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

[Micah Sweet]

Edition Wars can always be avoided.

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

 

[Cadence]

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.

Is that the order you did it the first time you ever DMed at all?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

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.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is that the order you did it the first time you ever DMed at all?

My first DM experience used 1e, and I had been playing for a while by then, so yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

There is absolutely no consensus on what D&D's best practices actually are though, so I'm not sure how realistic that is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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?

And my order was the best one for me. On the other hand, I played for a long time before I DM'd. I don't know what the best way to learn DMing cold would be, but I'd prefer a separate product for that task.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

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.

 

[EpicureanDM]

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.

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.

There is absolutely no consensus on what D&D's best practices actually are though, so I'm not sure how realistic that is.

This is an unrealistic, unfair standard for improvement.

 

[Clint_L]

I like that we are having this discussion early - I can only imagine that WotC is having them, as well. The PHB is the obvious first choice for updating because it's by far the most important book, but it is also the one they probably want to be most careful with, given that they are broadly happy with 5e's mechanics already. I wonder if they will be more open to a serious revamp of the DMG, given the widespread opinion that it is the least essential of the "Big Three." And if Multiverse is anything to go by, I don't see much change happening to an updated MM at all.