D&D (2024) What do you want in the revised DMG?

[Lyxen]

As I know about the number of encounters we have in a session I'd prefer something less abstract and not have to just wing it as @EzekielRaiden put it. I'd like a little more precision to be confident that the encounters I create are close to what I expect them to be and adequately challenge the players to the level I want. If I want an easy or deadly encounter (or something in between) the guidelines/rules of the game should be able to accommodate that within reason. After all combat is a pretty integral part of the game and should be more than a crap shoot.

Combat works fine, it's quick, streamlined and exciting. What it's not is challenging, and that is the whole problem for a number of people, including you, I suppose.

To create a challenging encounter that does not have the risk to turn into a TPK, you need precise computations of power, something that you cannot get out of 5e because the monsters are not calibrated and because the situations are not calibrated. 3e sort of had it, 4e got it down to near perfection, but only because it was a "closed" system in which the possibilities were restricted and computations could be made. 5e is way more open, with some advantages and some drawbacks, in particular in terms of precision.

What I think is that if they could do it for 3E and 4E as you said that it should be possible to get it a lot closer in 5E than it currently is. Im not looking for perfection, just something close and more reliable than guessing most of the time.

And then, once more, if it was doable, don't you think that someone would have done it ?

 

[R_J_K75]

What it's not is challenging, and that is the whole problem for a number of people, including you, I suppose.

I can't see the point in creating a combat that isnt challenging in some way for the players; though it doesnt have to be deadly. Last I check monster have a "Challenge Rating", so I doubt the sole design intent of the CR/encounter design mechanics were strictly for fun and for the PCs to win all the time.

And then, once more, if it was doable, don't you think that someone would have done it ?

Perhaps WotC will change the CR system in 2024, maybe they wont and I'll be disappointed. Just because it hasnt been done yet doesnt mean it cant or wont be. Some people seem to like the way it is and it works for them, such as yourself, while others like me don't. But I've seen enough people say they'd like to see it changed to know Im not alone. IMO theres room for improvement in it.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, in fairness, they didn't really do it for 3e either.

It was still way more precise, in particular because the CR computations were more accurate, but also because the encounter calculator was more precise especially with regards to the number of opponents.

4e was very good, definitely not perfect but quite reliable and effective.

It is indeed, because it's based on paradigms which are simply quite different. What gave good results with 4e just cannot work with the intentional fuzziness of 5e.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I just want a secret sentence buried somewhere in it. In the middle of a long paragraph- “Congratulations for reading!”

So we can definitively say that … no one reads the DMG.

(I appreciate the sentiment, above, but other than useful organization and a useful index, people will just advocate for their preferences. The DMG is fine.)

 

[Li Shenron]

Things to expand

• Running the Game: It oft-noted that the "Running the Game" chapter is the most necessary, and yet is at the end of the book. They could expand this section further with more detailed procedures for how to do...whatever the new edition wants to do as a game (e.g. in b/x, it's dungeon- and wilderness-crawling, so there are procedures for that)

I would hate this.

More procedures would inevitably turn out to actually make the game more restricted (unless they are marked as variants, but that would go in the other section of the book).

As a prime example, think about the spell identification rule in Xanathar. Even though I personally don't mind it, a lot of people. hate it because suddenly it sets a new standard rule for covering something that DMs handed more freely.

Even if by "procedures" you mean only streamlined explanations of existing rules, they would still need to be careful not to set a standard that many will treat at unquestionable RAW. The example here is the DMG procedure for noticing hidden doors which kind of implies that the DM has to use passive perception even if it means that every hidden door is automatically detected or automatically missed, with randomness removed. What might have been originally just aid text for one possible good way to handle hidden doors became a core rule in the hands of rules lawyers.

 

[Li Shenron]

To answer the main question, I don't want a revision so I would like a 50th anniversary DMG (and PHB and MM) to be just premium books with some fancies like leather cover and ribbons, and no content change besides improved formatting and layout, and maybe changes to the text only to make it more clear.

The DMG doesn't actually need much, but the PHB could have better spell lists with one-line spell descriptions, and of course the clarification that if a Druid chooses to use metal armor/shields then nothing happens.

 

[John R Davis]

A quick and easy fix I do is try and make the challenge as noted in the DMG but give creatures a bonus action. Even if it's just a simple attack, a cantrip or a disengage it adds to the challenge quite nicely without slowing things down. Just enough peril to make the player think a bit, and maybe panic a tad!

 

[Willie the Duck]

• Running the Game: It oft-noted that the "Running the Game" chapter is the most necessary, and yet is at the end of the book. They could expand this section further with more detailed procedures for how to do...whatever the new edition wants to do as a game (e.g. in b/x, it's dungeon- and wilderness-crawling, so there are procedures for that)
• DM Workshop: An expanded DM workshop section, with modular rules to fit a wider array of settings, tropes, and play styles. It's probably unlikely that they would do this. At the same time, they could go through all the optional rules they scatter throughout the book, reconsider what they really need, and gather the remaining ones together in one chapter.
• Usability: editing, organization, layout.

These cover my list pretty well. To my mind, rulebooks ought be designed most to the benefit of people (especially children) just learning the game (using the logic that by the time you get past that level, you barely need rules, and at the very least can be tasked with finding the rules you need). A simple, straightforward ramp into the core ideas of what DMing is like, what decisions you need to make, what processes will produce what results (and the potential pitfalls of both following and ignoring said processes), and how to make an engaging play experience for your Players.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

.
The DMG doesn't actually need much, but the PHB could have better spell lists with one-line spell descriptions, and of course the clarification that if a Druid chooses to use metal armor/shields then nothing happens.

and of course the clarification that if a Druid chooses to use metal armor/shields then nothing happens. they explode, And as a bonus, take out any bards in a 30’ radius.

Think of the tactics!

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Apparently, the most popular request should be "somebody to read it for me".