D&D 3E/3.5 The DMG: A CRITICAL HIT at 93.5%!

The 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is still pulling in rave reviews, and is trending at 93.5%. io9 says its "like a Hacker's Manual for D&D", and Geekdad reports that "this 5e ruleset has completely won me back!" There are dissenters, of course - 5 Minute Workday feels its "a whole lot of appetizers but no real main course" - but these are outweighed by reviews from the likes of boingboing who called it "gorgeous, evocative, hefty, organized, and readable".

So, clearly the Dungeon Master's Guide has garnered critical praise. You can look at the list of critical reviews from outlets around the web. The critics have given it an aggregate score of 85%; but fans have shown more support and weigh in with a whopping 93.5%!

Fun with stats: D&D 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is ranked #3 out of 24 products with 10 or more reviews, placing it in the 92% percentile. It is rated 15.1 points higher than the overall average product rating of 78.4%. With 43 reviews, this is the #3 most reviewed product.

​

 

[Iosue]

Good grief.

Merriam-Webster:
dissenter - one who dissents.
dissent - (full definition) 1 : to withhold assent; 2 : to differ in opinion

Can we move on now?

The aggregate is very high, but that's not unusual. The book's only been out for a few weeks. The people who are most extreme in their reactions write their reviews early, while those more on the fence take their time to make up their mind. Basically we can say that there are more people enthusiastically positive than entirely negative. As the months go on, people with more lukewarm reactions will get their reviews up and the number will drop a little bit. Probably not as low as the critics' score, since people who like it are going to write reviews more than people who aren't so interested in it, but it'll probably settle around the same area as the PHB and MM.

 

[Blackbrrd]

@Morrus and fjw70: Don't think that I had suckered you on a word that you used. Just google for merriam-Webster, free dictionary or just google "dissenter meaning". Remember, I didn't use that word, you did. As I had given earlier, it is to deviate or go against the norm, thinking, ideas or beliefs of the public that deemed it as official (many definitions used that word and not something that I cooked up). By using that word, you are claiming that it is official (DMG is that good!) since the public or majority said it and we the minority are thus dissenters.

Anyway, like it had said here and in my review, DMG is good but not that good. Then in comparison, to say that it is better than books like 13th Age core and the likes is ludicrous. Yet if some is to say that they are different categories, well its not me that didn't categorize the books. Anyone who comes to this website and see this rating will make (or it'll influence) that conclusion that DMG is THAT good.

I checked, and the dictionary you used had that meaning, while for instance http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dissent had the meaning Morrus was using. To keep on saying that the single dictionary you are using is the correct one is a bit strange. The other meaning for instance: "to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often followed by from): " is what I read into it, especially in this context.

 

[mouselim]

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION]: *Palmface*

Merriam-webster:
dis·sent verb \di-ˈsent\
: to publicly disagree with an official opinion, decision, or set of beliefs

Here's the link for you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissents?show=0&t=1418742873

And don't tell me that dissent and dissenter is two different words...

Vocabulary.com
To dissent is to publicly disagree with an official opinion or decision. Dissent is also a noun referring to public disagreement.

Here's the link for you: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dissent

Oxford dictionary

The holding or expression of opinions at variance with those commonly or officially held

Here's the link for you: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dissent

Colins English Dictionary

 

[Morrus]

OK, that's enough. We get it - your dictionary is better, and your opinion of this book is better. Now drop it, please. This thread is becoming quite thoroughly derailed.

 

[delericho]

For example, the section on magical items are good but 99 pages of it in the DMG?!

Heh. Actually, based on past experience, that's one of the sections that I would expect will prove to be worthwhile.

My experience with the 2nd Ed DMG was that after the first read-through, virtually none of it ever saw use - I used to build-a-class guidelines a couple of times, but apart from that it was only the magic items that ever saw use.

My experience with the 3e/3.5e DMG was similar, but worse: although my initial read-through led me to think it was full of lots of crunchy bits of adventure-design goodness, it turned out that the only things that saw real use were the Wealth-by-Level tables (for PCs and NPCs), and the magic items. (And, worse, of those magic items it was only Six that saw 90% of the use.)

My experience with the 4e DMG is essentially non-existent. But given that it doesn't have any magic items, I doubt I would ever have referenced it even if I had played the game extensively.

So 99 pages of magic items in the 5e DMG strikes me as a worthwhile inclusion - at least that's 99 pages I'm reasonably likely to want to use going forward.

I genuinely hope that the 5e DMG also contains a couple of hundred pages of stuff that I'll come to again and again - checklists for building worlds and adventures, tables I want to reference again and again, subsystems that I'll actually use (and won't feel the need to take as the core of an idea but then flesh out extensively for real use - 3e "Unearthed Arcana", I'm looking at you).

But my past experience leaves me sceptical about that. More to the point, though: I won't know for a few years how much I've used it. Until then, any 'review' I could write is little more than a best-guess.

