D&D 5E People don't read the 5E DMG for a reason

[the Jester]

Not if you present one edition's work as superior to the others.

To be fair, each edition has areas in which it really shines compared to the rest. The issues comes not with "edition x was great at y", but with "edition x suxxors" comments.

 

[EpicureanDM]

It's not. DMing is walking down hill on soft grass.

You're preaching to the choir, here, Chad! If observing decades of threads and comments across a wide variety of Internet fora has shown me anything, it's that there are a lot of whiny, crybaby DMs who just aren't capable of doing what's so obviously easy. Whatever! Stop complaining! If those losers can't figure out this stuff, then they don't deserve to be Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Masters. Choose an easier game, amirite?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Of course, you're assuming that the 4e DMG was some kind of Platonic Ideal.

I'm not. I'm saying it was praised by people who often didn't particularly love 4E, but thought that it was full of good DMing advice.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not. I'm saying it was praised by people who often didn't particularly love 4E, but thought that it was full of good DMing advice.

I have to say, as a guy who ran 4e for its entire lifespan and then some, and who thinks that it has a lot to offer that has fallen by the wayside, especially in terms of monster and encounter design- the 4e DMG was, in my opinion, pretty bad.

I'd say my "best DMG" votes go to the 1e DMG (for being stuffed with amazing information about everything from disease and parasitic infestation to lifespans and game effects of getting older or younger to the characteristics of herbs) and the 3e DMG2, which- if I recall correctly, which may not be 100% true, as I haven't looked at it in ages- was packed full of great advice, too.

One thing that I think makes a DMG shine is examples. The aforementioned DMG2 had an example town (Saltmarsh). The DMG from 1e had a great example of play lasting a couple of pages.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I wouldn't like a 1E DMG published today. It's terribly organized and full of random things that seem to have fallen straight out of EGG's head and onto the page.

However, as an inspirational text, it's amazing. I don't think I've ever used the magical properties of gems table in the 1E DMG, but if I ever need a magical gem (not my thing, personally), I will 100% be grabbing my 1E DMG reprint from a few years ago and going to that table.

And the Gygaxian prose, while not the way I'd write a DMG today (although it helped my spelling and vocabulary immensely, leading to a lot of confused adults wondering how I knew what a "carbuncle" was), evokes a strange tome full of semi-forbidden knowledge better than anything since, even the 3E faux magical tome covers, ever did.

I would like a modern-day equivalent to the 1E DMG as a supplemental work after the DMG. (In fact, that's one of the reasons I have Goodman Games' Dungeon Alphabet and Monster Alphabet, for that kind of inspiration-on-demand.) But I think the main DMG should be a more practical volume.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I can be critical of those AD&D books and EGG's writing, but at the same time I truly, deeply love them. No other D&D book will ever conjure the magic that those did in my heart! I have a student who has gone back to them and is fascinated by AD&D; she's always marvelling at the way we did things back in the day (and then disappointed when I tell her "no one actually paid attention to 90% of those weapons tables," or whatever).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because you concluded that because you bounced off of 4e that meant it would be a poor source to cite in a discussion how a manual can present information.

It's a poor source to site as a good example of how to present. As a bad example, it's fine. After all 4e had the fewest DMs of any edition. So obviously, it did not work.

The idea that reading cannot teach is absurd. It may not always be the ideal method, that may be true, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be utilized.

Textbooks can be a useful supplement to a teacher an practical exercises. As can magazine type articles. And there are a small number of unusual individuals who can learn very effectively from books.

But you are continuing to overlook the key barrier to entry: COST. You are asking the potential DM to shell out roughly three times as much money as the players (assuming they also buy a Monster Manual). Very few people are willing to throw that kind of money at a hobby unless they are ALREADY COMMITTED. You (or more importantly, WotC) want more DMs? And you expect them to pay for the privilege of doing you a favour!?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You did nothing of the sort. It requires a level of objectivity about 4e that you've shown no evidence of possessing.

It wasn't you who made the accusation, but the accusation was made.

 

[Zardnaar]

So you are saying I shouldn't listen to Hasbro or you folks. Ok.

Well alot of this grew out of articles referencing specific place eg NYC and paid DMs.

As I understand it DaMs online won't have trouble getting players and a few charge.

So online may have different ratio and if it's easier to monetize might attract s from offline games.

 

[Incenjucar]

Each edition has more or less unique DMG rules which need to be included to run that edition. DMing advice is mostly evergreen, with occasional revisions because we learn new lessons and times change. As unlikely as it is, I'd love to see the advice part made into an online wiki that gets updated and refreshed when needed, but otherwise just grows with new edition-agnostic information. When 10E rolls out, the wisdom and folly of the earlier editions should be available without dropping hundreds of dollars for mostly redundant advice or relying on the current writers to remember all the good stuff from before they were born.