D&D General Why Editions Don't Matter

[Aldarc]

While I feel this is the question folks should be asking, I feel a need to remind you that you don't get to demand or force anyone to do anything. This is a fundamentally antagonistic positioning, which really isn't appropriate to the situation, or particularly constructive.

If you aren't willing to accept answers you don't like, do not ask the question.

Of course, I can't force anyone to do anything, but I wanted to be transparent and fair about my framing here. You are welcome to assume bad faith on my part by calling it "antagonistic positioning," but my intent was to essentially remove the "don't know," "neutral," or "middle option" from the Likert Scale in the hopes of getting something more than "nothing."

With all due respect, your guess at the motivation does not stand as evidence of an actual problem.

In my house, I often work as a sort of sous chef for my wife - I do a lot of the most basic food preparation tasks - the chopping, slicing, peeling, rinsing and draining, minding of the rice or pasta, and so on. I am good enough at making things seamless for my wife when she's cooking that people watching us prepare Thanksgiving have used the word "dance " to describe it. There is no problem, no "symptom" here. We work really well in the kitchen.

But, can I do better? Of course! I am not a restaurant-quality sous chef. My knife work could be more precise, and definitely faster, for example. Do I need to be better, for what I am doing? Not in the least! Might I still want to be? Sure.

There does not have to be a problem for one to wish to improve.

A difference that I see is that the upcoming One D&D DMG is being rewritten so it is a more friendly and helpful guide for new DMs rather than those who want to go from being their spouse's "sort of sous chef" to a professional line cook. So the area of improvement or "contact with reality" that WotC is looking to rectify or address appears to be at a more basic, fundamental level rather than for someone at your caliber.

Now I admit that I tend to see this more in terms of being a "problem," if only, because a lot of times I see issues with GM retention, struggles, burnout, etc., it tends to be more pronounced at the beginning level rather than those who have decades of experience GMing past editions or other TTRPGs, like I suspect that you do. As I said, I think that trying to improve the DMG so it is more helpful to newcomer or even struggling GMs will go a long way at WotC addressing the survivor bias issue. Sure, many DMs make it, but IME there are also many who don't and then drop it.

Most things can be improved, the DMG is no exception.

And that delves nicely into my question. How would you improve the DMG so it is more helpful for new or struggling GMs who want to improve their own gamemastering?

 

[Umbran]

I wouldn't describe what @Aldarc said as a guess: Chris Perkins flat out said that "One of my focuses, specifically, will be the Dungeon Master's Guide. I'm going to be making some... structural changes to make it more friendly to new DMs."

One D&D

You can contact reality at about the 2:13 mark!

Yes. Now please contact the reality of what I wrote again.

I didn't say Aldarc was guessing that Perkins would be writing, and making changes. I said he was guessing about the MOTIVATION for doing so. That's... kind of important, so please don't ignore it.

Also, structural changes to make it friendly doesn't actually mean enhanced content teaching you how to run the game.

 

[Campbell]

The funny thing is we have had a previous edition that provided clear concise guidance, which was not to the tastes/preferences/whatever of many players and DM's which didn't provide the success level of 5e and at the same time caused multiple rifts in the playerbase. I mean we keep dancing around this but there was at least 1 edition that went this route and it just wasn't as successful.

EDIT: We can disparage popularity and sales all we want to but it most certainly is one of the most important driving factors for many of WotC choices concerning D&D.

I think there's two different topics kind of being conflated....

1. Can and should WotC try to improve their books (with a focus on the DMG)

2. Can and should WotC define a specific playstyle, specific procedures, etc for those running D&D (With a focus on the DMG)

I have no doubt they will and should do number one. Its number two I feel there's a problem with since it also seems to get tangled up in what a particular posters preffered playstyle is being promoted as what should be used....

To clarify i do not believe Wizards should change the game or the text to enable the same sort of playstyles Tales of Xadia, Dungeon World or the like support. It should be the best 5e it can be.

These sorts of play are structurally incompatible.

 

[Aldarc]

Yes. Now please contact the reality of what I wrote again.

I didn't say Aldarc was guessing that Perkins would be writing, and making changes. I said he was guessing about the MOTIVATION for doing so. That's... kind of important, so please don't ignore it.

Also, structural changes to make it friendly doesn't actually mean enhanced content teaching you how to run the game.

