D&D General Have You Actually Read the DM's Guide?

[aco175]

I did read most of the 5e DMG, but like 4e DMG I feel like I skipped around and only read 75% of reach. Not sure if that is arrogance on my part.

 

[el-remmen]

I've read the still amazing 1E DMG all the way through, though not for decades. I've read the very weak 2E DMG all the way through as well, but also not since the early 90s. I have never read the 3E or 5E DMGs all the way through.

EDIT to Add: I almost always DM.

 

[MGibster]

I did read most of the 5e DMG, but like 4e DMG I feel like I skipped around and only read 75% of reach. Not sure if that is arrogance on my part.

Your time is valuable and spending that precious commodity on something you're more interested in isn't a sign of arrogance.

 

[schneeland]

I read the 5e DM's Guide cover to cover shortly after it came out. It's actually a decent book, though a bit unfocused and lacking means to quickly find specific rule variants.
For other editions, I mostly skimmed through the books if at all. When I played them, DM's guides were not really a thing any of the people I played with paid great attention to.

 

[aco175]

Your time is valuable and spending that precious commodity on something you're more interested in isn't a sign of arrogance.

Thanks, I was more wondering that since I have been playing and DMing for all the editions, if I was just assuming I knew how to DM and if there is enough in the new editions that I should have read more closely before thinking that DMing is basically all the same.

3e was a larger change, so I think that took more rules reading and playtesting by my group. 4e/5e feels like changes was more player focused and the DMG is more just looking at items and such.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Don't be absurd.

If I read it, how would I be able to complain that things in it, aren't in it?

 

[Shiroiken]

I've read 1E, 2E, and 5E cover to cover, and except for the slog of magic items, I found them to be interesting reads. I tried the same with 3E and 4E, but never quite managed to get all the way through them, mostly because I didn't DM them very much.

 

[cbwjm]

I usually pour over each edition’s DMG in various meandering chunks at a time. So it’s probably less than strictly cover-to-cover but way more than “at least part” and I’ve done it with all editions I’ve run.

This is me. I've definitely completed reading a DMG, but the way I read one is all over the place. Not even sure if I've read all of the 5e DMG, but I'd have read through all of the 2e one and the combined basic rules cyclopedia which might count even though it isn't strictly a DMG.

 

[jasper]

Yes i read it cover to cover last year during my state's lockdown. Had some good stuff even for this balding DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks, I was more wondering that since I have been playing and DMing for all the editions, if I was just assuming I knew how to DM and if there is enough in the new editions that I should have read more closely before thinking that DMing is basically all the same.

3e was a larger change, so I think that took more rules reading and playtesting by my group. 4e/5e feels like changes was more player focused and the DMG is more just looking at items and such.

If you set aside assumptions based on your experience with previous editions (especially 3e and 4e), and read all the rules of 5e on their own terms alone, I think you’ll find there’s a pretty significant change to the intended play dynamic. However, the game still works fine when run like 3e or 4e.