D&D 5E How should 5e help create new/better DMs?

[Li Shenron]

One thing that I would like to see in terms of DM advice would be an introductory section to the Monster Manual, of all things.

As far as I can tell, there has never been any actual, hands-on-advice on how to run monsters. I've been DMing off and on for years, and never for an extended period of time, and I have to admit I've never gotten a real "handle" on running combat and having the antagonists act appropriately. Independent of editions, I confess that I haven't quite been creative enough, or remembered enough abilities, to have enemies do anything more than approach, stand, and whack away.

I'd like to see actual advice not on how to create memorable combats (there's plenty of that), but how to run memorable combats. Both in the general as well as for specific monsters. Here's a goblin/dragon/mind flayer: here are some suggestions on how they act in combat.

I would find that useful.

Me too!

It might be arguable whether the DMG or MM is a better place for that, but I'd like the MM to be more like a manual and less like a catalogue.

 

[Hussar]

Well that sounds pretty terrible. I guess there's no point calling it a "guide" anymore.

Sounds a lot like the 3e and 3.5 DMG actually. Mostly world building and rules. Very, very little space spent on how to actually run a game.

Did I mention that I think the 3e DMG's are pretty bad?

The 1e DMG is great in that it is chockablock with inspirational material. That's not a bad place to start. The 4e DMG is great because it spends a lot of time on the minutia of actually running a game. The problem with both DMG's is that the voice in them is too strong. 4e annoyed a lot of people because it had such a strong voice. The 1e DMG is every bit as bad with antagonistic DMing styles being injected into all sorts of advice. ((Don't believe me? Reread your 1e DMG section on listening at doors))

They need to find a balance between presenting the information in an interesting way and not being too much of a manifesto.

I wonder if you could add sidebars in different "voices" throughout the book. Say you have three fictional DM's who provide color commentary. You could represent three common playstyles - kick in the door, method actor and world builder (or whatever) and drop commentary all over the book about how different modules interact and appeal to different playstyles.

 

[SirAntoine]

This is a great comment, Hussar.

 

[delericho]

Sounds a lot like the 3e and 3.5 DMG actually. Mostly world building and rules. Very, very little space spent on how to actually run a game.

Did I mention that I think the 3e DMG's are pretty bad?

The 1e DMG is great in that it is chockablock with inspirational material. That's not a bad place to start. The 4e DMG is great because it spends a lot of time on the minutia of actually running a game. The problem with both DMG's is that the voice in them is too strong. 4e annoyed a lot of people because it had such a strong voice. The 1e DMG is every bit as bad with antagonistic DMing styles being injected into all sorts of advice. ((Don't believe me? Reread your 1e DMG section on listening at doors))

None of the editions have actually had a good DMG. Though by compiling the best of all editions we might get somewhere.

The 4e DMG is reasonably good on the advice side, especially for new DMs, but is lacking for anybody but new DMs, and is also lacking on the crunch. (Yes, all that boring stuff on doors, walls, traps, etc.)

The 3e (and 3.5e) DMG, on the other hand, is really solid on crunch, but spends so much time on that that it almost completely neglects the advice on how to actually run the game. Also, it puts the crunch (which is major boring... stuff) front and centre in the book, where it really should be in an appendix. Good for reference, lousy to read... and it needs read to gain familiarity with where things are to be found.

The 2nd Ed DMG is worthless, with the sole exception of the magic item entries. Seriously, the old Red Box covers considerably more ground in its booklet, in a fraction of the pages, half of which are given over to monsters.

The 1st Ed DMG is the closest to what it should be - it provides both the advice and the crunch, and it places the crunch in those marvellous appendices (rather than in the body of the text - seriously, 3e designers, what were you thinking). And it remains useful even for experienced DMs, even decades after first publication.

Alas, the 1st Ed DMG has three weaknesses that mean that, while it is a great work, somehow it fails to be a good one. Specifically, it is poorly organised, especially for reference use. It is extremely authoritative, as you point out. (This may be a feature of age - in the decades since, we've seen considerable exploration of playstyles, different types of games, the theory of games as a whole, and so on.) And, unfortunately, it is written in High Gygaxian, which is high on flavour, but all too often obfuscates meaning in the verbiage. A guidebook, especially one intended to teach a complex subject, really needs to be written in simple, approachable text.

