encounter building are guidelines at best, and the DMG is very clear that these are suggestions. That said, its target audience is clearly new DMs, and so it provides some very explicit guidelines for creating combat encounters of varying difficulties.

I'm not sure what you are expecting. The tone of your post seems like you are looking for a "gotcha" - that if WotC's own adventure designers, all very experienced DMs aren't sticking to the letter of the guidelines provided for new DMs, then they are being dishonest about their product. But no such thing has been promised. And, given the inherent complexity of encounter design, given that every single party and collection of players is unique, expecting a single set of guidelines to act as firm "rules" for every possibility is silly.

I don't know whether or not their own designers stick to the letter of the DMG guidelines. I also don't care. I care if they are designing good encounters that work in the context of the adventures they are writing, with the full expectation that I am going to tweak things for the needs of my particular group.

Your post reads like "if a beginners guide to playing piano isn't clear that it won't turn you into Mozart, then it is LYING." Rather than being, you know, a useful place to start.
 

Then, whatever philosophy you go for, you are going to alienate a large portion of your players. That was 4e’s big mistake. D&D is a game played many many different ways. That’s why it is so popular. WotC has to try and keep people on board by avoiding telling anyone they are having badwrongfun. This requires a considerable amount of creative vagary.

It has a philosophy - sit on the fence.
This is true, but I'd rather any game pick a lane and take that risk rather than stay on the fence. I respected 4e for that even if I ended up not liking it personally, and the more I read about 5.5 the more I respect the stance they're taking (which I also don't like personally). I just wish they'd defined it as the new edition it is in spirit, if not in math.
 




Here is from the opening of the 2024 DMG:

"A big part of being the DM is deciding how to apply the rules as you go and imagining the consequences of the characters’ actions in a way that will make the game fun for everyone."

"The DM creates the world where the game’s adventures take place. Even if you’re using a published setting, you get to make it yours."

"The preceding example of play shows how one Dungeon Master might run an encounter, but no two DMs run the game in exactly the same way—and that’s how it should be! You’ll be most successful as a DM if you choose a play style that works best for you and your players."

"People have many different ideas about what makes D&D fun. The “right way” to play D&D is the way you and your players agree to and enjoy. If everyone comes to the table prepared to contribute to the game, the entire table is likely to have a wonderful and memorable time."

In general, when you read through the new DMG, including the section on encounter design, you will constantly see words and phrases such as "you could", "might", "potentially," "one way to..." and so on. The language of the entire book is explicit that this is a GUIDE, not a set of hard and fast rules for every situation. Because D&D is not that kind of game.
 


But most people would rather they did not throw away 80% of their customers.

The smaller companies can produce more specialised products as they have smaller overheads. That’s why WotC needs them.
You think any design philosophy they choose would result in WotC losing 80% of their audience? Come on man. Not even 4e did that.
 

Remove ads

Top