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

[pointofyou]

Ah, I misread... thought you meant that the new one will have more OSR type tables. I agree with your take.... it seems unlikely.



It seems only slightly more difficult than building an entire world before beginning play!

I realize you are making a joke about worldbuilders but a whole detailed world or multiverse is not a requirement to start play. Broad strokes for the setting. Details for where you start. Fill things in as they become necessary.

I have occasionally found the random tables useful for inspiration but I will not be gutted if they are left out of the new DMG.

 

[Cadence]

But if we actually encourage people to become DMs the people who already are DMs will lose their mystique and their aura and that is an unacceptable outcome.

I must be super lucky. I've never met or seen a DMs that doesn't want anyone else to learn to be a DM.

I also wonder how a comment like that is supposed to add to the conversation. But I guess if someone has seen a lot of those DMs and assumes they're here then it would be a thing.

 

[pointofyou]

I must be super lucky. I've never met or seen one of these mythical DMs that don't want anyone else to be a DM.

I haven't either but it's consistent with arguments against making it easier for new DMs to avoid the classic mistakes. I would much rather the new DM's I've helped make their own mistakes than repeat mine.

 

[Imaro]

I could go to a convention, sit down with six other strangers, and play 5th edition D&D with very little difficulty. There might be some minor differences in how some rules are interpreted, but, for the most part, it's not going to be difficult to play the game. I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who can go into great detail about the various house rules they use that make the game radically different from what's written, but I think it's likely they represent a distinct minority.

I don't think the differences are necessarily mechanical but in playstyle, principles, expectations, etc. as an example I have heard it espoused on this forums by a few posters that the default style of D&D is a Pre-written, linear adventure path... but I have rarely if ever run that type of game. Right now I run a character goal driven, sandbox exploration game... and IME, these two types of game play differently and have different expectations on both DM's & players in order to be successful. In the past I have also run a game of competing factions with PC missions, subterfuge, intrigue and social maneuvering which again would have different expectations from the two above.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I realize you are making a joke about worldbuilders but a whole detailed world or multiverse is not a requirement to start play. Broad strokes for the setting. Details for where you start. Fill things in as they become necessary.

I have occasionally found the random tables useful for inspiration but I will not be gutted if they are left out of the new DMG.

Oh, I agree entirely.... my point was that the world and cosmos is definitely not required, and it's probably a bad idea for the DMG to begin with those two topics.

I'm all for starting small and then building outwards. Some folks believe that must lead to inconsistency, but they're mistaken.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think the differences are necessarily mechanical but in playstyle, principles, expectations, etc. as an example I have heard it espoused on this forums by a few posters that the default style of D&D is a Pre-written, linear adventure path... but I have rarely if ever run that type of game. Right now I run a character goal driven, sandbox exploration game... and IME, these two types of game play differently and have different expectations on both DM's & players in order to be successful. In the past I have also run a game of competing factions with PC missions, subterfuge, intrigue and social maneuvering which again would have different expectations from the two above.

So let's say someone has played through Lost Mines of Phandelver and then maybe Curse of Strahd.

If that person joined your game, what do you think would be challenging for them based on their experience? What would be so different about your game? I mean the character goal driven, sandbox exploration game.

 

[pointofyou]

Oh, I agree entirely.... my point was that the world and cosmos is definitely not required, and it's probably a bad idea for the DMG to begin with those two topics.

I'm all for starting small and then building outwards. Some folks believe that must lead to inconsistency, but they're mistaken.

Yes. The structure of the DMG implies that you should build from the outside in with all the details. This both incorrect and a path to madness.

 

[Cadence]

I haven't either but it's consistent with arguments against making it easier for new DMs to avoid the classic mistakes. I would much rather the new DM's I've helped make their own mistakes than repeat mine.

Is there an argument against making it easier to help DMs avoid classic mistakes?

I would certainly argue that it is really hard for a book to efficiently do a good job of all of: teaching beginners, teaching folks just past the beginner stage, and being a useful reference to advanced users. And I would further argue that an expensive book is often a poor choice to teach beginners, especially given all of the other tools available.

On the other side, I certainly think that the DMG could certainly be better organized and written, which would make it more friendly and useful to everyone. Beyond that, I think a dozen or score of pages at the beginning explicitly for new DMs would be a great edition.

Except for one or two people who are worried there is nothing to cut to put it in, has anyone come out against putting in a chapter explicitly to help new DMs? Has anyone come out against at least keeping new DMs in mind when reorganizing the DMG?

 

[pointofyou]

Is there an argument against making it easier to help DMs avoid classic mistakes?

I would certainly argue that it is really hard for a book to efficiently do a good job of all of: teaching beginners, teaching folks just past the beginner stage, and being a useful reference to advanced users. And I would further argue that an expensive book is often a poor choice to teach beginners, especially given all of the other tools available.

On the other side, I certainly think that the DMG could certainly be better organized and written, which would make it more friendly and useful to everyone. Beyond that, I think a dozen or score of pages at the beginning explicitly for new DMs would be a great edition.

Except for one or two people who are worried there is nothing to cut to put it in, has anyone come out against putting in a chapter explicitly to help new DMs? Has anyone come out against at least keeping new DMs in mind when reorganizing the DMG?

I see no reason not to provide as many on-ramps as possible and I see no reason not to make them as easy as possible. If you look at my ideal process above you'll note it does not include trying to teach yourself to DM solely by reading published materials. That does not mean the published materials should not make it easy to do so.

It seems to me that there are people arguing for making the book more useful for everyone and there are people arguing for making the book more useful for them and there are people arguing the book cannot be made more useful. My position is that the book can be made more useful for everyone and that making the book more useful is not zero-zum.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes. The structure of the DMG implies that you should build from the outside in with all the details. This both incorrect and a path to madness.

It's not incorrect. It's one way to do it.

The 2e Worldbuilder's Guidebook is an excellent resource for this. It covers big to small and small to big equally well.