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

[Paul Farquhar]

Edition Wars can always be avoided.

Sure, if no one mentions how wonderful things were in edition X.

 

[delericho]

Isn't that what people wanted though??

IIRC, at the time WotC declared that they weren't going to pitch the DMG at brand new DMs because they would provide online tutorials and videos to help newbies on their website. That it took them so long to provide said videos is a bit of a failing on their part.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If they knock the 1D&D DMG out of the park -- seriously, just rip off the best stuff from the 4E DMG and freshen it up as needed, and that would go a long way -- then they could probably generate the enthusiasm for a DMG 2 at some point.

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

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think one very useful topic to cover would be how to tailor the game to the style of game you want to play and give it a lot more of a prominent presentation. This could also help deal with the questions boiling in a couple of other threads right now about pushing the game to the dungeon or to more story. I'd want them to be specific about some elements that might be worth emphasizing or cutting out - such as removing spells like goodberry or the camping spells (Leomund's tiny hut/Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion) to push resource management and risking rests or tailoring adventure hooks to PC backstories to emphasize getting the PCs to get into plots and central conflicts to the stories of the campaign, as well as how to mine PC backstory for ideas for the campaign.

That's the first idea about improving the DMG I've read here I agree with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's true we're finally getting more campaign settings, so maybe there is a sea change ahead. Which would be nice. That it took so long to get strikes me as unfortunate.

We're getting more campaign settings...ish.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't need think the game necessarily needs to be made more new user friendly. But I think reserving the first few chapters of the DMG to help give the world more DMs is absolutely doable and, frankly, the right move for the game's long-term health, which should be part of their agenda.

But yes, 2014 was a very different time and it wasn't clear to everyone that D&D would ever be able to come back. (It certainly wasn't clear to me, as I had converted our campaign from 3E to C&C.) New DMs were much less important than reconciling with folks who had left.

And now that they have come back, and so many others have shown up, apparently WotC doesn't need them anymore.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s fine. Lots of useful tidbits. The best dungeon I ever made was from the random generator near the back end of the book.

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.

The MM is also helpful.

 

[EpicureanDM]

This is a ridiculous expectation. The reason there are not more DMs is not because it's difficult. It's not.

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.

The reason there are not more DMs is because it's a heck of a lot more work (and cost) than playing.

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.

And without changing the fundamental nature of the game (e.g. to be more like Blades in the Dark) there is absolutely nothing that can be done about that. If it was something that could be fixed it would have been fixed over thirty years ago.

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.

Given that 4e is the only edition I completely bounced off, one thing I'm dead sure of is it is not a good way to present D&D.

The problem was how they where communicated. So if you are putting forward 4e as an example of how D&D rules should be communicated, then I'm afraid an edition war is unavoidable.

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.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure, if no one mentions how wonderful things were in edition X.

Sorry, but you're wrong if you think that someone saying something good about another edition requires someone else to start edition warring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

...resulting in it being the weakest core book. This does not need to be an either/or situation, and there is no need to be confrontational about this.


The 4e DMG draws awarenes to multiple styles, including play preferences of players. This approach could be expanded further. It seems useful to cover many of the most popular styles, including the pros and cons of each. It need not be a massive treatise. Sometimes basic overviews of styles and highlighting some DMG rules options that may help cultivate said style are helpful enough for starting out.


I believe you got this all wrong, both explicit text and implicit subtext. It's definitely not in-character for @Whizbang Dustyboots. I don't think that the desire is to stamp out the "BadWrongFun." I think the ultimate desire is to increase the longterm pool of DMs in the hobby who are comfortable in the role.

When people complain about the DMG "not teaching," IMHO, it is more about wanting to help new DMs grow into the basics of running the game as the DM: e.g., role expectations, guidelines for prepping encounters and adventures, how to make rulings, DM principles, etc. It's about making sure that the new DM has some easy-to-reference guidelines they can fall back on. It's about easing new DMs into the role so they don't bite off more than they can chew when starting out. New DMs may discover what they and their groups find more fun later (e.g., grim 'n' gritty, epic heroes, adventures, sandboxes, etc.), but the aim of people advocating for improving the DMG as a tool for teaching new DMs is about providing them with a solid foundation for the role.


Sure, but the point being made here is not that it shouldn't be in the book, but, rather, that it's so close to the start of the book before more pertinent sections. Again, the 4e DMG organizes the book as a funnel from the smaller basics to the bigger aspects, and ends by providing a sample setting and adventure to get the DM started. The World itself, however, is Chapter 9. Look at everything that the DMG conveys to the reader prior to getting to the point of detailing the world.

• Chapter 1: How to be a DM
• Chapter 2: Running the Game
• Chapter 3: Combat Encounters
• Chapter 4: Building Encounters
• Chapter 5: Non-Combat Encounters
• Chapter 6: Adventures
• Chapter 7: Rewards
• Chapter 8: Campaigns

* Chapter 9: The World

• Chapter 10: The GM Toolbox
• Chapter 11: Fallcrest & The Nentir Vale

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.