5E Have you actually read the 5e DMG?

Have you read the 5e DMG attentively from cover to cover?

  • Yes, I read the DMG from cover to cover as a DM

    Votes: 101 57.4%
  • I only read the portions I need as a DM and discover the rules over time

    Votes: 69 39.2%
  • I don't read the DMG because I'm a player

    Votes: 7 4.0%
  • I read the DMG even though I'm a player

    Votes: 6 3.4%
  • No but my DM informed me of all the available choices

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No but my DM informs me of the choices available in his/her campaign.

    Votes: 2 1.1%

  • Total voters
    176

JeffB

Legend
idk though, I came to realize some bits of the 4e dmg were lifted from the 3.5 dmg2 lol. in fact I felt like dmg2 was the precursor to the 4e dmg.

OK. I Don't own that one. So thanks for the correction.

FWIW- Some of the bits I was talking about in the 4E DMG were the world/campaign building chapters.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
OK. I Don't own that one. So thanks for the correction.

FWIW- Some of the bits I was talking about in the 4E DMG were the world/campaign building chapters.
the 3.5 dmg2 had the whole "different types of player" bit and it's basically almost the exact same thing you'd find in the 4e dmg. I'm sure there's other parts, but I remember reading it after 4e came out and was like "huh, that sounds familiar.....".
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
the 3.5 dmg2 had the whole "different types of player" bit and it's basically almost the exact same thing you'd find in the 4e dmg. I'm sure there's other parts, but I remember reading it after 4e came out and was like "huh, that sounds familiar.....".
Yeah, which was ultimately cribbed from Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Yeah, which was ultimately cribbed from Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering.
but he was one of the authors of the dmg2 so it's OKAY lol.

actually how do previous dmg's deal with this sort of thing? all I remember is the 1st ed. dmg basically encouraging people to be passive aggressive about problem players and trying to uninvite them from your group.
 

HarbingerX

Rob Of The North
but he was one of the authors of the dmg2 so it's OKAY lol.

actually how do previous dmg's deal with this sort of thing? all I remember is the 1st ed. dmg basically encouraging people to be passive aggressive about problem players and trying to uninvite them from your group.
I don't remember any advice of the type 'how to make fun for your players' and player motivations in Holmes, B/X or 1e. The 1e PHB did have a long section on how to play the game as a player - who can forget that awesome magic mouth drawing. B1 did have tips for players.

Various editions did spend some time on how to make interesting dungeons - tricks/traps/smells/monsters/etc. I think the assumption was if your dungeon was interesting, then players would have fun.
 

Reynard

Legend
As a long time DM (30+ years) I feel like a lot of experienced DMs are doing themselves and their players a big disservice by not reading the 5e DMG because "they have read it all before."

First, 5e is not the same game as any previous edition. You are making mistakes and applying rules incorrectly or incorrectly applying rules when you rely on your previous edition knowledge and experience to know how a wand works or whatever. Being the final arbiter of the rules is your primary function. You should probably at least make an effort to do it correctly.

Second, there are a lot of good bits in there that aren't obvious even based on experience. If you have been running the game the same way for 30 years, you could probably use a freshening up of your technique. Whether it is thinking outside the box in regards to optional rules, or digging into the designer's motivations behind the game, that information can only enhance your ability to run an engaging game.

Finally, you aren't the perfect DM. No one is. There are lots of sources online for helping you become an even better DM (even after 30+ years) but one of the best sources is right there on your shelf, and you haven't cracked it because the "What's a roleplaying game?" section bored you. Ok, boomer.
 

tetrasodium

Adventurer
As a long time DM (30+ years) I feel like a lot of experienced DMs are doing themselves and their players a big disservice by not reading the 5e DMG because "they have read it all before."

First, 5e is not the same game as any previous edition. You are making mistakes and applying rules incorrectly or incorrectly applying rules when you rely on your previous edition knowledge and experience to know how a wand works or whatever. Being the final arbiter of the rules is your primary function. You should probably at least make an effort to do it correctly.

Second, there are a lot of good bits in there that aren't obvious even based on experience. If you have been running the game the same way for 30 years, you could probably use a freshening up of your technique. Whether it is thinking outside the box in regards to optional rules, or digging into the designer's motivations behind the game, that information can only enhance your ability to run an engaging game.

Finally, you aren't the perfect DM. No one is. There are lots of sources online for helping you become an even better DM (even after 30+ years) but one of the best sources is right there on your shelf, and you haven't cracked it because the "What's a roleplaying game?" section bored you. Ok, boomer.
Probably, but at the same time, a lot of the stuff in it tends to have vastly overstated value. The mere existence of a quarter or half of a rule doesn't fix the missing portion. Look at the recent thread trying to extoll the virtues of the dmg's variant tactical rules as an example. Someone else in this thread mentioned alternate currencies, eberron has always ghad copper crowns/silver sovereigns/golden galifars/platinum dragons, darksun has a whole complex system of ceramic bits (I don't remember it)... but you'd not know it from reading about faerun's obscure currencies on dmg19/20. I've tried using it many times over & it just results in confusion without adding anything. What's worse is that if you try to alter the economy & prices of stuff you run into a big mess because lots of spells & class abilities have gp prices rather than objects that have a price.
 

