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

[SteveC]

This thread has made me need to go buy some additional locks, chains, and steel spikes to keep Internet Warrior SteveC locked up. Fortunately, the new additions have held.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why do you keep telling folks how unnecessary buying and following any particular rules document is at all? You are talking about your preference, and so am I.

Because my comments are to people for whom the advice could actually be acted upon. Someone could read what I say and think "Maybe he has a point. Maybe I actually don't need this rule printed in the book that I think I need."

Whereas you keep asking the same people who can't give you what you want the same questions that you know we have no response for. So your statements serve no purpose other than to clutter up all these threads with your unactionable complaints.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, WotC (and TSR before them) have never used the DMG "rules" when building their adventures.

What might be good would be if, when they were doing a new edition (and especially a mid-edition update like 3.5e, Essentials, or 5e 2024), they took the rules that they actually used and put those into the DMG. But there's probably way too much trial and error in there for them ever to admit to that in print.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because my comments are to people for whom the advice could actually be acted upon.

It's usually directed to people who have repeatedly said that's not the point to no avail though, constantly inundating them with explicitly unwanted 'advice'.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's usually directed to people who have repeatedly said that's not the point to no avail though, constantly inundating them with explicitly unwanted 'advice'.

Then they are the ones making statements for no reason. If they ask things of WotC they know they aren't going to get... usually because the book is already printed... but say they want it anyway, then perhaps they need to change their way of thinking.

If they don't wish to change their way of thinking, then why bother asking the question in the first place?

I take it on faith that people who post here asking for solutions to their problems actually want solutions and are not just complaining for the sake of hearing themselves talk. I give people a little more credit than that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then they are the ones making statements for no reason. If they ask things of WotC they know they aren't going to get... usually because the book is already printed... but say they want it anyway, then perhaps they need to change their way of thinking.

If they don't wish to change their way of thinking, then why bother asking the question in the first place?

I take it on faith that people who post here asking for solutions to their problems actually want solutions and are not just complaining for the sake of hearing themselves talk. I give people a little more credit than that.

Actually, I think 5.5 has done a much better job in this new DMG of communicating their intended playstyle than any previous WotC edition. It's not exactly a designer sidebar (which I still want despite you not wanting me to mention that fact here), but it's better than they've done in the past.

Besides, I don't recall "asking for solutions" in this area. Just talking about what I want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

All factors, yes. But I still contend Hasbro's insistence on unrealistic levels of profit was the biggest one.

The history of Alternity would seem to at least partially support your position.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I take it on faith that people who post here asking for solutions to their problems actually want solutions and are not just complaining for the sake of hearing themselves talk. I give people a little more credit than that.

This seems to ignore the concept of "venting".

 

[Cruentus]

Yeah, WotC (and TSR before them) have never used the DMG "rules" when building their adventures.

What might be good would be if, when they were doing a new edition (and especially a mid-edition update like 3.5e, Essentials, or 5e 2024), they took the rules that they actually used and put those into the DMG. But there's probably way too much trial and error in there for them ever to admit to that in print.

I think you’d end up in a situation where they all use different rules, or interpretations, or design philosophies at the table, and there wouldn’t be a consensus about what to include.

My experience in listening to designers, across tabletop war games and RPGs, is that when designers play, they often don’t play the games following the ‘published’ rules, they improvise, make rulings, use house rules, builds, armies, and make decisions the way their table plays. The rules that end up in the DMG are ‘mass market’ outputs, that probably don’t mirror how the designers actually play. I mean, look at the 1e DMG. Reportedly Gygax’s games were nothing like what was written there.

I look to DMGs for inspiration, and optional rules to use in my games, to make it more ‘my game’. I bought the 24DMG solely for the Greyhawk map. Not for the Greyhawk writeups, the ‘guidelines’ about encounters or deities, etc. I know all that, and we play older editions of the game, and play how our group enjoys the game, not how the designers write it up.

 

[delericho]

I think you’d end up in a situation where they all use different rules, or interpretations, or design philosophies at the table, and there wouldn’t be a consensus about what to include.

Indeed.

The rules that end up in the DMG are ‘mass market’ outputs, that probably don’t mirror how the designers actually play.

Agreed. On the other hand, though, the published adventures are also "mass market" outputs. So to an extent it does seem odd that the DMG guidelines don't match the way the designers design.