D&D 5E Dungeons and Dragons: The "Dungeon Master's" edition.

[Sailor Moon]

Sure, and leave out monsters from the Monster Manual for that? It already got bigger than they planned, and the NPC/animal section is pretty compressed.

I'm sorry but there are a few monsters that had they left out, wouldn't have broken too many hearts. Also, they could have brought the art size down a little and saved some space.

 

[Fralex]

Aww, but the art is nice! :<
I think it makes sense for the stuff about making custom monsters to be in the DMG. That's extra stuff a DM doesn't need to know how to do, but might be useful to know. If I got just the PHB and MM and didn't care about the DMG, I'd probably want the MM to stick to already-made monsters and save homebrewing help for the other book.
They could've done things differently I guess, but the way they did do them isn't too bad, is it? :>

 

[Uchawi]

I agree that WotC did not entirely deliver the modularity that was promised, mostly because it turned out they didn't need to.

They went in to the playtest expecting there to be a few large, highly different groups of D&D players. Over time they found that to be false. They were instead able to build a game that appealed to a vast majority, which could be modified in small ways and through DM empowerment to handle most of the outliers.

So we have a collection of simple rule tweaks, but few large modules.

I do not fully buy into that viewpoint, because the main focus of the playtest and questions was the feel of the game, and on that front there is a lot to agree on with D&D or any fantasy RPG. It is the equivalent of taking a 10,000 foot view of earth and making decisions on a nice place to live. However, once you get down to the ground, where you want to live will change dramatically based on specific details. So once you start digging in deeper, you will notice a stark difference on what players or DMs prefer in reference to mechanics.

And from reviews I have read, the DMG continues to provide flexibility for casters and magic, but not as much for martial characters in reference to choosing or expanding on ability similar to spells.

 

[TerraDave]

Right, its more options then modules.

In fact, I see the opening for much more options, which they have promised. Before it was always player stuff--more spells, more classes, more feats; but now I can see easily slotting in--more diseases, more insanity, more traps, more rules variants, hireling lists...not because the DMG is short of things, but because they really show how to open up the game.

And, to go back to Sailor Moon's original point, it really has lots of language empowering the DM and saying "do it your way". I want to go back and compare to the older DMGs, but this isn't just a single rule zero reference, it is really integrated everywhere.

Sure your shuffling pages, but the DMG tells you to reference the MM anyway when looking for abilities so instead if having to flip back and forth between books, you can flip back and forth in the same book.

Actually, the problem with this argument, it can be easier to do this with two books. You keep the DMG open to that section, and then flip around the MM as needed. Only real way to do it as far as I can tell.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I really like that they went with lots of individual options rather than larger clumsy modules of rules that were all interconnected. With options you can pick what you like at the gaming buffet and just use that.

More importantly, options as smaller selectable fiddly bits opens up the possibilities of OTHER options which are undefined. The underlying message of making the game your own, showing prospective DMs that there are options available and then providing examples of some is a home run for a DMG.

I have paged through it, but haven't yet read it completely yet but so far, I like what I'm seeing. Just seeing that a vorpal sword actually goes snicker-snak! again gives me warm fuzzies.

 

[jodyjohnson]

My gut feeling is that they decided there would be a large group of players sharpening their pitchforks over huge amounts of stuff they wouldn't use being in the DMG in place of stuff they might use or at least get inspired by.

To include a ton of dials and modules would have by definition included a lot of wasted pages for every style.
I think the plan was to move the options, dials, and rule modules to the online "Unearthed Arcana" series which already has a long history of being ignored or used as needed - whether through Dragon back in the day or actual printed rulebooks.

Even the options in the DMG seem largely new rather than just including the way Edition X handled it (looking primarily at healing options). Although some do match just by virtue of their being only limited ways of handling it in the first place (see diagonals or hexes options).

IMO if I want to do something in the game exactly like Edition X handled it I already have those rules printed - just in a different edition's book.

 

[Thunderfoot]

You had better not be talking about the Flumph!!! I'm so happy it's back I floated around the room due to my over-abundant gas.

(To be fair I actually liked having the flumph back, but it was too good a joke to let...umm...ride? ).

 

[Thunderfoot]

From what I can tell, it's more personal preference than actual mistake or error on WotC's part; and considering some of the last few years projects, I consider that a HUGE leap forward. If I can't easily red pen the parts I don't want out of my game because it breaks the rest of the mechanics, that, to me is a broken system (4e wealth and magic I'm looking at you). But it's personal, not a broken system, per se; I think your take on the DMG is the same, not really a falter on the designers parts, just a different spin than you thought they were going to provide. All and all, I say buck up and drive on!

