I said this over in the "You're in Charge of D&D" thread, and no one commented on it, so I wasn't sure whether anyone agreed. I'll say it again: The DMG is the worst and most useless corebook. I think this is especially true of 3rd edition, though I wasn't too fond of it in previous editions either.
You need the PHB to generate new characters. It also contains the combat rules, the skill rules and the spell lists. The latter three are consulted pretty much whenever a character wants to do something that doesn't automatically succeed - they either want to attack something, to cast a spell at it, or to use a skill.
You need the MM for monster stats. You consult it whenever the PCs encounter a monster, usually multiple times a fight. Depending upon the number of fights per session, you may end up consulting it almost as much as the PHB.
The DMG, on the other hand, has the XP tables, the magic item lists, and status effects. It also has a bunch of filler, like alternate character generation rules, advice on gold for characters starting above 1st level, some tables for generating random adventurers that I've never actually heard of anyone using more than once, some terrible advice on building settings to game in, and some alternate PrCs. It's a grab bag of various rules that didn't fit the page count of the other books (status effects should be in the MM, magic items in the PHB) with some extra cruft thrown in.
I've never found the need to consult it more than a handful of times in a campaign, let alone per session like the other two. I don't think I'm alone in this, since most of the DMs I've played 3.x with also don't seem to consult it. Nor have I ever seen a piece of advice for quick preparation on the internet that suggests "use your DMG".
So, has anyone ever found the 3.x DMG particularly useful or worthwhile?
...but Dude, - its got the table for generating adventures and campaigns.
That and a couple of ten siders and I'll happily kill some time with a notebookand some pens..
- Ed C.
when i ran 3.x i used it constantly, but for only a few things:
--CR table
--XP table
--magic item tables
the rest of the book was meh IMO. occasionally i used the "example NPCs by level" stuff, too.
The 1e AD&D DMG is an amazing book. Possibly the greatest hardcover RPG book ever written.
However, the later DMGs have been pretty useless. When I DM'ed 3e I rarely consulted the 3e DMG, as I preferred to make up my own magic items as appropriate (not that hard), and used my own experience system.
Ya know, I haven't looked at the 2e DMG in a while. I do recall that it was poorly organized IMHO.
The first edition DMG is absolutely necessary. It's not like in 3e at all, where the PHB has, essentially, everything you need to play in a combat sequence. I don't recall the combat tables in the 1e PHB (the equivalent of the BAB table in 3rd edition).
Regardless, the 1e DMG seemed to have a lot more about running campaigns, but with less rules - more advice and so forth than CR's and EL's.
I'd say, in general terms only, that the later the edition, the less necessary the DMG.
IMHO:
1e DMG>3e DMG>>>>2e DMG
The last was not only useless, much of its advice was actively harmful. :mad:
Have I ever mentioned that I think taking out the cartoons from the DMG was the worst choice ever made in the history of gaming (this including FATAL and Galloway's Fantasy Wargaming).
Now here's my list of what should be in the DMG
DM Advice (a short section on group dynamics and social niceties like bathing (illustrated so they're sure to notice))
Information on expanding the range of the game to non-eurocentric locales
World building discussion
Character Creation Options (The DM choses options not players)
Monster Creation Guidelines
Spell Creation Guidelines
Optional Combat Rules (again, The DM choses options not players)
Mass Combat
Siege Combat
Naval Combat
Combat in Unusual Environments
Treasure (including a section on economics)
Magic Items (and a big section on appropriate placement)
Random Treasure Tables (on which magic is scarce as hell)
Random Dungeon generator / game
Random Encounter tables
Ultimate three book index
Acutally, I don't think DMG should contain new rules, it is Guide not Rulebook, so it should guide you through the process of DMing. The book has some interesting bits, but overall does quite a poor job. I guess that in combination with DMG2 and some articles from Dragon/Dungeon after serious recombination it could be quite useful book. In its current incarnation it is a bit well... lame.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo, has anyone ever found the 3.x DMG particularly useful or worthwhile?
Magic gear.
Er, that's pretty much the big one.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineI said this over in the "You're in Charge of D&D" thread, and no one commented on it, so I wasn't sure whether anyone agreed. I'll say it again: The DMG is the worst and most useless corebook. I think this is especially true of 3rd edition, though I wasn't too fond of it in previous editions either.
The DMG is most definitly the worst of the corebooks in 3.x. It's one of the least useful but still useful enough.
But the execution? Sucks hairy balls and has Monte Cook written all over it.
