D&D (2024) Predictions for the 2024 DMG?

[EzekielRaiden]

Only seven people will actually read it.

… which is still seven more than read the 2014 DMG.

I mean, I read it. I didn't read it cover-to-cover because I value my sanity more than that, and there's only so many times I can read "You can do X, or you can not do X. You're the DM, you decide!" before I lose my marbles. But I have read substantial portions of it and have made an effort to read up on relevant sections whenever I intend to make a point about something. I've consistently found it to be one of the most useless, unproductive, vacuous TTRPG books I've ever had the displeasure of reading. I don't dislike it as much as I dislike Ethan Frome, but then again, I dislike almost nothing as much as I dislike Ethan Frome, so that would have been a pretty startling achievement on WotC's part.

 

[Azzy]

Only seven people will actually read it.

… which is still seven more than read the 2014 DMG.

Heh, I'm one of those seven.

 

[MockingBird]

Didn't the DL campaign use side kicks too? Also just noticed there's hirelings in the new PHB.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I predict it will continue to be supremely useless on a variety of topics, simply shuffling the wording and presentation while keeping the essence of such gems as saying that, if you want to award XP for non-combat encounters, just pretend it IS a combat encounter and give it XP equivalent to the combat encounter that it isn't. Because that's stupendously useful advice.

Now, given how terrible the 5e DMG is, it's going to be hard for them to do worse. But I believe very strongly in WotC's ability to disappoint. They've had extremely strong showings on that front for the past couple years running; I have full faith that they'll be able to disappoint here as well.

Normally, I might agree with you (although not to quite such a degree), but given just how vastly improved the 2024 PHB is in organization and clarity, i think theres real hope for a decently organized, informative DMG. Yeah, we'll harp on here on what errata there is in the PHB, but honestly, there aren't really that many really glaring mistakes compared to the 2014 version, and the organization is light-years beyond the previous version.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Normally, I might agree with you (although not to quite such a degree), but given just how vastly improved the 2024 PHB is in organization and clarity, i think theres real hope for a decently organized, informative DMG. Yeah, we'll harp on here on what errata there is in the PHB, but honestly, there aren't really that many really glaring mistakes compared to the 2014 version, and the organization is light-years beyond the previous version.

An organizational improvement would help, certainly, but my bigger issue is the content of the DMG. There's a reason I described it the way I did: an enormous amount of the so-called "advice" in the 5.0 DMG really does boil down to "you can do X, or, not do X; you're the DM, you decide!" Which would be great advice if it were given, say, once as a concentrated well-articulated burst of advice (e.g. a page-long equivalent of "The DM's job is to make decisions and shape and direct the experience, so for every section of this book, remember you are in the driver's seat: it's up to you to decide what your game is like. If you don't understand the purpose of a rule or section, talk to other DMs or seek out advice for how you would do it differently.") Alternatively, I could see it being given twice, once in a quick blurb early on, and again in a more focused, specific way.

But to keep repeating it, over and over and over, in subtly different phrasing? Pretty bad. Further, the parts where it deviates away from that have better than even chances of being worse than useless, like the aforementioned advice regarding non-combat XP rewards, or, to pick another example literally at random, I randomly happened upon the "downtime activities" section, which has the following gem:

Carousing​

Characters can spend their downtime engaged in a variety of hedonistic activities such as attending parties, binge drinking, gambling, or anything else that helps them cope with the perils they face on their adventures.
A carousing character spends money as though maintaining a wealthy lifestyle (see chapter 5, “Equipment," of the Players Handbook). At the end of the period spent carousing, the player rolls percentile dice and adds the character's level, then compares the total to the Carousing table to determine what happens to the character, or you choose.

Like...it literally has rules, and then completely undercuts them with just three words!

 

[Nefermandias]

An organizational improvement would help, certainly, but my bigger issue is the content of the DMG. There's a reason I described it the way I did: an enormous amount of the so-called "advice" in the 5.0 DMG really does boil down to "you can do X, or, not do X; you're the DM, you decide!" Which would be great advice if it were given, say, once as a concentrated well-articulated burst of advice (e.g. a page-long equivalent of "The DM's job is to make decisions and shape and direct the experience, so for every section of this book, remember you are in the driver's seat: it's up to you to decide what your game is like. If you don't understand the purpose of a rule or section, talk to other DMs or seek out advice for how you would do it differently.") Alternatively, I could see it being given twice, once in a quick blurb early on, and again in a more focused, specific way.