 

[Wrathamon]

People wanted the Ultimate Hacker's Book of Rules for D&D, but what they got was a If You Wanted to Hack D&D Here are Some Ideas Guide.

It is a Guide after all.

I think there are two camps ... the people who like it, are the type that want to create new stuff, happy with small changes, or don't feel the needed to change anything but appreciate reading about how to do it if they ever wanted to and the other camp that wants codified rule systems that they don't need much to slot into their game and they want a lot of those systems and dont care much for the why or how to do it yourself.

I am sure there are shades of gray.

I was one that was hoping for more crunchy parts and more depth on some of the systems presented but I also like how they have gone with the empowering the DM to make it their D&D.

 

[Mercurius]

I agree that WotC did not entirely deliver the modularity that was promised, mostly because it turned out they didn't need to.

They went in to the playtest expecting there to be a few large, highly different groups of D&D players. Over time they found that to be false. They were instead able to build a game that appealed to a vast majority, which could be modified in small ways and through DM empowerment to handle most of the outliers.

So we have a collection of simple rule tweaks, but few large modules.

This is a very good point. And relates to...

The game to me looks plenty modular, if one looks at it from the point of view of "My D&D". That is, as a DM, you can use it to really make it play the way you want it to play. But if you're looking for some switches and dials to make it a particular edition, it doesn't really have that.

Depending upon how the OGL looks, I imagine some publisher(s) is(are) going to produce something akin to Fantasy Craft and/or various toolbox and books of modular options.

 

[Gargoyle]

I was disappointed by the lack of modularity. There is very little of it. However, when I look at the book from the viewpoint of "What would I change given the restriction of the current page count?" I don't have a good answer. As I look at every section, I think "yep, I need or really want that" and by the time all that stuff is in there, you're left with very little room for modular stuff, but they still squeezed in the must have optional/variant rules like a small section on tactical options and healing options, etc.

I applaud WotC for giving us transparency into the design process, and I'm ok with the type of content and design they picked because:

1. The quality of the game design that they did choose and its implementation is high.
2. There are some dials and levers in the game, just not as many or not as explicit as we were led to believe there might be.
3. Designing a great foundation of D&D rules that players of all earlier editions could find common ground on was much more important than dials and levers.
4. There really weren't any "promises" made. They did set some expectations about the type of content, but I feel the only actual promise they made is that they would listen to playtesters and do their best, which I think they did.

They were modifying the DMG up until the last minute, and had the courage to cut some things that weren't playtested enough like mass combat. I feel like they hit the ball out of the park, even if it wasn't the grand slam I'd hoped for. It's not a perfect book at all, and I still have some nits to pick, but I'm satisfied with it and looking forward to options in Unearthed Arcana.

 

[TheFindus]

I agree that WotC did not entirely deliver the modularity that was promised, mostly because it turned out they didn't need to.

They went in to the playtest expecting there to be a few large, highly different groups of D&D players. Over time they found that to be false. They were instead able to build a game that appealed to a vast majority, which could be modified in small ways and through DM empowerment to handle most of the outliers.

So we have a collection of simple rule tweaks, but few large modules.

I think they went into the playtest expecting there to be large different groups of players. Then the 4th edition players saw the rules of the first couple of playtests and thought: mmmh, how is this supposed to turn into something that resembles what the current edition excels at? And I think these people left and did not give any more input.
And that is why this edition looks the way it does: those players whose tastes were mostly reinforced by the majority of the playtests stayed and formed this new edition.
And maybe WotC does not need to deliver on modules regarding modules for the 4E-type of play because most of those who liked that style will come along anyways.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think they went into the playtest expecting there to be large different groups of players. Then the 4th edition players saw the rules of the first couple of playtests and thought: mmmh, how is this supposed to turn into something that resembles what the current edition excels at? And I think these people left and did not give any more input.
And that is why this edition looks the way it does: those players whose tastes were mostly reinforced by the majority of the playtests stayed and formed this new edition.
And maybe WotC does not need to deliver on modules regarding modules for the 4E-type of play because most of those who liked that style will come along anyways.

There is some truth to this, in that the rolling surveys automatically create a selection bias.

