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

[gorice]

Here's a question: if a new DM only needs to run the adventure they're given (and I agree that a good adventure covers a multitude of sins), what happens when the players do something the adventure writers hadn't accounted for?

My (cynical, perhaps) view is that, the way the game is currently designed and often played, the expectation is that the DM will use force to get play back on the rails. If you never leave the railroad WotC sells you, then, sure, you don't need a lot of rules. Though DMs still need ways of resolving things like failed knowledge checks stalling the game, which I don't think is taught anywhere.

 

[Oofta]

Here's a question: if a new DM only needs to run the adventure they're given (and I agree that a good adventure covers a multitude of sins), what happens when the players do something the adventure writers hadn't accounted for?

My (cynical, perhaps) view is that, the way the game is currently designed and often played, the expectation is that the DM will use force to get play back on the rails. If you never leave the railroad WotC sells you, then, sure, you don't need a lot of rules. Though DMs still need ways of resolving things like failed knowledge checks stalling the game, which I don't think is taught anywhere.

If the group agrees to play a mod, they also implicitly agree to play along with the mod. That's nothing new. Every game has certain exceptions that hopefully get discussed early on. In LMoP (I don't have any of the more recent starter sets) it instructs the DM to work with the players to come up with a reason they are there.

I don't use mods, but I still let people know I want to run a heroic game not a fantasy version of The Sopranos. It's not really that much different. I'm currently playing in ToA, I went in knowing what I was signing up for.

As far as failed checks, that's just part of the learning process. They probably should have added a line somewhere but nothing is perfect. It's impossible to let a DM know every possible pitfall.

 

[Zaukrie]

The DMG is not a good book for a new DM. It is waaaaaaay too long and explains everything. A new DM does not need that, and, imo, will become overwhelmed worrying about knowing ALL THE RULES.

The first two starter sets are pretty good. I think there could be a bit more in there about running the game and even something to give players to help them get started. I feel that is one of the bigger weaknesses of both sets. A new DM has a lot to worry about. Helping the players figure out the game is too much to add to them.

The new box set is awful. DC 20 for first level characters in the first mission. Really? It is just so thin. The last encounter is pretty long and complex, but it is possible it is only the fourth thing a group does (though not likely).

If I was in charge, there would be a 10-15 page new DM pamphlet type thing that talks about running the game and a few simple rules to worry about. The starter set would have 2-3 short encounters to start (the hot springs in the new box set is a good example.....starting with an ambush is not). Then there would be 4-6 slightly longer things. Then a nice set piece. A starter set would also have 3-5 pages for new players on rules and understanding the sheet you get (different explanations for different classes).

DnDBeyond is really the best learning tool they have. The amount of content for new players and DMs is astounding. Unfortunately, they are not good at pointing people there (yet?).

 

[gorice]

If the group agrees to play a mod, they also implicitly agree to play along with the mod. That's nothing new. Every game has certain exceptions that hopefully get discussed early on. In LMoP (I don't have any of the more recent starter sets) it instructs the DM to work with the players to come up with a reason they are there.

I don't use mods, but I still let people know I want to run a heroic game not a fantasy version of The Sopranos. It's not really that much different. I'm currently playing in ToA, I went in knowing what I was signing up for.

As far as failed checks, that's just part of the learning process. They probably should have added a line somewhere but nothing is perfect. It's impossible to let a DM know every possible pitfall.

I take your point about 'playing the adventure', but, where do they teach that expectation and how to navigate it at the table? It's one thing when you're going into a dungeon -- we all understand where the adventure is. One you're dealing with apparently open adventures that nonetheless have a script, things get a lot more murky.

I also don't think it's fair to new DMs to say that they should work out what failed knowledge checks mean on their own. In my experience, this is something that comes up in every single session. Every DM needs an answer to this, and quickly.

 

[pointofyou]

I take your point about 'playing the adventure', but, where do they teach that expectation and how to navigate it at the table? It's one thing when you're going into a dungeon -- we all understand where the adventure is. One you're dealing with apparently open adventures that nonetheless have a script, things get a lot more murky.

I also don't think it's fair to new DMs to say that they should work out what failed knowledge checks mean on their own. In my experience, this is something that comes up in every single session. Every DM needs an answer to this, and quickly.

In the specific instance of a failed knowledge check I tend more to no information while others will tend more to false information. While I have a strong sense the former is easier for a new DM I'm willing to consider other opinions. Either approach can certainly work.

 

[Xamnam]

Here's a question: if a new DM only needs to run the adventure they're given (and I agree that a good adventure covers a multitude of sins), what happens when the players do something the adventure writers hadn't accounted for?

