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

[Li Shenron]

I think the 5e DMG is not well-conceived, but that has been also the case in past editions (with some notable exception... there is a specific DMG that now escapes me but which is often mentioned as a very well made one).

Most importantly, there is always too little room in the DMGs dedicated to how to run the game. In the 5e DMG that chapter is about 30 pages, about 10% of the book. While 5e is rules-light compared to previous editions, there is a lot that could be written about managing practical situations at the table in different playstyles. The sections on exploration and social interaction are painfully short. What bothers me particularly, is that while some parts of the DMG do offer variants to suit the game to your playstyle, other parts are too rigid prescriptions (the worst offender for me was the example on using passive perception for finding secret doors) which kind of dictates the DM how to run certain aspects of the game in a way that will force a particular playstyle aspect. This is not good advice.

Conversely, there is way too much of the book dedicated on things that do not teach you to DM the game well. As much as I love planar adventures, I would have left the description of the multiverse out of the book, and the room for running the game would have almost doubled. Magic items also take up almost 1/3 of the DMG, but here's a problem of where else to include them... sadly, I think they are possibly the main reason why people have the DMG.

Finally, I also find certain parts of the DMG to be so basic as to be insulting, such as how to track monsters HP in battle, or how to roleplay. This is very inconsistent in tone with other parts of the book which are very technical.

 

[michaeljpastor]

I think the 5e DMG is not well-conceived, but that has been also the case in past editions (with some notable exception... there is a specific DMG that now escapes me but which is often mentioned as a very well made one).

Most importantly, there is always too little room in the DMGs dedicated to how to run the game. In the 5e DMG that chapter is about 30 pages, about 10% of the book. While 5e is rules-light compared to previous editions, there is a lot that could be written about managing practical situations at the table in different playstyles. The sections on exploration and social interaction are painfully short. What bothers me particularly, is that while some parts of the DMG do offer variants to suit the game to your playstyle, other parts are too rigid prescriptions (the worst offender for me was the example on using passive perception for finding secret doors) which kind of dictates the DM how to run certain aspects of the game in a way that will force a particular playstyle aspect. This is not good advice.

Conversely, there is way too much of the book dedicated on things that do not teach you to DM the game well. As much as I love planar adventures, I would have left the description of the multiverse out of the book, and the room for running the game would have almost doubled. Magic items also take up almost 1/3 of the DMG, but here's a problem of where else to include them... sadly, I think they are possibly the main reason why people have the DMG.

Finally, I also find certain parts of the DMG to be so basic as to be insulting, such as how to track monsters HP in battle, or how to roleplay. This is very inconsistent in tone with other parts of the book which are very technical.

They're insulting to you, but there's always someone out there for which it's their "first time." Besides, I'm sure everyone could use a refresher on the basics every once in a while. That's why I like reading things from the grognard segment - it reminds one of the roots of the game, and not all of this extra layering of improv acting of recent years.

 

[SteveC]

I'm a fan of 4E and a huge fan of the 4E DMG. But (and this is a big but) that doesn't mean people who prefer the 5E DMG are "wrong" in some way. If I'm honest, I am not a fan of the 5E DMG either, but that doesn't make me right. The most telling thing I can say about the 5E DMG is that it was singled out as a weak book by the designers themselves.

For the 4E DMG, there a only a few chapters that are really rules-centric and pertain to that edition. There is a ton of stuff that you could literally copy and paste into a new book. I suggest that people give it a look in that light. The biggest thing about it was that it had more space simply because magic items were in the PHB. So you had more room to discuss and talk about things with a new DM. There is a reason that the book is well-regarded years later even by people who never liked D&D. But is it "the holy grail" of DMGs? No.

For the 5E DMG, it was sort of a must-purchase book at the time because it had magic items in it. That's sort of the standard for every other DMG out there: you need it if you want the items. The thing that bothered me the most was that it talked about having rules modules in it that were one of the cornerstones of the game during the playtest for D&D Next. What we got really disappointed me in terms of content and effort.

The designers have talked about taking a different approach and making the new DMG more new DM friendly. For me, that's not a concern and it won't be a selling point, but I also get why it's important to do that. There are a ton of great books for running games, and people like Matt Colville have made hundreds of videos on the subject. Thinking of that, the DMG has a tough job to do.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don’t think most people read the PHB or MM either.

I have a player who never read their class

 

[Faolyn]

I have a player who never read their class

I'm not surprised. My friend ran a game for someone who never figured out what her non-variant human champion fighter could do.

 

[Kurotowa]

They're insulting to you, but there's always someone out there for which it's their "first time." Besides, I'm sure everyone could use a refresher on the basics every once in a while.

Yeah, it's a tricky balance to strike. If you've ever read an 80s Marvel comic, where the characters mentally narrate their powers every single time they use them? That was an editorial directive. "Every issue is some kid's first issue", so the X-Men had to always recap what their powers were so that no new reader was left behind.

That was taking the principle to the extreme, and D&D doesn't have to reiterate what an RPG is in every book. But in the PHB and DMG? You absolutely need those introductory chapters for the 14 year olds who just got introduced to the game and are figuring it out on their own. Any passtime that isn't welcoming to new people is slowly dying, as the rate of loss outpaces the rate of replacement.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I have a player who never read their class

Assuming ranger of Champion fighter, they're probably better off.

 

[tetrasodium]

I have a player who never read their class

Seen this more than once. It wasn't that long ago where I told a player something like"Eldritch blast in level up is a little different and I can tell you haven't read it. You really need to look over that section and choose one because there are a few options like a b&c" during session zero only to have The game come to a screeching halt a week later on the first round of the first combat because said player never even bothered and tried to claim it was unfair that she was getting skipped to finally read what she was told she needed to read for eb without getting retroactive turns when she finished

 

[Oofta]

I have a player who never read their class

I'm always amazed when I have to let people know what their class can do. I get it, you're a casual player. But you can't read 2 pages of text?

 

[Kurotowa]

I'm always amazed when I have to let people know what their class can do. I get it, you're a casual player. But you can't read 2 pages of text?

Lots of people just hate reading instructions. It's why the video game manual has been phased out in favor of the mandatory in-game tutorial. I've never understood it myself, I'm a habitual manual reader. But I can recognize that it's a common enough phenomena that it has to be accounted for.