D&D 5E (2014) Regarding DMG, Starter Set and Essentials kit: Are they good for the starting DMs?

[pemerton]

The best ever teaching version of D&D, in my view, remains Moldvay Basic. And it has examples, including examples of adjudication.

Gygax's DMG is not a particularly good teaching book, but it contains many worked examples: of dungeon design; of treasure placement; of world-building including "supernatural" elements like other planes and worlds; of magic-item making; of combat; of adjudicating ad hoc modifiers to saving throws; of adjudicating PC interactions with doors (listening at them, opening them, searching for secret one); etc.

The 4e DMG, on p 42, has a worked example of adjudication. Subsequently, in the discussion of skill challenges, it has less-elaborately worked examples of adjudication. One thing that is missing from the 4e DMD is any discussion of how the imposition of non-damage effects (eg forced movement, conditions, and the like) should be factored into the adjudication framework, and this has been frequently noted as a limitation on the utility of p 42. (The worked example on p 42 actually includes forced movement, but doesn't discuss how that gets factor into the adjudicative reasoning.)

The idea that it is impossible to give useful examples of adjudication in D&D play is absurd. The idea that it would make a DMG or Starter Set worse if it provided such examples is absurd.

 

[Oofta]

I sincerely didn't intend to be obscure so I will unpack the metaphor.

One of the first pieces I learned when I took piano lessons as a kid was the melody from Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" from his Ninth Symphony. As it happens the basic melody for that can be played almost entirely on one hand. Scott Joplin's music is heavily syncopated and substantially more complicated to play even accounting for simplified arrangements. I didn't have the option even to consider learning Joplin until years after I had learned that simplified "Ode to Joy."

Thanks for the explanation. I barely know the difference between Frederic Chopin and Charlie Chaplin.

There are differences in genre and style between Beethoven and Joplin but those are less relevant to the learning process. The general point is that the piano teacher probably doesn't care much which music you prefer to listen to or what you eventually end up preferring to play. In the same way a DMG that walked a new DM through various basics then various techniques and approaches in increasing complexity wouldn't need to have or state a preference for how a given DM ended up running their games. I also see no reason for inclusion of that sort of material to preclude the inclusion of reference material more useful to more experienced DMs. I even think some experienced DMs might learn something. Heaven forfend!

Whereas I think walking through the basics is the job of starter sets because the DMG is for DMs that know more or less what they're doing.

 

[Zaukrie]

Thanks for the explanation. I barely know the difference between Frederic Chopin and Charlie Chaplin.



Whereas I think walking through the basics is the job of starter sets because the DMG is for DMs that know more or less what they're doing.

Therein lies a big difference, I guess. I don't agree the DMG should only be for experienced DMs.

 

[Composer99]

Therein lies a big difference, I guess. I don't agree the DMG should only be for experienced DMs.

Indeed - I would almost go so far as to say that the more experienced the DM, the less need they have for a DMG (whatever use it is put to)!

 

[pointofyou]

I think the more experienced a DM is the more likely they are to be looking for something specific when they open the DMG. Presuming they're not looking for the treasure tables and magic items list though those might count as specific.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is really starting to feel like a rules vs rulings discussion.

IMO. It always has been.

 

[pemerton]

This is really starting to feel like a rules vs rulings discussion.

IMO. It always has been.

Some people want 5e to be more codified and more structured while others enjoy the rulings (including having to make up your own) philosophy that 5e touted from the beginning and aren't keen (and/or don't see the need) for more structure and codification than what exists now.

This is a red herring.

Moldvay Basic is "rulings not rules" for much of its action adjudication. It has examples.

D&D 4e p 42 is "rulings not rules". So is skill challenge adjudication. Both have examples.

Apocalypse World results are very often "rulings not rules". There are lots of examples.

There is no contradiction between providing examples and relying on GM rulings.

 

[FrogReaver]

The whole back and forth on examples is a great microcosm for what goes on in these threads. It's all about dual strawmen.

A) I think more examples on this topic would be great.
B) I don't think examples on that topic would very useful.
A) So you don't think examples are useful!
B) So you think everything needs an example!

And then the discussion shifts to people arguing about the suggested positions that neither side took. This phenomenon goes far beyond 'examples'. It's happened in many aspects of the DMG discussion. It's happened in many other discussions. More importantly, it seems like it's happening more commonly.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

This is a red herring.

Moldvay Basic is "rulings not rules" for much of its action adjudication. It has examples.

D&D 4e p 42 is "rulings not rules". So is skill challenge adjudication. Both have examples.

Apocalypse World results are very often "rulings not rules". There are lots of examples.

There is no contradiction between providing examples and relying on GM rulings.

Yeah, if anything a "rulings not rules" game has more need for examples precisely because the system doesn't spell out how to handle things.

 

[Zaukrie]

The whole back and forth on examples is a great microcosm for what goes on in these threads. It's all about dual strawmen.

A) I think more examples on this topic would be great.
B) I don't think examples on that topic would very useful.
A) So you don't think examples are useful!
B) So you think everything needs an example!

And then the discussion shifts to people arguing about the suggested positions that neither side took. This phenomenon goes far beyond 'examples'. It's happened in many aspects of the DMG discussion. It's happened in many other discussions. More importantly, it seems like it's happening more commonly.

Agreed!