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

[Oofta]

No, your 1 and 2 are not claims that I made.

We were talking about the advice in the Essentials Kit to have a failed roll be success with a setback. Is that right?

Are examples in the Essentials Kit?

Do you think it’s a good idea to include examples along with a term in the text where the term is introduced?

That was my point. As near as I can tell, you think it’s a bad idea to include examples of a defined term because “setback” is a word 12 year olds should know… or because examples would use up too much space… or because that information could be provided online… or basically any other reason you can come up with.

Now, the example @Oofta gave of success with a complication that is in the DMG is a separate bit from the Essentials Kit. It does offer a couple examples of setbacks, and a kind of halfassed suggestion on when/how to use success with setback. It’s poorly presented and considering how many people who play D&D don’t appear to use it, I’d say it does a poor job.

So there were two separate points I was making. My reply to you was about your bizarre desire to not include examples of defined terms when they are defined. Mg reply to @Oofta was about criticizing that part of the DMG for being a sloppily presented half-measure.

So your response is: there is guidance but it's not where I want it and it's not exactly what I specified and I don't personally care for the examples they did give. Since people don't use it, it's the fault of the text and has nothing to do with that they just don't care for that particular style. That's any better?

Success with a setback can be interesting for some, but it could also bog down the game and give the feeling that it doesn't matter what you do you're always going to succeed. I use success with setback once in a blue moon, but it's rare, not because I don't understand the concept but because I don't think it adds to the game. No amount of examples is going to change that.

I think at times it is good to have examples. It's not always necessary nor would they always add value. There are many ways to run the game and it's up to the DM and the players how they run it. You can't have examples for everything, it would be cumbersome. Where you draw the line is a judgement call.

 

[FrogReaver]

The Heart RPG has, in its GMing section, advice for three levels of GM experience. First is those who’ve never GMed before, second is those who’ve never GMed a story game before, and third is those who’ve never GMed Heart before.

Just some targeted advice specifically based on experience, in addition to all the other advice in the book.

It took a few pages.

Can I get an excerpt of some of that good advice?

I’ve asked for examples most everytime someone quotes another text as an example of better. I rarely get examples though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So your response is: there is guidance but it's not where I want it and it's not exactly what I specified and I don't personally care for the examples they did give. Since people don't use it, it's the fault of the text and has nothing to do with that they just don't care for that particular style. That's any better?

No. My response is that the examples should appear with the term when it's introduced.

You guys have been beating the "The starter set's for that" drum so hard, and now you're saying that something that should arguably be in the Essentials Kit should be split so that the term is in the Essentials Kit, but the examples are in the DMG.

Success with a setback can be interesting for some, but it could also bog down the game and give the feeling that it doesn't matter what you do you're always going to succeed. I use success with setback once in a blue moon, but it's rare, not because I don't understand the concept but because I don't think it adds to the game. No amount of examples is going to change that.

I didn't say anything about it being good or bad as a rule itself. But if they're going to introduce the concept, then they should actually do so.

If it's not desirable for the game, then they shouldn't even mention it. If they do mention it, then they should explain it. Instead, we get the mention, and little explanation.

 

[Imaro]

No. My response is that the examples should appear with the term when it's introduced.

You guys have been beating the "The starter set's for that" drum so hard, and now you're saying that something that should arguably be in the Essentials Kit should be split so that the term is in the Essentials Kit, but the examples are in the DMG.

Could this be because the learning in Essentials is predicated on the fact that you will be running the included adventure and thus while as general advice, success with a setback is provided... it isn't a main feature of the adventure (because there are no bottlenecks to necessitate it's use) and thus it is elaborated upon more in the DMG where you will be creating your own content??

I didn't say anything about it being good or bad as a rule itself. But if they're going to introduce the concept, then they should actually do so.

If it's not desirable for the game, then they shouldn't even mention it. If they do mention it, then they should explain it. Instead, we get the mention, and little explanation.

Why go into depth, providing examples for something that will have little to no bearing on the actual adventure you are running (that's how you end up with information overload which is also detrimental for getting people to run games)... It should be mentioned because it is a basis for adjudication that DM's should know about since this book is giving a beginners overview (not in-depth treatment) of how to run an adventure for DM's.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can I get an excerpt of some of that good advice?

