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.