Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Not if you present one edition's work as superior to the others.Edition Wars can always be avoided.
Not if you present one edition's work as superior to the others.Edition Wars can always be avoided.
The first thing I do when I start a totally new campaign is create the world. Adventures comes after, and then encounters. The 5e DMG is the right order for me.
Probably not, strictly speaking. I would buy the heck out of a Campaign Guide or Worldbuilder's Guide. But there will always be a DMG, because tradition.As I tried to get at in the post that came in as you were typing yours, I'm not sure what the DMG is really for anymore. In 1e it had a lot of roles since many things were hidden from the players -- and so everyone had to read it. Does the way it is actually put together today make something that's worth calling a core book? Would putting in some monsters and removing some of the more in depth campaign building make an actual core book that was more useful to more people? Is there any reason besides tradition to have the core PHB, DMG, MM? Would a "Campaign Masters Guide" allow for a lot of new things?
Sure, but that does not necessarily reflect a good order or progression for learning the game. When I learn a new game as a GM, for example, I will need to know the basics for how to run the game rather than how to create the world.The first thing I do when I start a totally new campaign is create the world. Adventures comes after, and then encounters. The 5e DMG is the right order for me.
Sorry, but saying that I think that the 4e DMG did a good job of laying out the contents of their DMG is not invitation for an edition war.Not if you present one edition's work as superior to the others.
My first DM experience used 1e, and I had been playing for a while by then, so yes.Is that the order you did it the first time you ever DMed at all?
There is absolutely no consensus on what D&D's best practices actually are though, so I'm not sure how realistic that is.Quite right. It's not literally as difficult as brain surgery, right? If you want to do something difficult, try landing a jet on an aircraft carrier! I'm with you, Paul.
And, as we've already established, it's not more difficult to do more work than less, since DMing isn't difficult. I think we can all agree that doing a "heck of a lot more work" is no more difficult than doing less work.
What fools we are to believe that a body of best practices could be built in support of a system designed by mere human beings. Let's not try to improve things. If the Albert Einsteins and Isaac Newtons of D&D failed to unravel this dilemma in 1984, then I fear the solution will lie forever beyond our reach.
I don't know how we shifted from taking about DMing advice to the rules of 4e, but you seem to want to make it unavoidable, Paul, so I won't stand in your way.
So people who disagree with you should just keep their mouths shut? I loved the 1e DMG, for example, much more than 4e's. Should I just remain silent on that issue?Sure, but that does not necessarily reflect a good order or progression for learning the game. When I learn a new game as a GM, for example, I will need to know the basics for how to run the game rather than how to create the world.
Sorry, but saying that I think that the 4e DMG did a good job of laying out the contents of their DMG is not invitation for an edition war.
No one is asking anyone to be silent. Agreeing or disagreeing does not require edition war. It would be a gross error to conflate the two.So people who disagree with you should just keep their mouths shut? I loved the 1e DMG, for example, much more than 4e's. Should I just remain silent on that issue?
Agreed. You can discuss whether the 4e DMG did a good job of supporting 4e DMs - and whether that approach and presentation could be good for future editions - without commenting on the relative merits of 4e compared to other editions.Sorry, but saying that I think that the 4e DMG did a good job of laying out the contents of their DMG is not invitation for an edition war.
This is an unrealistic, unfair standard for improvement.There is absolutely no consensus on what D&D's best practices actually are though, so I'm not sure how realistic that is.
On that note of neutrality I'll add that the 3.x DMG did a great job of pulling back the curtain into crunch & RAI in itsSorry, but saying that I think that the 4e DMG did a good job of laying out the contents of their DMG is not invitation for an edition war.
It does when someone says "this was good" when someone else's experience tells them "this was bad". Most people feel fairly neutral about 1e, 2e and B/X. You don't get a war when people don't know or don't care.No one is asking anyone to be silent. Agreeing or disagreeing does not require edition war. It would be a gross error to conflate the two.
Plenty of people on this forum have talked about the pros and cons of the 1e DMG or B/X, for example, without edition warring. Many have talked about the good qualities of the 2e DMG as well. It doesn't require edition warring.
Just getting on and doing it. It worked for me (I DMed 2nd time I played). No one told me it was supposed to be difficult.I don't know what the best way to learn DMing cold would be, but I'd prefer a separate product for that task.
As I said in reply to someone else, you can discuss whether the 4e DMG did a good job of supporting 4e DMs - and whether that approach and presentation could be good for future editions - without commenting on the relative merits of 4e compared to other editions. Just because you aren't personally equipped to have this conversation doesn't mean that others can't.It does when someone says "this was good" when someone else's experience tells them "this was bad". Most people feel fairly neutral about 1e, 2e and B/X. You don't get a war when people don't know or don't care.
This may be the fundamental problem with the DMG: back in 1st Edition that book contained a whole load of rules that were necessary for play. Since 2nd Edition the key rules have all been in the PHB, meaning that the DMG is needed only for the magic items and a handful of tables.I think calling it a “core” book is a mistake. Core implies it is essential for running/playing the game, and the only book you need for 5E is the PHB.
Walking uphill both ways in the snow to DM your games is truly inspiring.Just getting on and doing it. It worked for me (I DMed 2nd time I played). No one told me it was supposed to be difficult.
I did that. I got accused of edition waring because I dared to criticise the sacred 4e.As I said in reply to someone else, you can discuss whether the 4e DMG did a good job of supporting 4e DMs - and whether that approach and presentation could be good for future editions
This is the question we should be discussing: why the heck do we need a DMG anyway?This may be the fundamental problem with the DMG: back in 1st Edition that book contained a whole load of rules that were necessary for play. Since 2nd Edition the key rules have all been in the PHB, meaning that the DMG is needed only for the magic items and a handful of tables.
So maybe it's just a book that is struggling to justify its page count?
It does when someone says "this was good" when someone else's experience tells them "this was bad"