JeffB
Legend
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.
D&D 5E Have you actually read the 5e 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
Similar Threads
- Poll
