1. Your very first sentence embraces a prescriptive approach. Not for the game overall but for each style. If you want style X do Y. Not everyone is going to agree that doing Y yields style X. Others will simply say that doing Z is better to get style X than doing Y. That's the problem with such a prescriptive approach and why such perscriptivenss keeps getting pushed back on.
This is the kind of fear I’m talking about. Why are people so afraid of prescriptive guidance? There’s a ton of it in the books.
How can play styles even be identified if they don’t have qualities that are unique to them? Once we establish what those are, can’t we make suggestions on how to bring that about?
It seems this is fear of “one true wayism” but that’s not what I’m suggesting. Like to be honest, I'd be all for the books saying "If you fudge dice, you're bad and you should feel bad" but I'm not advocating for that. I don't expect it, and as much as I'd love it, I don't think the books should say that given their goal.
The books can say "Here's how to do this, or here's how you can do that" without presenting these suggestions or ideas as the only way to do so. I mean, they actually already do this, just not always with consistency or clarity.
Honestly when I first heard the idea of talking through how to implement various styles, I was nearly on board. But then I more carefully examined the concept and I no longer found it supportable. It's one of those things that sounds good until you delve into the devil of the details. IMO.
But referencing these different styles, or at least suggesting that there are different styles, without defining them… that’s helpful? How? To whom?
2a. I think the book is logically organized toward DM's that want to build their own worlds and fill it with wonders and interesting people.
And if it was called the World Builder’s Guide, I’d agree. But not all DMs need or want to build a world of the scope that the book goes into. I’d be brutal on editing this section. I’d argue it’s among the least applicable info in the book, especially Chapter 2 about building a multiverse. I mean, the advice they give is to "Start Small", so you'd think this would be how they would start.
I doubt that you (or any other long time DM) need that section of the DMG to craft a setting. Might it help inspire a bit? Sure. But would we flounder about without it? No, not by any means.
This is information most needed by new DMs… but only those who are not using a published setting or who want to expand their world beyond a geographic region.
There are absolutely parts I'd keep, but I’d say it could be edited down significantly. Especially the cosmology stuff.
2b. I'm not a huge fan of vast cross referencing. This isn't a webpage with hyperlinks. It's a book. A little is fine but not too much.
I’m just saying to connect lessons that are related in an overt way. Show how the many tasks the DM performs are related and how to design things with that in mind. The books tells DMs to think about the play style they want, and to consider a bunch of factors to help them decide.
Funny enough, however you answer the questions, the two styles of "Hack and Slash" and "Immersive Storytelling" can both apply, so it's unclear how these choices affect the style; they seem more about tone; is tone the same as style? Who knows?
IMO. Another sounds good idea but likely untenable. I feel like I'm in engineering principles class all over again. The simple truth is that reordering the chapters and adding alot of new to DMing D&D friendly advice is going to impact the experienced DM's use of the book. It's the classic, you can't have both problem.
Well, reordering the chapters would have no impact on the page count. Adding new material could potentially do so, but only if you didn’t recover that space by editing other areas.
This sounds like what is already done in the current DMG? Maybe you can elabroate?
It's done a little. It's infrequent enough that I'd almost say it's accidental when it happens. Very often topics will overlap onto other pages, and then end in the middle of that page, then go on for two more pages, interspersed with some oddly placed art.
So what I'm suggesting is condense that info and tighten it up by category and stick to individual pages and two page spreads as much as possible. So for example, a page about traps and their purpose, when to use them and when not to, and then all the sample traps and related charts on the following two page spread. Minimal page turning, related information condensed.
Basically, look at many other RPG books produced over the last few years. There has been a real shift to focus on layout and design. To clearly present the material with as little searching as possible. There's a book for the Mothership RPG called "Pound of Flesh" that's a 50 page zine and it arguably presents more adventure material than any of WotC's adventure books. And it's incredibly useful at the table during actual play.
Not sure the precise issue here, is it the double column format or the prose?
Both, depending on the circumstances. I'm not necessarily against the double column when it works. But there's no need to use it on every page. Depending on what the topic is, I'd love to see more bullet lists, or perhaps a pair of related tables at the top of the page, and then a summary beneath them that's full page. Whatever is the best tool for the specific job at hand.
Expand all minimal sections ignoring pagecount... Another great sounding idea that almost surely falls apart when it meets actual requirements.
Why? Who's ignoring page count? Cut down on a lot of cruft and you save a ton of pages that can be used for this stuff. Concision is possible.
1. I'm not seeing the relation to cross referencing here?
As I said above, make overt references to connected ideas. If it's a section about designing a town, describe what are some elements to include in the region, and why to include them... by referencing play style or player type or character type and so on.
2. More prescriptive advice... And for something as complex as player psychology. That's a tough prescription to make.
But the book already does that. They're not afraid of classifying seven types of players and what their goals are. So why be afraid to reference that?
Again, this fear of prescription. The books have rules and processes that are prescriptive. No one complains "don't tell me how fireball works, dadgummit".
But there's also not reason to portray these suggestions as the totality of what's possible, or that they are all universal. I just think if the book is going to bother to identify the seven types of players... as early in the book as page 6, even... then they should use those player types throughout as they discuss how and why to do things.
I'm not opposed to a sample adventure that get's exapanded upon. I am a little worried about pagecount there and it detracting some from what I see the DMG's core focus which is primarily world building. I don't particularly like the material needed online though even though it sovles the pagecount problem. Making good use out of a 50 dollar book shouldn't require online material. (Supplemental material would be okay though).
Like I said, they can use Phandelver or an online freebie if space is a consideration. But I'm thinking this is pretty easy to incorporate. In the settlement section, they can explain how and why they made Phandalin the way they did, and what is the purpose of Crackmaw Castle and Venomfang and the Lost Mines themselves, and so on. Behind the scenes type stuff about actual design choices in creating an actual adventure.
Again, I think the pushback is largely fear. In your case, fear of prescription... of someone else defining something for you. And although I get it, I also know you are free to define things for yourself however you'd like. If the 1D&D DMG is radically different and you don't like it, you can keep right on with your 5E DMG.
The other fear is about what will be lost if something else is added. I don't really think this has to be the case, or if it does happen, that it needs to be severe.