This sort of thing is exactly why I think the Starter Sets are fine as get-in-the-door-and-start-playing products, but are not a substitute for a text with explicit instruction. My group, understandably, realistically, wanted to stop in at Neverwinter after their adventures in Thundertree. They were close, they knew people who were currently there, they wanted to report into their factions. There is zero guidance in LMoP for how to handle the somewhat expectable (and non-module breaking) desire to visit this rather closeby huge city. I was glad I had read through the PHB and DMG, and that I was prepared with more than just the text of the starter kit. And while that's the clearest example, there were several instances of this nature over the course of our adventure. Even the Monster Manual was incredibly helpful in making the entire Thundertree detour far more engaging for the party.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying brand new DM's couldn't handle it, wing it, find a way to gently and non-combatively, non-railroad-ily dissuade them, or just straight up say "Umm, I don't know, let's skip it for now." or "Hey, I don't have the resources to do that." But, my players had a better time because I was prepared to handle it. I can also easily see it being a pain point for a non-insignificant amount of new DMs. Hence, the Starter Sets serve a valuable purpose that I feel is significantly distinct from the DM instruction I'd like to see in the PHB.

Now, granted, I'm presuming the newer kit relatively locks you into the titular island, probably to prevent problems of this specific nature. I've not read it, and if it has better instructional text than Lost Mine, I'll be thrilled.

 

[Imaro]

This sort of thing is exactly why I think the Starter Sets are fine as get-in-the-door-and-start-playing products, but are not a substitute for a text with explicit instruction. My group, understandably, realistically, wanted to stop in at Neverwinter after their adventures in Thundertree. They were close, they knew people who were currently there, they wanted to report into their factions. There is zero guidance in LMoP for how to handle the somewhat expectable (and non-module breaking) desire to visit this rather closeby huge city. I was glad I had read through the PHB and DMG, and that I was prepared with more than just the text of the starter kit. And while that's the clearest example, there were several instances of this nature over the course of our adventure. Even the Monster Manual was incredibly helpful in making the entire Thundertree detour far more engaging for the party.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying brand new DM's couldn't handle it, wing it, find a way to gently and non-combatively, non-railroad-ily dissuade them, or just straight up say "Umm, I don't know, let's skip it for now." or "Hey, I don't have the resources to do that." But, my players had a better time because I was prepared to handle it. I can also easily see it being a pain point for a non-insignificant amount of new DMs. Hence, the Starter Sets serve a valuable purpose that I feel is significantly distinct from the DM instruction I'd like to see in the PHB.

Now, granted, I'm presuming the newer kit relatively locks you into the titular island, probably to prevent problems of this specific nature. I've not read it, and if it has better instructional text than Lost Mine, I'll be thrilled.

I'm curious, as a new DM, in what way did the PHB and DMG help you resolve the fact that the players went off book in the adventure?

 

[Oofta]

I take your point about 'playing the adventure', but, where do they teach that expectation and how to navigate it at the table? It's one thing when you're going into a dungeon -- we all understand where the adventure is. One you're dealing with apparently open adventures that nonetheless have a script, things get a lot more murky.

I also don't think it's fair to new DMs to say that they should work out what failed knowledge checks mean on their own. In my experience, this is something that comes up in every single session. Every DM needs an answer to this, and quickly.

Glancing through LMoP, they explicitly tell you to have the players come up with reasons they're there. I'm sure I could come up with more quotes, but it's not exactly a high bar to say that if people want to play in a game they're going to enjoy it more if they buy into it. As far as checks, I just disagree. People will figure it out and always have. The few DMs that would truly let a campaign end based on a single dice roll more than once (if then) are probably not going to pay attention to not do that in the first place.

 

[Imaro]

Here's a question: if a new DM only needs to run the adventure they're given (and I agree that a good adventure covers a multitude of sins), what happens when the players do something the adventure writers hadn't accounted for?

My (cynical, perhaps) view is that, the way the game is currently designed and often played, the expectation is that the DM will use force to get play back on the rails. If you never leave the railroad WotC sells you, then, sure, you don't need a lot of rules. Though DMs still need ways of resolving things like failed knowledge checks stalling the game, which I don't think is taught anywhere.

From the Essentials Kit rulebook pg. 29
"If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success. Otherwise, its a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress towards the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

It's up to the DM, if it's something that will stall the game they can make progress with a DM determined setback. If not the DM can choose to rule no progress at all if they desire.

 

[Zaukrie]

From the Essentials Kit rulebook pg. 29
"If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success. Otherwise, its a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress towards the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

It's up to the DM, if it's something that will stall the game they can make progress with a DM determined setback. If not the DM can choose to rule no progress at all if they desire.

This is the kind of thing that needs an example. What is a setback? I get it, we get it, but does a new DM? Even a simple list of ideas would be great.....

the trip takes longer than expected
they don't disable the trap 100%, and take only 1 damage
the player still manages to grab the edge of the pit, but scrapes their hands. Disadvantage on melee attacks for 10 mins

stuff like that (I spent zero seconds on that list, it could use improvement, clearly, that isn't the point)