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

[Imaro]

The starter set is a perfectly good starting point, yes.

At what point after the starter set is a new DM allowed to use the DMG, would you say? A couple years?

Why would it take years... is that what we are seeing currently? This is what I mean let's drop the hyperbole. They can use many of the sections right after running Stormwreck, especially when paired with the how to videos the starter set links to.

 

[pointofyou]

People keep suggesting people will learn to DM from the Starter and Beginner Sets. That seems laughable to me. There are just over three columns of DM material in the old Lost Mine of Phandelver Starter Set. That is maybe enough for someone coming from an old edition. It doesn't seem remotely adequate for a genuinely new DM.

It might well serve as an onboarding step for new players.

 

[Oofta]

So the theme of "How much does D&D 5E suck!" is the DMG?

Along with the usual "It should be better" with little or nothing concrete to say how it should be better. Anything can be improved. They already give away the basic rules for free and have started releasing encounters along with an explanatory video of how to run the encounter. There is more advice on how to play the game freely available a search away than there has ever been along with numerous live play streams.

It has never been easier for a newbie DM to pick up D&D. The starter sets are there for people who still want a little more hand holding.

My advice? I'd rearrange the DMG a bit, move the section on the planes to the back (if it's even needed). Move How to Run the Game to the front. Maybe put in a bit more of a walkthrough of actual play, but not more than a page or so. Good formatting is in the eye of the beholder, but we need to be careful to not make the DMG or any book into a technical manual. One person's compact and direct is another's dry and boring with a side helping of gamer speak. I wouldn't read it and I'm one of those weirdos who actually reads through the manual when I get a new car.

But beyond that general advice? The DMG isn't geared towards people new to D&D. It's for someone that's played or at least has a decent idea of how to run the game and just needs more concrete advice on how to make the next step. It may be a bit of a cash grab but if you include a starter set in the DMG it will be extra stuff the target audience doesn't need while contributing significantly to page bloat.

 

[Xamnam]

Then maybe it would be better to drop the whole but what about Billy and Cindy whose uncle plopped down 3 300+ page books in front of them[...]

For what it's worth, that's never been my stance. My stance is that I learned this way, I'm glad I did, but I want it to be better, because I do recognize not everyone enjoys reading these sorts of things front to back like I do.

As for what could be improved:

1. Reorganization of the text. Running the game first, then adventuring composition, then rules variants, then world creation.
2. Addition of a practice/starter area/dungeon. Not nearly as in-depth as LMoP or DoSI
3. A more thorough example of play, as previous editions featured. Footnotes or sidebars explaining judgement calls/design decisions would be a plus.
4. Added philosophy on DM best practices and guidelines.
5. Discussion of player styles of play, DM styles of play, and the potential benefits and hindrances therein.

But as mentioned, I'd also be very happy if 3/4/5 were instead/also/somewhat folded into the PHB.

 

[Imaro]

Is the common path to buy a module then and run that and then grow into building one's own campaign? (I have no idea, and so am asking).

I would even start by asking if every DM's goal is to run a campaign. Many are perfectly content running adventures without looking at the wider area of running a campaign and thus don't need those resources.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Feel free to clarify, but I don’t think you misspoke.

When I started with the Rules Cyclopedia in ‘90, saying “I managed” is a pretty good description of the stumbling around I did trying to deliver an interesting game to my friends. A lot of the DM horror stories I hear aren’t people who are actively malicious, but people who would have benefitted from better guidance early on.

We didn't manage to have fun, we did have fun.
Of course we made mistakes, and plenty of them, and I agree with you, the majority of those were not due to malicious reasons. We didn't know better. These days it is all about learning through youtube. When I'm thinking about purchasing a new game I read the reviews, I see how it's played on youtube, I ask the forums - I do research.

Do not get me wrong, I'd love an improved DMG - and my earlier discussion with @pointofyou yielded some insight in that the 5e DMG (put aside layout issues) was primarily for intermediaries and for the purpose to unite the fractured playerbase.

The 2024 core will have a different goal - likely to reflect on 50 years of the game and its changes and hopefully to teach the next generation. I'm just praying for good artwork.

 

[Imaro]

People keep suggesting people will learn to DM from the Starter and Beginner Sets. That seems laughable to me. There are just over three columns of DM material in the old Lost Mine of Phandelver Starter Set. That is maybe enough for someone coming from an old edition. It doesn't seem remotely adequate for a genuinely new DM.

It might well serve as an onboarding step for new players..

1. There have been 2 more updated starter sets since LMoP
2. Running the adventure (not just reading) is part of the process of learning to DM in these sets. Running an adventure is DM' ing. You don't have to create a world or run a campaign in order to DM so I think these sets are pretty much showing you and taking you through the basics of DM'ing.

 

[Imaro]

For what it's worth, that's never been my stance. My stance is that I learned this way, I'm glad I did, but I want it to be better, because I do recognize not everyone enjoys reading these sorts of things front to back like I do.

As for what could be improved:

1. Reorganization of the text. Running the game first, then adventuring composition, then rules variants, then world creation.
2. Addition of a practice/starter area/dungeon. Not nearly as in-depth as LMoP or DoSI
3. A more thorough example of play, as previous editions featured. Footnotes or sidebars explaining judgement calls/design decisions would be a plus.
4. Added philosophy on DM best practices and guidelines.
5. Discussion of player styles of play, DM styles of play, and the potential benefits and hindrances therein.

But as mentioned, I'd also be very happy if 3/4/5 were instead/also/somewhat folded into the PHB.

I'm with you until #4... that's where D&D gets defined and starts to include/exclude certain playstyles as good, bad or not mentioned. Leave that up in the air or discuss them without the "best" moniker.

 

[Voadam]

If that's the model they have chosen to on ramp brand new players and it seems to be working (based on player growth) not sure your argument holds much water.

EDIT: To further expound... WotC has determined this is the best way to serve brand new players and while they could be wrong, I would give more credence to claims of it should be the DMG doing this if there was some actual data to show the model wasn't working well... but everything points to the opposite.

What data is there that starter set to core books is the way/best way players are on ramping to DMing?

How do starter set sales compare to core book sales?

It seems plausible that WotC has determined that starter sets are a way to on ramp new people to D&D that is worth supporting repeatedly, but it also seems plausible that this is merely one part of a multipath strategy to get as many people as they can into D&D any way they can.

 

[pointofyou]

1. There have been 2 more updated starter sets since LMoP
2. Running the adventure (not just reading) is part of the process of learning to DM in these sets. Running an adventure is DM' ing. You don't have to create a world or run a campaign in order to DM so I think these sets are pretty much showing you and taking you through the basics of DM'ing.

Do the other sets have more material about running the game?

What seems likely to me is someone picks up one of these sets expecting to run it. Then they see how little there is about actually running it and they buy the DMG expecting more helpful and more useful information. Which puts us back at the DMG not being adequate for DMs new to the game because it was written for DMs new to the edition.