Reynard

Legend
Probably, but at the same time, a lot of the stuff in it tends to have vastly overstated value. The mere existence of a quarter or half of a rule doesn't fix the missing portion. Look at the recent thread trying to extoll the virtues of the dmg's variant tactical rules as an example. Someone else in this thread mentioned alternate currencies, eberron has always ghad copper crowns/silver sovereigns/golden galifars/platinum dragons, darksun has a whole complex system of ceramic bits (I don't remember it)... but you'd not know it from reading about faerun's obscure currencies on dmg19/20. I've tried using it many times over & it just results in confusion without adding anything. What's worse is that if you try to alter the economy & prices of stuff you run into a big mess because lots of spells & class abilities have gp prices rather than objects that have a price.
The book can't be everything, and a thing you might find important (the details of the D&D economy and how to adjust it) might not be considered important enough to be a "core" component. I don't think it is fair to judge the DMG on the edge cases it is missing.
 

tetrasodium

Adventurer
The book can't be everything, and a thing you might find important (the details of the D&D economy and how to adjust it) might not be considered important enough to be a "core" component. I don't think it is fair to judge the DMG on the edge cases it is missing.
you misinterpret my point. I've done the thing described on dmg 19/20 in multiple versions & it adds nothing but confusion and omits examples of nonFR settings that actually do it, meanwhile there are a good number of variant rules that just don't work for their goal or are unbalanced because only half the rules needed for it to work are there in 5eor the variant rule is poorly thought out.

Also it is entirely fair to judge the dmg based on half baked variant rules that don't work in any sort of balanced play without significant additional rules rewrites & I linked to an example of that in my previous post
 
Last edited:

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
Where is the option for "I am a dungeon master, but I have not read this edition's dungeon master's guide. I rely on my enthusiastic players to point out any potential rule discrepancies. Then I just make a ruling according the previous editions."
Are your players on board with 5e rules being adjudicated according to previous editions' rules? Sounds like something that should probably have been discussed (if you haven't already). That's kind of something I'd want to know if my DM had that philosophy.
 

Tallifer

Adventurer
Are your players on board with 5e rules being adjudicated according to previous editions' rules? Sounds like something that should probably have been discussed (if you haven't already). That's kind of something I'd want to know if my DM had that philosophy.
They know full well and accept it (some wholeheartedly since they only play 5E for the same reason I run it: to achieve quorum). Nothing to discuss: there are lots of other groups out there.
 

Reynard

Legend
They know full well and accept it (some wholeheartedly since they only play 5E for the same reason I run it: to achieve quorum). Nothing to discuss: there are lots of other groups out there.
It would be fun for your players to each decide to bring a character based on the PHB from a previous edition.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
I don't remember any advice of the type 'how to make fun for your players' and player motivations in Holmes, B/X or 1e. The 1e PHB did have a long section on how to play the game as a player - who can forget that awesome magic mouth drawing. B1 did have tips for players.

Various editions did spend some time on how to make interesting dungeons - tricks/traps/smells/monsters/etc. I think the assumption was if your dungeon was interesting, then players would have fun.
I mean once upon a time people thought if you gave a child a cup and ball on a string they would have fun. actually they still might have fun, but are probably more likely to call it off as an exercise in frustration and play fortnite instead.

I feel like even in a world where dungeon crawling is no longer considered the norm this is still the case, I think we just now have different ideas of what makes a dungeon "interesting"
 

Tallifer

Adventurer
I should further clarify that not only have I not read the Dungeon Master's Guide, neither have I read the Players' Guide. I did read the Players' Guide for 4E (and tried to in AD&D).
 

atanakar

Adventurer
I should further clarify that not only have I not read the Dungeon Master's Guide, neither have I read the Players' Guide. I did read the Players' Guide for 4E (and tried to in AD&D).
I can't determine if you are trolling this topic or if you are the kind of clueless DM I would not like to play a game with.
 

JeffB

Legend
I can't determine if you are trolling this topic or if you are the kind of clueless DM I would not like to play a game with.
FWIW I ran using the Basic Rules and the MM only for a year or so. The DMG is not a must have purchase in this edition.
 

atanakar

Adventurer
FWIW I ran using the Basic Rules and the MM only for a year or so. The DMG is not a must have purchase in this edition.
Tallifer claims to be running 5e games without having read the 5e PBH, if I read him correctly (post #77). Of course you can wing it but it is a bit nonchalant. I expect my DMs to know the rules of the edition we are playing, not just make calls on how he «imagines» the rules work.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top