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

[Imaro]

I don't want it to label anything as wrong either but it doesn't seem problematic to me to label the approach that gets to play more quickly as "quicker to play" and I believe the DMG should focus on getting to play quickly or at least not make that more difficult than necessary.

I think it should focus on what works to entice someone into DM'ing, regardles of whether it's the quickest method or not, especially if we are really trying to accommodate a wide variety of new players with this new DMG who may be drawn to DM for numerous reasons including enjoyment of worldbuilding.

 

[pointofyou]

Do you need "all" the details? I would argue even working at a more granular level you aren't filling in "all" the details. The key IMO is picking the level you want to start at and understanding what is key to have for your goal (whether that is a one shot, a series of adventures, a mini-setting for extended use or a world for multiple campaigns).

How is a new DM supposed to know what details they need and what details they don't if there's no advice on the topic?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't want it to label anything as wrong either but it doesn't seem problematic to me to label the approach that gets to play more quickly as "quicker to play" and I believe the DMG should focus on getting to play quickly or at least not make that more difficult than necessary.

You realize that's the same thing right?

 

[Cadence]

T

The following are all just from the first page. I'd also site the OP, but it doesn't come right out and say it, and I don't want to sift through all that, and I can't see any subsequent posts because Snarf has blocked me. I could probably keep going over the other pages, but it doesn't seem necessary.

Thank you for pulling up those quotes. One of those makes me up my count of one or two to two or three in any case. :-(


Two of the others object to having it "written for the new DM". I wonder how they would react to "written with the new DM in mind". Some might not read them differently, but the former sounds like every other purpose is secondary and I picture some tutorial text books I've seen that would be annoying to use for anything else. The later seems more open.

I read the other (or maybe a later post saying similar) as commenting on the current state of the 5e DMG and giving examples of how it could be done better.

Anyway, apparently I was feeling pedantic, and I think from some of your other posts we would probably agree on much of what could make a much better DMG for everyone, and particularly much better for new DMs.

 

[pointofyou]

You realize that's the same thing right?

Shockingly I can manage to be consistent over short stretches.

 

[pointofyou]

I think it should focus on what works to entice someone into DM'ing, regardles of whether it's the quickest method or not, especially if we are really trying to accommodate a wide variety of new players with this new DMG who may be drawn to DM for numerous reasons including enjoyment of worldbuilding.

Yes. I think starting with a more inside-to-out approach might be less intimidating to new DMs. There's no reason to even imply they need to establish the entire multiverse before starting on their starting town or city or whatever. One need not invent the universe in order to bake a pie.

 

[Imaro]

How is a new DM supposed to know what details they need and what details they don't if there's no advice on the topic?

Thats...my...point... don't just say one way is "better" discuss the options and contrast what is or isn't necessary from both approaches to get started and let the DM choose or try out the method they want. If I had started out designing a town and a dungeon as a DM I wouldn't have stuck with it. Focusing on that minute level of detail would have been tedious to me and would not have drawn on my imagination and the fantasy I had seen to excite me as a DM. Did it take longer for me to get up and running... probably but I would have stopped if the start of being a DM was a step by step of design this town... now step by step of design this simple dungeon.

 

[Imaro]

Yes. I think starting with a more inside-to-out approach might be less intimidating to new DMs. There's no reason to even imply they need to establish the entire multiverse before starting on their starting town or city or whatever. One need not invent the universe in order to bake a pie.

But you're assuming that all new DM's think like you. You're assuming they were drawn to be a DM because they want to be the most efficient creator as opposed to having fun... I'm just saying some people are going to look at that approach and find it boring and they may or may not keep DM'ing. Personally I think adventure design should come before any of this.

 

[pointofyou]

Thats...my...point... don't just say one way is "better" discuss the options and contrast what is or isn't necessary from both approaches to get started and let the DM choose or try out the method they want. If I had started out designing a town and a dungeon as a DM I wouldn't have stuck with it. Focusing on that minute level of detail would have been tedious to me and would not have drawn on my imagination and the fantasy I had seen to excite me as a DM. Did it take longer for me to get up and running... probably but I would have stopped if the start of being a DM was a step by step of design this town... now step by step of design this simple dungeon.

Do you think there's conflict between what you want and that discussion saying something like "starting small usually gets play happening more quickly?"

I also started pretty big-picture for what are probably pretty similar reasons to yours. I also was working entirely for myself with no time constraints.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Off the top of my head...

1. They would have to come up with a personal goal or goals for their character and take action to achieve them.
2.They would also have to realize that the things/hooks/people and places they experience in the world may or may not tie into those goals and it is their choice to explore or not explore them
3. They would have to negotiate with the other PC's/characters in order to collaboratively achieve their individual goals.
4. Realize there is no overarching story that can be completed but numerous factions, events, situations and places whose goals do progress and can be interacted with by the PC's to hinder or help those goals.

Do you really think a player familiar with the prewritten adventures would struggle with most of that? There might need to be a bit of adjustment and some guidance on personal goals and maybe some setting specifics, but none of that seems insurmountable.

A lot of it is potentially present in Lost Mines of Phandelver. My group was split about dealing with the Redbrands or going off to the castle (Crackjaw?).

I don't mean this as a criticism of your game at all because it sounds like a perfectly good D&D game.