I actually like the 3.x DMG quite a bit. Most of what is called "filler" is stuff I enjoy having access to, and I see it as being akin to the various good bits the old 1e DMG is praised for. It's a good toolbox for a DM, giving him a lot of advice and options for personalizing his campaign - optional rules and ways to modify the game to taste without reinventing the wheel are precisely the kind of material I want in such a book. I think that 1e had it right by making the DMG the thickest book of the core; 3.x could have made a spectacular DMG if they'd had the material from Unearthed Arcana available to put in it. A combined DMG/UA would be, in my opinion, just about perfect.
Hmmm, don't think I've ever bothered to read a 3.*ed D&D DMG. Never really saw the need, everything I needed was in the SRD pretty much...
The 3.x DMG does have a nice and thorough overview of the Great Wheel planar cosmology.
Edit for more substance: I do think the DMG is probably the least useful as an immediate, at the table resource, but with all the stuff you mentioned in the first post, stuff that's absolutely vital to a game, I wouldn't call it crappy by any measure.
Add the few charts mentioned to the PHB and I'd only need the one book. I don't really like the MM, but it is handy when you are getting started or for surprises. After a while, I just never needed it again.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineSo, has anyone ever found the 3.x DMG particularly useful or worthwhile?
As others have mentioned, I used the 3.5 DMG for the CR and XP tables and for the magic generation rules. I also used it for traps and poisons. But there is also some advice in there that I think could be very useful to a person who has never GMed before, which won't have much value to an experienced GM, so I'm not sure it's has the same worth to an experienced player as a beginner.
I don't use the CR/XP table.
I think the 3.5 quick NPC tables suck compared to the 3.0 tables, and I lament that it doesn't have the same personality generation for NPCs that the 1e DMG had.
But, you know, it's still got magic item stats and tables, CR/EL tables, city generation, trap and terrain rules, treasure tables, and other useful tidbits that you won't find anywhere else.
It could afford to see some of the material we see in the DMGII (or Green Ronin's AGMG), and I certainly use it less than the PHB and MM, but that ain't sayin' much. I think I'd stop short of saying it sucks.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadBut, you know, it's still got magic item stats and tables, CR/EL tables, city generation, trap and terrain rules, treasure tables, and other useful tidbits that you won't find anywhere else.
One of the best parts of the DMG isn't actually in the DMG -- it's the Building a City web enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20030719a) on the D&D web site. I'd like to see more stuff like that in a DMG.
Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt could afford to see some of the material we see in the DMGII (or Green Ronin's AGMG)
Oooh, yeah, I agree. If they somehow took the best parts of the DMGII and UA and made one big uberDM book, that'd be fantastic. HackMaster's GMG is a good example of the type of book I'd hope the DMG would be - for its respective game, of course.
Quote from: David JohansenHave I ever mentioned that I think taking out the cartoons from the DMG was the worst choice ever made in the history of gaming...
I agree completely. Not to derail the thread, but I have to add that the levity of those cartoons really balanced the tyrannical tone of some of Gygax's comments, which have offended so many tender young gamers since.
The cartoons indicate that AD&D does not take itself too seriously--- and that you, gentle reader, shouldn't take role-playing too seriously either.
Now, I want everybody to clear their minds, and think back to when they had never ran or even played an RPG before.
I think the DMG is the most useful for them. Besides the treasure tables, EVERYTHING in there is for you if you've never run an RPG before. I think for that purpose the 3.x DMG's are pretty decent. 1e was better but 3.x works quite well (I have no working experience with the 2nd Edition DMG).
So for a bunch of guys on an RPG focused discussion board, yes, the DMG is the most useless FOR YOU. But you've played RpG's before!
Quote from: KrakaJakNow, I want everybody to clear their minds, and think back to when they had never ran or even played an RPG before.
I think the DMG is the most useful for them. Besides the treasure tables, EVERYTHING in there is for you if you've never run an RPG before. I think for that purpose the 3.x DMG's are pretty decent. 1e was better but 3.x works quite well (I have no working experience with the 2nd Edition DMG).
So for a bunch of guys on an RPG focused discussion board, yes, the DMG is the most useless FOR YOU. But you've played RpG's before!
Yes, you're absolutely correct. I think a lot of gamers want every game book to start off with the assumption that the person reading and using it is a veteran gamer.