In theory, the ability is there to create a "best of" DMG by taking the structure of the 1st Ed book, nailing down the crunch in the appendices a little more (as 3e, 4e and probably 5e are a lot more specific on a lot of things than 1st Ed was), rewriting the advice for a wider audience, and broadening the advice to cover more playstyles.

Of course, that's easy to say, not so easy to actually do.

 

[Li Shenron]

3) Guidelines on how to handle traditionally recurring problems:

- Players refusing to behave according to their PC's alignment

- NPCs trying to influence the PCs with social skills, or PCs ignoring results of sense motive

- Intra-party conflicts, especially in the presence of CN or E characters

I quote myself because I think that I should have really put here the 2 most important issues I have had to deal with as a DM, and for some reason I forgot to mention...

#1 - What checks or saving throws should the DM roll on the players' behalf

You know... "Make a Spot check!" "I rolled 1." "Ok, never mind" "Actually, I think my PC now stops and looks at every inch of this room..."

There are many cases in the game where it is not clear if it's better to (a) ask the player to roll something specific such as "an Int check against illusion spells" (just in case the PC has bonuses vs illusions or vs spells), (b) ask the player to roll "an Int check" then ask him to pass you his character sheet to check for relevant bonuses without telling him, (c) ask the player to roll d20 without telling him even what kind of check it is or (d) the DM rolls so the player doesn't even know his PC made a check/ST.

The list includes some cases of spot, listen, sense motive, generic perception checks, saves vs illusions, saves vs charms or any other mind-affecting spell... Spells can actually say in the spell's description who makes the roll, but the DMG can have a list of typical cases when the DM should really think about it before asking the player to roll.

#2 - Checks that should be rolled by the whole party instead of a single PC

Thankfully, the exploration rules take care of many occurrences of this now, but the DMG could have some general guidelines for those DMs who won't use the exploration module.

 

[pemerton]

None of the editions have actually had a good DMG. Though by compiling the best of all editions we might get somewhere.

The 4e DMG is reasonably good on the advice side, especially for new DMs, but is lacking for anybody but new DMs

I don't agree with this at all. When I purchased the 4e DMG I had been GMing for about 25 years, but found it a useful guide with respect to certain aspects of 4e play. For instance, it had the skill challenge guidelines, advice on how to build combat encounters that will work well within the game's mechanical framework, explained how the XP and treasure parcel rules work, etc.

It's not actually the best GM's guide for 4e - I think the Adventure Burner, plus various bits and pieces in Robin Laws' HeroWars and HeroQuest rulebooks, are overall of greater use - and from WotC there is also the excellent Worlds and Monsters, which is the first discussion I know about the metagame aspects of the story elements (rather than simply mechanical elements) of D&D monsters and locations.

lacking on the crunch. (Yes, all that boring stuff on doors, walls, traps, etc.)]

Huh? The 4e DMG has many pages on doors, walls, traps, etc with DCs, breaking rules, advice on level appropriateness, etc.

 

[Starfox]

It might be worth noting that, according to Mike Mearls, the 5e DMG will likely include little DM advice, and the rest can be free tutorials online.

I feel this is not the way to do it well.

People have mentioned it earlier, but I'd like to point to it again - the best place to post this kind of stuff is:

Sidebars.

As a new reader, especially as a bright 14-year-old (and going on 50, I still often read like I did at 14), I want to get to the cruncy bits. If there is a 6-page manifesto on good role-playing, I will skip that and get to the crunch. But a short "Behind the scenes" sidebar will catch my attention - especially if it has an evocative name that implies that it tells me the hidden secrets of the DM's art.

Looking things up on the internet is what I do AFTER it has shown itself to be a problem. The barbarian in my group seem to outperform everyone else at level 3? Google to see if anyone out there has had similar problems - and solutions. But I will only do this if I am already interested - if the game has caught my interest enough that I care. The simple advice that lets me run a non-boring game for my friends should be in the basic rulebook, or I will never catch that interest in the first place.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The simple advice that lets me run a non-boring game for my friends should be in the basic rulebook, or I will never catch that interest in the first place.

The idea is that the basic box is for new players, and that will include the basic DM advice. The advanced rulebook will assume the reader is already an experienced DM.