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

[Asisreo]

I think the hobby would be better served with practical advice about table management, how to adapt adventures, customizing campaign settings, tactical suggestions for encounters, as a small guide for beginning DMs - and not a tome given equal importance to the PHB.

This reads, to me, as the same type of argument one would hear about how they wished the DMG had rules for longer resting times or a way to adjudicate social encounters with better structure: it simply shows you haven't fully read the book.

Table Management is discussed roughly from pages 6 and 34-36. Some sample advice I can pull is: Choose a playstyle based on your player's tastes and your skills as a DM and Including handouts to players concerning mechanical restrictions, campaign backstory, and their immediate starting area.

Customizing Campaign Settings is practically the entire book, but much more focused on the entire Chapter 1.

Building Interesting Encounters is discussed in the encounter building section just before all the colorful tables people get distracted by. Example advice from the book would be: adding a variety of terrain and elevation, features that facilitate movement for optimal play, and a diverse set of monsters. Y'know, the advice that gets millions of rounds of applause on the internet as if it was something the OP used their genius intellect for when its just something WOTC told you as advice from the beginning.

As for a monster's tactical abilities, that's simply discussed in the MM right next to the monster since tactics vary from monster to monster. If you want a very tactical monster play, you may want to look at TheMonstersKnow.com to know what a monster would do if they were perfectly tactical. I think having monsters act in ways sometimes suboptimally does help raise both versilimitude and diversity in strategy that lets a player take advantage of glaring weaknesses for huge effect. Sure, a Devil might kite the players and play a safe victory but they might also enjoy hearing the sound of fragile elf bones being broken so they might approach despite giving up its advantageous location.

 

[Audiomancer]

I'm exclusively a player, but back in the early 80s read the 1E DMG, cover to cover, multiple times. I bought and read the 2E DMG, but never played that system.

I missed 3E and 4E entirely, but I've read a couple chapters of the 3E DMG.

I read the 5E DMG cover to cover when it came out. Haven't looked at it since I joined a new group as a player, and by now I've probably forgotten it all.

 

[delericho]

I've read the 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and 5e DMGs cover-to-cover, and the 1st and 2nd Ed ones apart from the magic item descriptions. The 5e one is probably the best of the bunch, but unfortunately I don't think that's saying all that much - of the three core rulebooks, the DMG is by far the least essential. (I've also revised my opinion of the 5e DMG with time - initially I was very impressed with it, but as time has worn on the utility of the book has proven increasingly lacking. Which is a real shame.)

 

[Jack Daniel]

Of all the DMGs, the 1st Edition remains the only one I'd consider essential. Even if you don't play 1E, it's practically required reading for understanding how D&D was originally supposed to work—and coming to the table armed with that knowledge can save a new DM quite a bit of grief and heartache.

 

[iserith]

Of all the DMGs, the 1st Edition remains the only one I'd consider essential. Even if you don't play 1E, it's practically required reading for understanding how D&D was originally supposed to work—and coming to the table armed with that knowledge can save a new DM quite a bit of grief and heartache.

What the 1e DMG says might not have a whole lot of bearing on other versions of the game though. Each is its own distinct game, even if there are some similarities. Treating them as such is in my view the best way to make sure there aren't any issues with gameplay at the table.

 

[Retreater]

The 2nd edition Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide was more helpful to me than any of the official D&D/AD&D Dungeon Masters Guides. It was the only decent resource I had to learn how to run a game for well over a decade, and I still keep it on my shelf. Currently, Index Card RPG and Dungeon World have better advice than the 5e DMG.

 

[Asisreo]

What the 1e DMG says might not have a whole lot of bearing on other versions of the game though. Each is its own distinct game, even if there are some similarities. Treating them as such is in my view the best way to make sure there aren't any issues with gameplay at the table.

Didn't the 1e DMG have hardcore advice like designing adventures under the assumption that the characters are easily expendable at early levels?

Its also sorta rocky because the way they assume wizards need to play a whole lot of catch up at early levels and that some characters level up at different times, resulting in extremely different types of workable adventures within the same "tier."

 

[iserith]

Didn't the 1e DMG have hardcore advice like designing adventures under the assumption that the characters are easily expendable at early levels?

Its also sorta rocky because the way they assume wizards need to play a whole lot of catch up at early levels and that some characters level up at different times, resulting in extremely different types of workable adventures within the same "tier."

It's been a very long time since I've read it, but probably. Suffice it to say, I treat each edition of D&D like I'm playing totally different games because that makes the most sense to me and produces the best results in my experience. Dragging assumptions in from one edition to the next can create significant gameplay issues. I can always tell when the DM is doing this and it's a sign they probably haven't read the DMG.

 

[Retreater]

It's been a very long time since I've read it, but probably. Suffice it to say, I treat each edition of D&D like I'm playing totally different games because that makes the most sense to me and produces the best results in my experience. Dragging assumptions in from one edition to the next can create significant gameplay issues. I can always tell when the DM is doing this and it's a sign they probably haven't read the DMG.

That's because DMs actually build upon their experiences from system-to-system, campaign-to-campaign. Like any human interaction, DMs can't just forget everything they've learned, can't easily switch styles ... especially when it is not clearly stated to the DM. Moreover, forgetting the lessons we've learned in the past is a disservice to the game.
A failing of PF2 is that it specifically doesn't call out in blatant language: "If you are coming from our successful previous edition, DO NOT run your game like x, y, and z."
Why a system would make the assumption that none of their readers have played an RPG before is ludicrous to me.

 

[iserith]

That's because DMs actually build upon their experiences from system-to-system, campaign-to-campaign. Like any human interaction, DMs can't just forget everything they've learned, can't easily switch styles ... especially when it is not clearly stated to the DM. Moreover, forgetting the lessons we've learned in the past is a disservice to the game.

Yeah, lots of DMs drag their assumptions from one game into another. I used to do that too and it produced game experiences that weren't as good as they could have been. Now I don't and I make it a point to read the whole DMG. Just like I don't drag my assumptions in from one board or card game to another. Games tend to work better in my experience when I don't do that.