D&D (2024) Experienced DMs, how useful is the 2024 DMG to you?

[Stormonu]

@Micah Sweet

That's the main point of the DMG, no? To teach people how to DM from the basics?

Not necessarily. It can be many things (and is kind of like that now) where it teaches, has advise for starting or experienced DMs or is a toolbox. This one seems to swing towards teaching, where I'd rather it was a toolbox (and save the teaching for a Starter box). I think I'd put the 1E DMG as squarely in the toolbox realm, as an example.

 

[tetrasodium]

I get that, but as someone who got into D&D ten years ago (and my experience is the only one I can go off of), I read the DMG back in 2014. Cover to cover. Then I went and searched through the same advice on reddit, and got more actionable advice from the internet (stuff I still use to this day).

Could you make the argument that I wouldn't know what to search for without the DMG? Yeah, probably. It was that or it was watching Critical Role. Or it was stumbling into problems in my own campaigns.

Maybe there isn't a solution to this problem. Maybe the DMG is doomed to be "baby DM's first book" that gives people a starting point, but is otherwise forgotten about/eclipsed by third party/advice you can find on the internet.



Guilty as charged

Some of the past editions had a really good toolkit baked into the DMG. Unfortunately 5e has quite a few design choices doing a good bit to design against using it with one true wayism and using some of the older stuff requires players to understand then be willing to embrace what is still a nerf because of those choices

 

[DragonLancer]

Once I get my hands on it, it will be very useful, just like every previous DMG I've ever owned. It will be something I can read over again and again, stirring the imagination and giving me ideas for upcoming adventures or campaigns.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe the DMG is doomed to be "baby DM's first book"

That's like saying "Maybe the manual to my car is doomed to just telling me how all the bits of my car work!". Or maybe like "This archaeology textbook is doomed to just teaching me archaeology!".

Like, well yeah that's what it's for man. It has to exist. The internet is definitely not a substitute, and watching Critical Role, is super-extra-definitely not, and I don't say that out of any hate for CR, but it does not show "normal" DMing or anything anyone is going to easily emulate without many years of practice and a ton of prep. In fact it's been an issue over the last decade with people expecting DMs to CR-standard where the DMG 2014 didn't even give them as good advice/tools as earlier editions.

I think that's WOTC's intent, but the argument then becomes: is that effective? If the advice isn't actually that helpful or actionable?

That's a pretty bad argument.

I mean, sure if you started DMing with the DMG 2014, there was a lot of "advice that isn't actually helpful or actionable", but my brother in St. Cuthbert, that's why we hated the DMG 2014!!! It was rubbish at what it was supposed to do.

The whole gigantic and contradictory and often bad-advice-filled cottage industry of online DM advice exists in significant part because the DMG 2014 was profoundly unfit for its task.

Every other DMG, even Ye Olde Ones, had a lot of very actionable and helpful advice (some of it quite dated in older ones but still). Yeah eventually you might have internalized it all, but what do you want? Eventually you learn everything you have to learn from any book.

If you want a book full of ideas and tables, no advice, that's not what a DMG is. I mean, again, DMG 2014 kind of, but it was because it was failing at being a DMG! That's a role for DMG2 or books like that.

 

[Elvish Lore]

Sure are lots of definitive statements that the DMG 2014 was awful.

Just want to say that I patently disagree with that sentiment. So do plenty of other people.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure are lots of definitive statements that the DMG 2014 was awful.

Just want to say that I patently disagree with that sentiment. So do plenty of other people.

I mean, obviously you're entitled to disagree, but without any kind of rationale for why it was good, particularly in the context of previous DMGs, which contained relatively more and much better-quality DM advice, particularly for new DMs, it's hard to take that terribly seriously. Especially given entire sections of the book were obviously superficial rush-jobs like the Optional Rules.

The only rationale I can think of, given the context of previous DMGs, is that if it was directed purely at experienced DMs, maybe it contained more material they could use? But I could counter with the quality of that material being distinctly questionable.

 

[grimmgoose]

That's like saying "Maybe the manual to my car is doomed to just telling me how all the bits of my car work!". Or maybe like "This archaeology textbook is doomed to just teaching me archaeology!".

Like, well yeah that's what it's for man. It has to exist.

I think I just disagree with this entirely, strictly for the reason that:

1. D&D is the exception, not the rule, when it comes to requiring a separate purchase for DM advice. I don't deny that GM Advice is needed; I disagree with the "vehicle" in which it comes.
2. It'd be like buying a car, (the PHB) and then being told, "if you want to know how the car works, the manual (DMG) is extra!"
3. It also clearly doesn't need to exist (or at least, struggles with its existence), because it's the least used book in the trilogy. Its existence isn't mandated. I can buy a car, and learn to repair it without looking at the manual entirely - I can just go onto YouTube, and I'll probably get a better explanation/guidance than in the manual.

I don't have data on this, but I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of, if not the majority, of Gen Z is learning to play via YouTube and Twitch playthroughs, supplemented by Google Searches.

edit: I should clarify point 1. most TTRPGs have the GM advice in the core rulebook. Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, Genesys, Everywhen, ICRPG, the In Nominee books. Requiring a separate purchase for GM advice is exceedingly rare.

 

[Elvish Lore]

it's hard to take that terribly seriously.

Yikes!

It's not the worst idea for you to avoid pretentiousness like this, okay?

Moving on.

 

[Selas]

edit: I should clarify point 1. most TTRPGs have the GM advice in the core rulebook. Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, Genesys, Everywhen, ICRPG, the In Nominee books. Requiring a separate purchase for GM advice is exceedingly rare.

Pathfinder and Tales of the Valiant would like to disagree on this. And sure, you can say because it's Paizo, a direct WotC competitor, but Call of Cthulhu has the Keeper Rulebook, which is their DMG. Drakkenheim series also follow this, and they're 5E (two books with a MM in development).

 

[Parmandur]

Sure are lots of definitive statements that the DMG 2014 was awful.

Just want to say that I patently disagree with that sentiment. So do plenty of other people.

I think the 2014 DMG was great, with significant flaws thst the same writers were able to come back amd take a Crack at addressing now.