The developers have several times mentioned that they turnout for the surveys was greater than expected. My suspicion is that those of us with strong opinions on various aspects of the game were drowned out by a usually silent majority.

And not all 4E fans will have left the playtest. There's a lot of 4E influence, if little direct copying, in the final game.

 

[AmerginLiath]

The 'modules,' like the rules in general of 5e, have been sliced up finely and stitched into a larger collection of options and suggestions. It's very hard (except in a few places) to grab one chunk and say "this is Nth Edition!" – which was surely done on purpose, given how each edition has has really good elements and really flawed elements alike. A large part of the issue remains the game of Telephone over the idea of what the DMG would/could contain, honestly from people on all sides who need to better understand how publishing works.

I personally really like how the DMG ended up. What has stopped me from wanting to DM over recent editions is the issue of math and system mastery. I don't have the time to learn every nuance of the legal code that is 3.x or 4th (and I say that as a historian who works in math publishing as a day job, so it's not a "it's too hard!" comment – it's a question of investment of what I find fun vs. my limited free time). THIS is a game that I actually want to run, because both myself and the players (professionals, grad students, parents, etc) with no time or care for system mastery can just be creative about coming up with hair-brained schemes and I can call out what to roll on. Until now, there was always that ONE guy (always a different one, but it's like "We are Legion, because we are many!") in the group who would moan about the exact rule on that one page and then team-kill until we got it "right."

5e is beautiful and the 5e DMG is like the illegitimate child of Gary Gygax and Santa Claus.

 

[guachi]

I made a list of all the optional rules and all the random tables in the DMG. There are at least 64 optional rules. Some are rather minor; some have multiple parts. There are 174 random tables.

I was not around during the playtest. Could those who are disappointed in the lack of modularity point to actual words said by the developers on when this modularity was promised and what that modularity would entail? I have not read the 3e or 4e DMG but compared to 1e, 2e, B/X, and BECMI 5e is the most free form of the lot and those DMGs were no slouches in empowering the DM to do whatever.

 

[Gargoyle]

I made a list of all the optional rules and all the random tables in the DMG. There are at least 64 optional rules. Some are rather minor; some have multiple parts. There are 174 random tables.

I was not around during the playtest. Could those who are disappointed in the lack of modularity point to actual words said by the developers on when this modularity was promised and what that modularity would entail? I have not read the 3e or 4e DMG but compared to 1e, 2e, B/X, and BECMI 5e is the most free form of the lot and those DMGs were no slouches in empowering the DM to do whatever.

I don't believe it was promised either, but I do believe it was stated as a design goal, and that set some expectations. I'm too lazy to look for a link on their redesigned site (if that's even where I got that from) so if you don't believe me on that, it's ok. Suffice to say, I don't think we were lied to, and perhaps I assumed too much. Whether it's their fault or not, I was a bit disappointed though.

While optional and variant rules do make the game more modular, it's nothing different than we've seen before, and so I expected more. And I certainly don't believe tables add any sort of modularity (though I do love them).

My impression was that the rules were going to feature many dials and levers so that you could set up a campaign with explicit options like a specific level of magic, and that you could specify explicitly a level of detail for rules like combat. It's not like you can't do these things with 5e, you absolutely can, but the modularity design that I was personally imagining was supposed to make it more explicit and easier to communicate. For instance, instead of listing all the optional and variant rules that you use, you could simply use keywords like "Low Magic", "Slow Healing", and "Highly Tactical" to specify what type of game you were running, dials and levers. The options would be presented in packages so that you could mix and match, perhaps not every little rule, but at least groups of rules. I was hoping for something like dials and levers rather that you had to set, rather than what we have, which is a base game with some options. Another concept was that the Basic rules could be thought of as the only set of mandatory rules, and all the rules in the PHB and DMG would be optional. Even though that wasn't specified in the PHB, it could have been laid out in the DMG.

I didn't have a firm idea of what it was going to be like, because they never said, but I did think it was going to be more configurable in a structured way than past editions, and that doesn't seem to be the case, with the very notable exception that there is a Basic edition that you can default to. (which of course has still been done before with BECMI, sort of...5e gives you a more complete Basic ruleset, which is awesome).

Regardless though, I'm happy with how it turned out.

 

[trentonjoe]

I made a list of all the optional rules and all the random tables in the DMG. There are at least 64 optional rules. Some are rather minor; some have multiple parts.

If it isn't to much trouble could you post that list?