Tangentially, it's the kind of mindset that gives rise to the attitude that new iterations of a game like D&D should do away with much of the old way of doing things, whether they're talking about game mechanics or fluff. The gamers calling for such change are, essentially, bored. Little thought is given the person new to RPGs, who may be excited to play in what we grognards call bog standard fantasy, or who needs some advice and guidance to help them run a game.
Colonel: all true, all true.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonTangentially, it's the kind of mindset that gives rise to the attitude that new iterations of a game like D&D should do away with much of the old way of doing things, whether they're talking about game mechanics or fluff. The gamers calling for such change are, essentially, bored. Little thought is given the person new to RPGs, who may be excited to play in what we grognards call bog standard fantasy, or who needs some advice and guidance to help them run a game.
QFT.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonYes, you're absolutely correct. I think a lot of gamers want every game book to start off with the assumption that the person reading and using it is a veteran gamer.
I think a lot of game books oblige and actually do read that way.
Quote from: ColonelHardissonTangentially, it's the kind of mindset that gives rise to the attitude that new iterations of a game like D&D should do away with much of the old way of doing things, whether they're talking about game mechanics or fluff. The gamers calling for such change are, essentially, bored. Little thought is given the person new to RPGs, who may be excited to play in what we grognards call bog standard fantasy, or who needs some advice and guidance to help them run a game.
I also agree with this.
In fact, I still find "bog standard fantasy" in D&D pretty interesting (and that's how I ran it when I GMed a game a couple of years ago) because my group plays so little of it that we aren't bored by it.
I've never had a problem with the DMG, in any form. I will say that for 3.whatever, I've found the 3.0 DMG generally more useful than the 3.x DMG, the AD&D1 DMG more useful than the AD&D2 DMG, and all of the above eclipsed by the 0D&D Rules Compendium.
If 4E wants to reach a larger audience, I would suggest to WotC that they create a Rules Compendium type of book that would have enough exerpts from the three Core Books to allow for play up to level 12-15 or so.
I never found the 1e DMG particularly useful even when I was new to the hobby. I used the magic items in the back and the XP charts, but that was about it. The rest was more or less just pointless babbling, like listening to the LGS's resident fatbeard talk about his campaign. Right now I can't think of anything particularly enlightening in it's pages.
I liked the 2e DMG more, because it got rid of all that psychotic Gygax-babble. The resulting volume was greatly trimmed down and focused on the useful bits.
I've definitely thought the DMG was the most pointless book of D&D. Most people I played with didn't even bother with it if they had a DM Screen for the charts.
Quote from: jeff37923If 4E wants to reach a larger audience, I would suggest to WotC that they create a Rules Compendium type of book that would have enough exerpts from the three Core Books to allow for play up to level 12-15 or so.
Y'know, for whatever reason, they seem dead-set against doing this, even though it strikes me as a good idea. It seems paradoxical to me - on one hand, they want to draw in a younger set of gamers (which is not a bad idea), but on the other, they deliver a physical product that seems aimed at older, more experienced gamers with a bit more money on hand. Consider - complex rules-sets, relatively massive amounts of reading to gain entry into the game, fairly expensive glossy hardbounds that seem more suitable for bookcases...it all seems like stuff that would appeal to older folk (and I mean people in their late 20s+).
While some argue that video games are more expensive - both the initial buy-in and subsequent game buying and rental - and therefore price shouldn't be a consideration, that argument seems to ignore the fact that video games are simply the phenomenon of this generation. The hard, cold facts seem to bear out that books are simply not perceived as being as worthwhile as game consoles to the gaming target audience. Video games are the "in" thing, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that. WotC and other P&P RPG companies can try to draw in some of that audience, and may well do so, but if they go too far in that direction, they may well alienate the base audience they already have.
While the under 25 crowd is generally perceived as the key demographic to make money, that doesn't mean it's the only demographic that can be profitable. So far, none of the P&P RPG makers have produced a product that has brought in the video game fans in droves. They've gotten some, sure. But perhaps if they altered their approach a bit, they could end up more profitable. By that I mean - target an older audience. Or, at least see if it would be feasible to do so. Try to pull in the gamer that has perhaps grown tired of video games, or who craves more direct human interaction, or who may eventually have more patience for 100+ page rulebooks. The way they're going now, it seems they'll reach a point where they appeal to neither demographic.
Then again, who knows? Maybe 4e will appeal to a broad spectrum of demographics once it's actually been released.
I actually really liked the 3.5 book, because there was a ton of information there that, when I wanted to use something in an adventure, I'd just reference a page number on my notes.