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

[Micah Sweet]

The claim that the current DMG acts as a reference and that the main problem is the layout just doesn’t make sense to me.

By way of example, the DMG only has 4 pages on traps and only includes 9 sample traps. Some reference! And traps are something that you find in most playstyles.

I no longer have my 4e DMG, but as I recall, it had quite a few hazards. By way of comparison, Level Up has 40 pages of hazards. PF2 includes traps in the Core Rulebook and still manages to devote 9 pages to them and include 20 examples.

As I mentioned earlier, the environmental hazards section in the DMG is also quite poor, with extreme cold and extreme heat barely impacting characters, and the hazards described mostly unable to work as standalone hazards.

Well, nobody said it was an  excellent reference.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, nobody said it was an  excellent reference.

Would you argue that it is a good reference? Apart from the magical items section, are there sections you consult regularly?

If not, what’s the case against changing it substantially?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The claim that the current DMG acts as a reference and that the main problem is the layout just doesn’t make sense to me.

By way of example, the DMG only has 4 pages on traps and only includes 9 sample traps. Some reference! And traps are something that you find in most playstyles.

Well, let's do a quick contrast. The 1e DMG. I think most people would (rightly) say that AD&D (1e) is certainly .... trap-centric.

What does it have specifically on traps?

There is a very brief section on thieves and assassins setting traps (it's less than half a column of one page).

And it has Appendix G on Traps. That appendix is a single unexplained d00 table. If you add Appendix H (Tricks, of course!) the total is almost one page.

I bring this up because most people would say that for whatever the many faults of the 1e DMG are (Gygaxian verbiage, bizarre layout, etc.), it is still considered a classic of TTRPG books, and the model of all DMGs (it was the first) ... and it was made in a time when traps were actually a predominant feature of the main playing style. In other words- there is something else going on, and counting pages is not really the metric to use.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you argue that it is a good reference? Apart from the magical items section, are there sections you consult regularly?

If not, what’s the case against changing it substantially?

I would say the answer is to make it a better reference, not to change it into a beginners manual for brand-new DMs.

 

[Voadam]

Well, let's do a quick contrast. The 1e DMG. I think most people would (rightly) say that AD&D (1e) is certainly .... trap-centric.

Just be sure to be clear on whether you mean in game traps or the metaphorical ones of unclear rules, contradictory design goals, unbalanced options, etc.

I bring this up because most people would say that for whatever the many faults of the 1e DMG are (Gygaxian verbiage, bizarre layout, etc.), it is still considered a classic of TTRPG books, and the model of all DMGs (it was the first)

I think most people agree that the 1e DMG is a classic and to a large extent is the the model of other DMGs.

I think there is disagreement on whether it is a good model (or which aspects of it are) and should be the model for other DMGs.

 

[Aldarc]

I think most people agree that the 1e DMG is a classic and to a large extent is the the model of other DMGs.

I think there is disagreement on whether it is a good model (or which aspects of it are) and should be the model for other DMGs.

Agreed. Good writers can write for their audience. Gary Gygax was writting the 1e DMG for his. But his 1e DMG's audience is different from 5e DMG's audience. Times change. The audience and their needs have changed. People may "like what they like," as the adage gets thrown about here, but what they like changes with time and as a result of people changing. So the question of whether the 1e DMG model for a DMG is the best DMG for the contemporary state of 5e+ D&D is a good one. If D&D is a Cheesecake Factory - the comparison was once made - then does the Cheesecake Factory survive by adhering to the same menu? Or does it change that menu as a result of tastes, needs, and desires changing?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think most people agree that the 1e DMG is a classic and to a large extent is the the model of other DMGs.

I think there is disagreement on whether it is a good model (or which aspects of it are) and should be the model for other DMGs.

I think that once you put aside the verbiage and format, you won't get much disagreement on the model.

I mean, for better or worse, the entire idea behind the "core three" was established with 1e- it's why we have a PHB, a DMG, and an MM. They all follow the same format.

And while various editions have tinkered with the exact nature of what goes in the DMG, they all are taking the model from the original. Even the idea of having some kind of description for new DMs ... yeah, that's buried in the 1e DMG too. Starting on p. 94 (a sample dungeon) and continuing through to THE FIRST DUNGEON ADVENTURE with some pages of dialogue. When people discuss what a DMG is, they are looking at ... the DMG- a concept invented with the first one.


Also, it's a really funny book! I mean ... the introduction starts with "The format of this book is simple and straightforward." Gygax was, if nothing else, a comedy genius.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, let's do a quick contrast. The 1e DMG. I think most people would (rightly) say that AD&D (1e) is certainly .... trap-centric.

I bring this up because most people would say that for whatever the many faults of the 1e DMG are (Gygaxian verbiage, bizarre layout, etc.), it is still considered a classic of TTRPG books, and the model of all DMGs (it was the first) ... and it was made in a time when traps were actually a predominant feature of the main playing style. In other words- there is something else going on, and counting pages is not really the metric to use.

I definitely would not use the 1e DMG as a model for traps (or for user-friendliness in general).

I have given my points of comparison: PF2, Level Up snd the 4e DMG. I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the 1e does traps better than those examples. So why not use a positive example as a point of comparison?

 

[Maxperson]

The claim that the current DMG acts as a reference and that the main problem is the layout just doesn’t make sense to me.

By way of example, the DMG only has 4 pages on traps and only includes 9 sample traps. Some reference! And traps are something that you find in most playstyles.

It's just providing a sample. Samples are a small number of examples, which is fine since it gives you guidance on DCs, attack bonuses and damage for minor, moderate and deadly simple and complex traps for all levels of the game. Then it provides a sample for you to see how the various kinds of traps are created so that you can get down to making a bunch for your game.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I have given my points of comparison: PF2, Level Up snd the 4e DMG. I don’t think you can reasonably argue that the 1e does traps better than those examples. So why not use a positive example as a point of comparison?

Well, as I explained in a subsequent post, the whole point of the 4e DMG was different than that of the 5e DMG.

The 4e DMG was successful in many ways, including bringing people into a specific 4e playing style (just as Moldvay Basic is quite good at bringing people into dungeoneering). The downside is that a lot of people would bounce right off the first few pages.

The 5e DMG had a very different purpose.