DM/GM Guides

One Horse Town · August 22, 2007, 05:42:51 PM

With the announcement of d&d 4e and the usual publishing model of 3 core books, i was wondering how people thought of books strictly for DMs/GMs. There aren't a great many systems these days that give you a guide strictly for the DM of the game. Seems that most games give advice in a single rulebook that everyone reads. Supplements can certainly be largely for DMs rather than players in utility, but what about core books?

Would you rather have everything within the one book or have a tome specifically for DMs that may contain info that players might find more fun in play if they didn't have access to that information?

Serious Paul · August 22, 2007, 05:47:06 PM

My opinion may not be the one they want, as it is likely I hold off on buying 4e until we absolutely hate 3.5e, but I like separate books. It does mean dropping a little extra cash, but I like keeping some of it separate.

James J Skach · August 22, 2007, 05:53:17 PM

What's interesting is lookinag that DMG from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (3.5) Editions. In fact, I'm going to be doing so over the next week. I think there was a fundamental shift that happened with 3rd - away from advice and more towards rules because it was necessary in the latest edition. A DM who didn't have those tools would not have been well equipped.

That's just a guess; I havne't looked at the 1st or 2nd Edition DMG's in a while.

The point being that one rule book is fine, if running the game does not require another due to "balance" and complexity.

One Horse Town · August 22, 2007, 05:56:31 PM

So information for the DM only is fine, but rules for his eyes only not so much James?

Serious Paul · August 22, 2007, 05:58:23 PM

Quote from: One Horse TownSo information for the DM only is fine, but rules for his eyes only not so much James?

I think I could agree with that. Everyone should be familiar with the mechcanics, at least the basics.

Drew · August 22, 2007, 05:59:51 PM

I like all the rules to be in one place.

Setting info is a little different. If it's a game with lots of hidden lore and things-man-should-not-know then it makes sense to divide the information.

I have to wonder how effective the tactic is in the long run, though. Many people I've gamed with have been completists whom buy up all available product anyway, so there's very little in the way of hidden information. Of course this means more money goes in the publishers coffers, so it's highly likely we'll see the same format a while yet.

KenHR · August 22, 2007, 05:59:52 PM

I like having separate books. There are some rules that players don't need or aren't essential every session (kingdom building or mass combat maybe), and sometimes it's nice to have a little mystery in the game (not that anyone I've ever played 1e with didn't have a copy of the DMG and MM anyway).

James: I think, in this case, you've got it backwards. 1e had essential rules in addition to scads of great advice, combat frex. The 2e DMG was pretty much useless except for the XP tables and magic item listings. The 3e DMG concentrated more on optional rules and ideas for expanding the game.

Drew · August 22, 2007, 06:04:28 PM

It's also worth noting that Wizards 4e production schedule includes one PHB, DMG and MM per year.

2008: PHB, DMG, MM

2009: PHB 2, DMG 2, MM 3

2010: PHB 3, DMG 3, MM 3

etc.

How's that for division of information?

One Horse Town · August 22, 2007, 06:09:57 PM

Well, i was just using d&d as an example really to see what people thought of the idea generally now that most games don't make that distinction.

Drew · August 22, 2007, 06:19:30 PM

Quote from: One Horse TownWell, i was just using d&d as an example really to see what people thought of the idea generally now that most games don't make that distinction.

Sure thing. It just struck me as interesting.

My preferred division is more along the system/setting axis, anyway. I like the way Wilderlands had the Players Guide being seperate from the boxed set. That way it was possible for people to intergrate their characters with the setting without having to ignore large chunks of GM-only information. I'd like to see more of that sort of thing, although I'm unsure if the market is really there for it.

James J Skach · August 22, 2007, 10:53:19 PM

Quote from: KenHRJames: I think, in this case, you've got it backwards. 1e had essential rules in addition to scads of great advice, combat frex. The 2e DMG was pretty much useless except for the XP tables and magic item listings. The 3e DMG concentrated more on optional rules and ideas for expanding the game.

In this case? I'm guessing in almost every case knowing me...

Trust me when I say I'm not disagreeing. Perhaps another thread to keep from derailing OHT's. But I am going to look att eh DMG's to check my assumption, trust me...

James J Skach · August 22, 2007, 10:55:47 PM

Quote from: One Horse TownSo information for the DM only is fine, but rules for his eyes only not so much James?

Hmmm..good way to put it. I'm thinking of the Traps information in the 3rd Edition DMG - what's that got to do with players. I'll have to check the 1st Edition to see what was in there - it's been too long anyway...

So for me, the jury is still out...I'll get back to you...

James McMurray · August 23, 2007, 01:46:50 PM

I like seperate books, so long as the division makes sense. Keep the monster stats GM-only, but make sure the grappling rules are in the PHB.

If the players don't know the stats for kobolds, it stops me from having to rename them and change their appearance to make them an unknown quantity.

Hackmaster does this well, although I think it may go a little too far by putting the saving throw and to-hit tables in the GMG. But it has a very clear demarkation of what players are supposed to know and what is hand's off. Crossing that line can put you on the receiving end of the Smartass Smackdown Table. It's a GM-only thing, so I haven't seen it, but I've heard scary things about it.