But to keep repeating it, over and over and over, in subtly different phrasing? Pretty bad. Further, the parts where it deviates away from that have better than even chances of being worse than useless, like the aforementioned advice regarding non-combat XP rewards, or, to pick another example literally at random, I randomly happened upon the "downtime activities" section, which has the following gem:



Like...it literally has rules, and then completely undercuts them with just three words!

Of course, you are free to disagree however you want, but this is just how the advice goes throughout the whole DMG. It's consistent with it's own game philosophy and frankly, one of my favorite aspects of the book.

For example page 236, in the chapter on Running the Game, under the "The Role of Dice" section we have:

"Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.

With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so."

I love it! It empowers the DM with the possibility of running a more free Kriegspiel, player skill type of game and also reminds him he's not completely bound to randomness when the results wouldn't make sense inside the fiction.

It also saves a lot of precious game time. Heck, even in combat I try to minimize the time spent rolling. Last session, I made extensive use of the Mob Attack rules in the DMG and used only averages for monster damage. It was a blast.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Of course, you are free to disagree however you want, but this is just how the advice goes throughout the whole DMG. It's consistent with it's own game philosophy and frankly, one of my favorite aspects of the book.

For example page 236, in the chapter on Running the Game, under the "The Role of Dice" section we have:

"Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivation to the DM and without playing favorites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.
One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.

With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so."

I love it! It empowers the DM with the possibility of running a more free Kriegspiel, player skill type of game and also reminds him he's not completely bound to randomness when the results wouldn't make sense inside the fiction.

It also saves a lot of precious game time. Heck, even in combat I try to minimize the time spent rolling. Last session, I made extensive use of the Mob Attack rules in the DMG and used only averages for monster damage. It was a blast.

Except that you can have every single thing you just said, without having the advice LITERALLY being "you can do X, or not do X, it's up to you!" That is, you can instead go over HOW using the dice serves you, and how choosing other methods can serve you. You can give actual, practical examples (as opposed to the airy-fairy, nearly-nonexistent "example" of the secret door search) to show what it's like to actually use the dice, vs. choosing not to.

Again, there is a vast difference between advice designed to be productive and instructive, and advice that literally says nothing more than a flowery version of "you can do X, or you can not do X, you're the DM, you decide!"

Hell, you just gave a perfect example of doing that in this very post! "When running combats, consider using the average value of damage dice, rather than rolling damage for the opposition. While this leads to fewer surprises, it's also significantly faster, which can be a significant help. Just remember that some players significantly prefer randomness. Be sure to pay attention to how your players respond, and ask for feedback." That would be orders of magnitude better than the absolute garbage non-advice in the book.

 

[Nefermandias]

Except that you can have every single thing you just said, without having the advice LITERALLY being "you can do X, or not do X, it's up to you!" That is, you can instead go over HOW using the dice serves you, and how choosing other methods can serve you. You can give actual, practical examples (as opposed to the airy-fairy, nearly-nonexistent "example" of the secret door search) to show what it's like to actually use the dice, vs. choosing not to.

Again, there is a vast difference between advice designed to be productive and instructive, and advice that literally says nothing more than a flowery version of "you can do X, or you can not do X, you're the DM, you decide!"

Hell, you just gave a perfect example of doing that in this very post! "When running combats, consider using the average value of damage dice, rather than rolling damage for the opposition. While this leads to fewer surprises, it's also significantly faster, which can be a significant help. Just remember that some players significantly prefer randomness. Be sure to pay attention to how your players respond, and ask for feedback." That would be orders of magnitude better than the absolute garbage non-advice in the book.

I see what you say and I do agree to a certain extent. The book could use some more concrete examples and clear guidance. Both 4e DMGs did it and they are largely considered two of the best of their kind.

Still, people largely exaggerate the issues with the 2014 DMG. I have seen people calling the book is useless and in the same breath saying they have never really read it, which is baffling.

My personal experience with the DMG is satisfactory. The book might not be perfect, but without the optional systems there, my games would never work so well for my group and play style.

 

[Redwizard007]

Only seven people will actually read it.

… which is still seven more than read the 2014 DMG.

If you are going to call me out like that, at least have the decency to tag me.

 

[Parmandur]

I see what you say and I do agree to a certain extent. The book could use some more concrete examples and clear guidance. Both 4e DMGs did it and they are largely considered two of the best of their kind.

Still, people largely exaggerate the issues with the 2014 DMG. I have seen people calling the book is useless and in the same breath saying they have never really read it, which is baffling.

My personal experience with the DMG is satisfactory. The book might not be perfect, but without the optional systems there, my games would never work so well for my group and play style.

I think it is full of pure gold, but the organization is a mess. Room for improvement, and I think we are getting that.