 

[wedgeski]

Heh. Actually, based on past experience, that's one of the sections that I would expect will prove to be worthwhile.

Indeed so. I hadn't realised how much I missed the traditional approach to D&D magic items, even as a fan of 4E. I soaked in that chapter for hours.

 

[mouselim]

Anyway, I'm not saying that DMG is that bad but it is definitely not that good to be in the league with books like (PHB, Calidar, 13th Truer ways) or better than The Strange, Call of Cthulhu 7th Edition, 13th Age core book, Fate Core system(!?!), DCC, PF core.

Take another example: Chapter 1: A world of your own. Will anyone use this when creating a world? How many of you folks had already designed or custom-made your own world? Will anything in the 27 odd pages revolutionise the way that you go about your task?! Or like, "hey! That's new and amazing! Why I never thought of that?!" It structures it but that's all. Will this chapter give it a rating 5/5?

Chapter 2: Creating a Multiverse. This is very D&D specific and I do agree that its good but yet again, how much of these materials are rehashed from previous editions? Anyone who owns all the incarnation of D&D will know almost 80% of the materials therein. There are interesting aspects (e.g. optional rules for Mount Celestia for good alignment characters, etc) but that's it. Will this give the book a rating 5/5?

Chapter 3: Creating Adventures. How many of us here had already created home-made adventures, publish adventures or modify adventures? How much of the materials here are like "WoW!! Mind blowing?!" Will this give it a rating 5/5?

Chapter 4: Creating Nonplayer characters. I don't even want to talk about this chapter...it contain table entries like 10 - Draw beautifully, 11 - Paints beautifully, 12 - Sings beautifully...sigh.

Chapter 5: Adventure Environments. This is ok. Not groundbreaking but ok and to a certain extent quite good. Yet again, this is not totally specific to D&D 5e. Most of these can also be found in far more detail books produced by...WOTC themselves.

Chapter 6: A much better chapter. More relevant to D&D 5e and expands on what the PHB had not covered. Yet again, much more should have been covered here. Guess what? Only 7 pages.

Chapter 7: Argh! 99 pages of it! Except for the first few pages that covered some optional rules on treasures, the rest are list and tables and the description of it. Deck of Many Things? Found in previous edition. Dwarven Plate. Done before. Figurine of Wondrous Power. Done before. Potion of climbing, flying, healing...etc! Rings! Robes! Staves (striking, healing, power, magi)!
In my review, I gave it 3/5. It's not bad but not good enough. Most of the materials are rehashed from previous books.

Chapter 8 : Running the Game and Chapter 9: Dungeon Master's Workshop. These are pretty good chapters. I think I gave them both 4/5 each. Yet again, I felt more could have been covered. Several materials are skimmed. E.g. Want grittier gameplay? Short rests before 8 hours and long rests 1 week...uh...*palmface*

Overall, I used the monster creation and NPC creation and my findings are: monster creation is pretty good. I've yet to use the created monster in a gameplay and determine if the CR alignment is good. NPC creation? I gave up halfway. I have many other references and better methods.

As for the arrangement of content, we have a (small) section on siege equipments tugged between chase and diseases in chapter 8. Good detail on siege equipment but...where are the rules for playing siege? Wall, portcullis or tower strengths? Oh, they have a small section too on objects, tugged between Social Interaction and Combat. It coves object AC and hit points.

Anyway, to play D&D 5e, this is one of the triad of books to buy. I will rank them (in necessity and material) as PHB followed by MM followed by the DMG.

I've done my part. I didn't start the argument on dissent nor use that word. I'm not saying that DMG is bad but just not that good.

 

[Umbran]

The people who are most extreme in their reactions write their reviews early...

Also, the people who are in the habit (either professionally or personally) of writing reviews, will write them early.

 

[Morrus]

Also, the people who are in the habit (either professionally or personally) of writing reviews, will write them early.

Indeed. I've been wondering about weighting reviews by time, making more recent reviews weigh more.

 

[mouselim]

@ delericho: I'm not saying that its bad materials (I gave this chapter a 3/5) but most of it (I will gauge it at nearly 60-70%) are rehashed from other previous books. I don't know about you but I have all the books produced thus far by WOTC till D&D 3.5. Go check out the compendiums. Of course most definitely, WOTC will produce a book containing all these magical items. When that happens and if you buy that book, these 99 pages are naught useless.

I'm not reviewing the D&D 5e system nor gameplay or the overall ecology of the system but on the DMG itself. If its new materials, yes! If its new groundbreaking materials, YES! If its useful for the game, ok. If its useful for the game but borrowed from previous editions, I'll skim through it. Shadowrun had gone through five editions too. Tunnels and Trolls had went through 7.5 editions...etc. How many reviews had be given to them and skim through sections that are total rehash from previous editions? DMG did that. It's not bad stuff but it is definitely not worth a perfect score.