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

[MichaelSomething]

All hail the Matt Mercer effect! May it form the style of countless DMs to come!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

All hail the Matt Mercer effect! May it form the style of countless DMs to come!

Some people seem think Matt Mercer did something radical, but Critical Role just play D&D the way we have been doing since the 1980s (just with better acting).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My point throughout has been that there's no reason the DMG can't be written in a way that works better for new DMs and that it should be written thus.

The DMG has about ten times too many pages for onboarding new DMs.

The important thing about starter sets, from Stormwreck Isle to Moldvay Basic is they are slim booklets. You don't need many rules to learn to play D&D, and the more you throw at new players the harder it will be for them to learn.

The DMG contains guidance on everything from world building to creating your own monsters, classes and races. None of which is needed for a new DM running an adventure. Indeed, you can be a perfectly good DM without ever creating your own content.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Here's some relevant content from another site...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Here's some relevant content from another site...

The biggest barrier to entry is overcoming the misconception that D&D is difficult.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Is the fact they exist at all good for DMs? Yes. Unequivocally.

Is the fact that you must pay extra for actual instruction good for DMs? No. Unequivocally.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How many people starting D&D have never actually seen it being played either in person or on a stream? It's not like people live in a cave only to stumble upon the holy books.

I don't think starter kits will work for everyone but they're the best we can do. Seriously, expecting one tool to work for every possible situation (unless that tool is a sonic screwdriver of course) is always going to end in disappointment. That's why they're experimenting with other things like a sample encounter with associated video for example. Give people different options.

But the number available at people's fingertips for learning how to play is vastly more than we've ever had in the history of the game, I assume it's one of the reasons for continuous double digit growth. We picked it up from awful Gygaxian prose back in the day, I assume most people can muddle through running a game. They'll make mistakes, learn and get better, make more mistakes, rinse and repeat.

I can't speak for the starter sets, but the DMG is probably the worst DMG for new DMs in the entire history of AD&D/WotC D&D. Certainly relative to the era it is.

There's no excuse for that.

There's no "it's the best we can do".

It's nowhere near the best WotC could do. It's a rushed-out, terribly-organised, conceptually-confused, badly-written book which doesn't at all focus on the essentials of DMing, and as much as it's aimed at all, seems to have been aimed at pretty experienced DMs attempting to recreate a previously existing experience. But it's not even good at that.

It's a good thing 2024 is coming up, because WotC could do drastically better, and I'm hoping that they will.

The biggest barrier to entry is overcoming the misconception that D&D is difficult.

Is that a misconception?

In absolute terms, sure, like, it's not like learning a language or something.

In relative terms to other modern TTRPGs, boardgames, tabletop wargames, complex videogames and so on? Yeah D&D is pretty difficult to learn, and a lot of the difficulty is unnecessary, frankly. D&D is particularly high-effort to run, compared to most modern TTRPGs and to literally all of the other games listed. That's the biggest challenge with D&D, and I honestly have no idea how popular it would be if it was significantly easier to run, but it would definitely be more popular.

Better guidance, clearer rules, a better CR-type system (it is possible, 4E's was drastically better than 5E's one - admittedly 5E's is drastically better than 3E's), just better explanations focused on the basics and focused on keeping the game running and fun would be great. I honestly think more random tables and the like would also be very helpful to new DMs.

And more WotC-supported online resources, frankly.

 

[Oofta]

I can't speak for the starter sets, but the DMG is probably the worst DMG for new DMs in the entire history of AD&D/WotC D&D. Certainly relative to the era it is.

There's no excuse for that.

There's no "it's the best we can do".

It's nowhere near the best WotC could do. It's a rushed-out, terribly-organised, conceptually-confused, badly-written book which doesn't at all focus on the essentials of DMing, and as much as it's aimed at all, seems to have been aimed at pretty experienced DMs attempting to recreate a previously existing experience. But it's not even good at that.

It's a good thing 2024 is coming up, because WotC could do drastically better, and I'm hoping that they will.

Is that a misconception?

In absolute terms, sure, like, it's not like learning a language or something.

In relative terms to other modern TTRPGs, boardgames, tabletop wargames, complex videogames and so on? Yeah D&D is pretty difficult to learn, and a lot of the difficulty is unnecessary, frankly. D&D is particularly high-effort to run, compared to most modern TTRPGs and to literally all of the other games listed. That's the biggest challenge with D&D, and I honestly have no idea how popular it would be if it was significantly easier to run, but it would definitely be more popular.

Better guidance, clearer rules, a better CR-type system (it is possible, 4E's was drastically better than 5E's one - admittedly 5E's is drastically better than 3E's), just better explanations focused on the basics and focused on keeping the game running and fun would be great. I honestly think more random tables and the like would also be very helpful to new DMs.

And more WotC-supported online resources, frankly.

The worst DMG ever? That's quite the hyperbole. Have you ever read any of the core books that Gygax wrote? Yep the 5E DMG terrible and rushed out and so bad that they had contradictory rules and clunky subsystems of AD&D, came out with a .5 version a couple of years after release from 3.0, had a ton of errata soon after release like 4.

For example the initiative system in AD&D is a complete mess. “Compare the speed factor of the weapon with the number of segments the spell will require to cast to determine if the spell or the weapon will cast/strike first, subtracting the losing die roll on the initiative die roll from the weapon factor and treating negative results as positive.” Ugh. We ignored it completely after trying it once. There were many other issues with the previous books as well.

Everyone agrees it could be better. But the worst ever? Not by a long shot.

 

[Oofta]

Is the fact they exist at all good for DMs? Yes. Unequivocally.

Is the fact that you must pay extra for actual instruction good for DMs? No. Unequivocally.

You can start playing D&D and run games for years for free with the basic rules. If you need a little extra help, get the free rules and the starter set.

D&D is an incredibly cheap hobby compared to just about any other form of entertainment. It amazes me that they make as much money as they do when you can get the core rulebook set, with a DMG screen on Amazon for $86. If money is an issue have people chip in and a group of 5-7 people can have years of entertainment for less than it would cost them to go to a bargain matinee.

If you don't want to spend the extra money there are plenty of other options. How much, exactly, should WOTC give away for free? People talk like they aren't a business out to make a profit.

EDIT: the stormwreck isle set is $20. Less than a lot of people spend on dinner at a restaurant.

 

[Imaro]

Is the fact they exist at all good for DMs? Yes. Unequivocally.

Is the fact that you must pay extra for actual instruction good for DMs? No. Unequivocally.

The point is that you are also paying to see if you like the game enough to become invested. It's like golf... you buy initial starter clubs to begin with but if you enjoy the game and get more involved in it you eventually replace some or all of those clubs. It's literally the cost of 2-3 cups of Starbucks coffee for a starter set and with a group pitching in and amazon's discounts it's much less than that. In turn it gives you a cheap option to sample vs having to go all in and realizing the game is not for you.