WotC wants to make the DMG more accessible for newcomers than it is now. I don't think that making it better for new players requires "enhanced content teaching." But I would suspect that it should at least be more cogent and clear than it is. This may simply involve changing how the DMG is structured or the page layout, as sometimes good writing is not necessarily about enhancing the content but presenting it in a clear way that makes it easier and more manageable for readers to digest.

I think, for example, that there is a LOT of potential ways for Ironsworn to be a confusing mess of a book that can scare people away from a PbtA-style game. However, from all accounts I have heard from others, the content is presented in such a way as to make it easy to understand and learn.

Yes. Now please contact the reality of what I wrote again.

This seems needlessly antagonistic.

 

[Oofta]

...
And that delves nicely into my question. How would you improve the DMG so it is more helpful for new or struggling GMs who want to improve their own gamemastering?

I've already given some of my thoughts on that. Have a link to how-to videos that pair with small encounters walking through the options of how to handle it. They've already started doing that. In the future you will be able to purchase an online version of the book along with the physical (it will be interesting to see how that's implemented) so you could include an entire tutorial series with the book. I'd also rearrange, put the Running the Game chapter towards the front of the book, not chapter 8. The Multiverse stuff, if it's even needed, should be one of the last things. I'd consider putting that kind of stuff into separate books, but DM specific supplements don't sell as well.

Maybe there should be a central repository for blogs submitted and voted on by users then give people the option of ranking. That is more of a pipe dream than anything though, I doubt WOTC would want to promote unaffiliated blogs for a variety of reasons.

I still think there is a place for starter sets because those should be geared towards absolute newbies. A lot of people who DM already have had some experience before they get the DMG either through watching live play or being a player in someone else's game. They will need some general advice but not as much hand holding. There will always be a difference between people trying to grok what the game is about and people who have a decent grasp but want to become DMs. We need to have some of both, but the main focus will likely remain the latter.

 

[Umbran]

Of course, I can't force anyone to do anything, but I wanted to be transparent and fair about my framing here.

You can be transparent and kind at the same time, though.

You are welcome to assume bad faith on my part by calling it "antagonistic positioning,"

Antagonistic framing doesn't speak to good or bad faith. It speaks to how the writing will tend to engage the emotions of others in the discussion, and the results that are apt to come from it.

If that were an intentional desire on your part, that'd be bad faith. But I was not assuming such.

but my intent was to essentially remove the "don't know," "neutral," or "middle option" from the Likert Scale in the hopes of getting something more than "nothing."

And, if they actually think the DMG is great as it is?

 

[Imaro]

To clarify i do not believe Wizards should change the game or the text to enable the same sort of playstyles Tales of Xadia, Dungeon World or the like support. It should be the best 5e it can be.

These sorts of play are structurally incompatible.

So who is defining what "best" D&D is??

 

[gorice]

No, it's an empty signifier ... for you. Because you want all people to play games the same way.

That's exactly what I don't want. Where do you get off, telling me what I do and don't want?

Some of us (most of us, those us who play 5e and enjoy it) think that this is not just fine for a broadly-popular game, but is, in fact, the entire point of it. That you disagree with this is fine, and your opinion. You are welcome to take your "empty signifier" and keep complaining that 5e doesn't succeed at bringing in new players, while WoTC counts the revenue, I count the new players, and other people wonder what it is you are complaining about.

I think we understand each other, and we're good.

I'm sorry I wasted time trying to talk with someone who lacks either the ability or the inclination to engage with the substance of my posts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It is my own concept... I added it because I wanted to try it out and as GM with total authority in a game that is rulings instead of hard rules I can and my players are ok with it.

I always point out the uncomfortable existence of, inter alia, plot points in the DMG (p. 269).

They allow for:
1. A player adding an element to the setting that the DM and group must accept as true.
2. A player adding a complication to the scene.
3. A player taking over as DM.

When I point this out (because no one reads the DMG) I am told that the existence of this, and the many other rules in the DMG, don't really count, for reasons?

 

[Campbell]

So who is defining what "best" D&D is??

The designers of the game with the aid of community feedback and playtesting.

We obviously look at this very differently. I think any game can be changed or adjusted. I do it all the time. I don't think books have super powers. They just provide us with a starting point. I'm also not advocating for a change to the core loop of play, authority structure or any of that. Just easy to use concise direction into how to start a game, build characters together, design adventures, etc.

Granted part of the reason I think this would be good is unwed D&D specifically from our sense of what a roleplaying game is. To let each game define itself by itself. Part of my personal frustrations as a GM come from encultured standards of play that get applied across games as if every roleplaying game were fundamentally the same sort of game.