I’ve asked for examples most everytime someone quotes another text as an example of better. I rarely get examples though.

In the past, you asked questions about some games and people shared details with you. Those details were, by necessity, incomplete. You then proceeded with the assumption that your understanding of the game was complete, and when it was pointed out not to be, you blamed others for not explaining things to you better.

So I'm not going to contribute to that. Spend $20 and educate yourself.

Heart RPG, Winner of Seven Ennies

 

[Imaro]

In the past, you asked questions about some games and people shared details with you. Those details were, by necessity, incomplete. You then proceeded with the assumption that your understanding of the game was complete, and when it was pointed out not to be, you blamed others for not explaining things to you better.

So I'm not going to contribute to that. Spend $20 and educate yourself.

Heart RPG, Winner of Seven Ennies

Wait so this advice is objectively good but can only be understood in the context of the specific game? I have HEART and while I don't remember it making a big impression on me concerning GM'ing... I think I'll go re-read it for a refresher and so that I can speak to it with an informed opinion and reply a little later.

 

[Oofta]

No. My response is that the examples should appear with the term when it's introduced.

You guys have been beating the "The starter set's for that" drum so hard, and now you're saying that something that should arguably be in the Essentials Kit should be split so that the term is in the Essentials Kit, but the examples are in the DMG.



I didn't say anything about it being good or bad as a rule itself. But if they're going to introduce the concept, then they should actually do so.

If it's not desirable for the game, then they shouldn't even mention it. If they do mention it, then they should explain it. Instead, we get the mention, and little explanation.

There are many concepts that don't require examples to understand them. We just disagree on which ones. There are many optional features that are not universally desirable, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be mentioned. Sometimes those concepts make sense situationally or is just a technique that a specific group will find useful. I don't use lingering injuries because it's not the style of game I want to run. For others it might fit the type of game they want. Success with setback is an interesting idea, just not one I use on a regular basis.

I don't want a prescriptive game that tells me there is only one true way to run the game. That means there will be some options I ignore, no matter how well they are explained.

 

[Oofta]

In the past, you asked questions about some games and people shared details with you. Those details were, by necessity, incomplete. You then proceeded with the assumption that your understanding of the game was complete, and when it was pointed out not to be, you blamed others for not explaining things to you better.

So I'm not going to contribute to that. Spend $20 and educate yourself.

Heart RPG, Winner of Seven Ennies

If someone questions an example, perhaps you could attempt to provide more details instead of just tell them to piss off.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the past, you asked questions about some games and people shared details with you. Those details were, by necessity, incomplete. You then proceeded with the assumption that your understanding of the game was complete, and when it was pointed out not to be, you blamed others for not explaining things to you better.

So I'm not going to contribute to that. Spend $20 and educate yourself.

Heart RPG, Winner of Seven Ennies

Sorry, but I’m never going to accept something solely on a random posters authority. I will also have my own thoughts about such examples. Just because someone has more context doesn’t mean they own the interpretation. As an example: after playing and reading blades in the dark I’ve found that others experiences with the game have been vastly different than mine (I’m not alone either). The text they quote to prove I’m playing it wrong or should be getting something else out of it doesn’t read that way to me at all.

I suspect that to be the case here - but I’m also open to the possibility that something is soo good and answers all my concerns that I could completely agree that the example is a completely better way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Could this be because the learning in Essentials is predicated on the fact that you will be running the included adventure and thus while as general advice, success with a setback is provided... it isn't a main feature of the adventure (because there are no bottlenecks to necessitate it's use) and thus it is elaborated upon more in the DMG where you will be creating your own content??


Why go into depth, providing examples for something that will have little to no bearing on the actual adventure you are running (that's how you end up with information overload which is also detrimental for getting people to run games)... It should be mentioned because it is a basis for adjudication that DM's should know about since this book is giving a beginners overview (not in-depth treatment) of how to run an adventure for DM's.

If it's not needed, then don't bother with it. If it's needed, then actually explain it. Don't mention it without context.

I don't think this is some kind of radical take.