D&D 5E In Search Of: The 5e Dungeon Master's Guide

[pointofyou]

I don’t think anyone’s saying that the books need to be read in their entirety before playing. I mean, all this stuff happens in phases. People aren’t noobs one day and then veteran DMs after running Lost Mines of Phandelver.





Every tool that’s available. Other players and GMs, videos, actual plays. The books themselves.

I agree. Every tool. Let's make them all better.

 

[Maxperson]

It must be nice to be so familiar with a game you haven't run before.

What's to know?

Table talk? Nope! Didn't need the DMG to tell me how to handle it.
Die rolling? Nope! Been doing that for years. Didn't need the DMG to tell me about it.
Rolling attacks and damage at the same time? Such a brilliant idea that nobody ever thou... I can't even say that seriously. People have been doing that since 1e(probably earlier, but that's when I started).
Rules discussions? I didn't need the DMG to tell me how to handle that either.

Same with metagaming, missing players, house rules, and on and on and on.

There's literally nothing in the running the game section that I needed in order to run 5e that isn't either some non-rule suggestions that I've known for decades or isn't covered sufficiently in the PHB.

 

[Voadam]

It must be nice to be so familiar with a game you haven't run before.

I went almost the entire 3e era, DMing a lot, with just the 3.0 PH and SRD as core rules that I owned and read.

The SRD had all the 3e and 3.5 core rules I was interested in and I was not in the market for DMing advice.

I had also gone the entire 2e era with just the 2e PH and using my 1e DMG and monster manuals. I remember copying over xp award tables and level limits from a friend's 2e DMG and not feeling a need for the other parts.

When I started in 1981 I did read all of the Moldvay Basic Set's 32 pages, and I read a lot of the 1e DMG. I can't say for certain whether that was cover to cover for the DMG in the 80s, but I re-read it cover to cover a few years ago.

I also read the 4e and 5e DMGs cover to cover.

Moldvay was great for learning D&D. The 1e DMG was more than a bit of a challenge with scattered information, lots of digressions, some contradictions in advice and rules, and sometimes complicated arcane rules. Lots of atmosphere though.

4e was very readable and I remember liking it. 5e has a few gaps, some odd choices of emphasis, and fairly poor organization, I often find it difficult to find what I am looking for when I go searching through it. I am glad I read it cover to cover, it has some interesting takes and options and advice, it supports the 5e make it your own ethos fairly well, but I think the 5e version in particular could be organized better for usefulness as a DM tool.

 

[Voadam]

Oops, crossposted in the wrong thread.

 

[pointofyou]

What's to know?

Table talk? Nope! Didn't need the DMG to tell me how to handle it.
Die rolling? Nope! Been doing that for years. Didn't need the DMG to tell me about it.
Rolling attacks and damage at the same time? Such a brilliant idea that nobody ever thou... I can't even say that seriously. People have been doing that since 1e(probably earlier, but that's when I started).
Rules discussions? I didn't need the DMG to tell me how to handle that either.

Same with metagaming, missing players, house rules, and on and on and on.

There's literally nothing in the running the game section that I needed in order to run 5e that isn't either some non-rule suggestions that I've known for decades or isn't covered sufficiently in the PHB.

I expect every game I play or run to have differences from every other. I find it worth my while to read the rules before playing. I find it worth my while to read them thoroughly before running. Occasionally some writer will come up with a way of looking at things I haven't previously considered and I am happy to take a couple of hours and read the book to make sure I do not miss such an instance.

 

[pointofyou]

I went almost the entire 3e era, DMing a lot, with just the 3.0 PH and SRD as core rules that I owned and read.

The SRD had all the 3e and 3.5 core rules I was interested in and I was not in the market for DMing advice.

I had also gone the entire 2e era with just the 2e PH and using my 1e DMG and monster manuals. I remember copying over xp award tables and level limits from a friend's 2e DMG and not feeling a need for the other parts.

When I started in 1981 I did read all of the Moldvay Basic Set's 32 pages, and I read a lot of the 1e DMG. I can't say for certain whether that was cover to cover for the DMG in the 80s, but I re-read it cover to cover a few years ago.

I also read the 4e and 5e DMGs cover to cover.

Moldvay was great for learning D&D. The 1e DMG was more than a bit of a challenge with scattered information, lots of digressions, some contradictions in advice and rules, and sometimes complicated arcane rules. Lots of atmosphere though.

4e was very readable and I remember liking it. 5e has a few gaps, some odd choices of emphasis, and fairly poor organization, I often find it difficult to find what I am looking for when I go searching through it. I am glad I read it cover to cover, it has some interesting takes and options and advice, it supports the 5e make it your own ethos fairly well, but I think the 5e version in particular could be organized better for usefulness as a DM tool.

I think this is very much to my point.

Especially in an instance where one perhaps hasn't run any edition of D&D for a few years it might be a good idea to read the PHB and DMG for an edition entirely new to you before sitting down to run it. I thought so and I did so.

 

[Maxperson]

I expect every game I play or run to have differences from every other. I find it worth my while to read the rules before playing. I find it worth my while to read them thoroughly before running. Occasionally some writer will come up with a way of looking at things I haven't previously considered and I am happy to take a couple of hours and read the book to make sure I do not miss such an instance.

That's fine. If that how you like to do things, then that's how you should do it. I don't need advice, though, so the 5e DMG had almost nothing to offer me. It's not necessary for those of us with experience to read it. You can want to, but you don't need to.

 

[Imaro]

I don’t think anyone’s saying that the books need to be read in their entirety before playing. I mean, all this stuff happens in phases. People aren’t noobs one day and then veteran DMs after running Lost Mines of Phandelver.

Huh? Did you even read what I was replying to? If so I'm unclear on what this has to do with it...

EDIT: Or why you think... the books need to be read in their entirety... was my point?

 

[pointofyou]

That's fine. If that how you like to do things, then that's how you should do it. I don't need advice, though, so the 5e DMG had almost nothing to offer me. It's not necessary for those of us with experience to read it. You can want to, but you don't need to.

What I would want in a DMG would be less in the way of platitudes and more in the way of reasons to make specific choices. Upsides and downsides at least.

It would be a bonus if the various optional "rules" were better thought out. That might just be crazy-talk.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Huh? Did you even read what I was replying to? If so I'm unclear on what this has to do with it...

EDIT: Or why you think... the books need to be read in their entirety... was my point?

Yeah, I read what you were replying to.

I don’t think that reading the books in their entirety… especially all 900 pages… is required.

But I don’t disagree with the idea of being as prepared as possible. For some people, that may mean reading as much of the books as possible. For others that may not.