Talk:Dungeon Master's Guide

Tense

Most of this article is in the past tense. This is because I am only familiar with the first edition DMG (for AD&D). I assumed some, most or all of the information would be stale. If it is still current, please change the tense to reflect its current use. Thanks!

I know Stan has an image for this manual, so I won't ask for it again here. :-) —Frecklefoot 22:09, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Article Title

When I first created this article, I named it Dungeon Master's Guide (with an apostropher 's'). After researching it a bit, I discovered the correct title is Dungeon Masters Guide (no apostrophe). However Gtrmp moved it (and Players Handbook) back to the apostrophized version with no comment. Since I beleive that version is incorrect, I have moved it back.

If you think it should be the apostrophized version, please discuss why. The included scan shows it as the version without the apostrophe. —Frecklefoot 16:26, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Players_Handbook for a discussion taking place on this topic. —Frecklefoot 16:57, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism

It might be worth noting that one of the main problems with the original DMG (and PH as well) was the incredibly bad organisation it had. It was virtually written in a stream of consciousness and had very poor indexing. Topics that related to each other were fifty pages apart. There were also many sections that appeared incomplete or confusing (remember the shocking “grappling, pummelling and overbearing” rules for unarmed combat?) The reason players wore out copies of the book was from all the flipping backwards and forwards to find stuff.

And the random generator had some merits, but the dozens and dozens of tables were almost perverse in their detail. Did one really need to resort to tables to decide “In the (roll) wooden (roll) crate you find (roll) two (roll) gems. One is a (roll) rose pink (roll) square cut (roll) sapphire and the other is a (roll) cyan (roll) heart shaped (roll) tourmaline.

I’d say a lot of these tables were so detailed and extravagant that they were rarely ever used “on the fly”.

Of course many of these rules and so on were later sorted out in Dragon Magazine, but really, you could never carry round all the Dragons and all the core Manuals. I think the state of the early DMG really typifies the amateur nature of the venture and also to a large extent the autocratic nature of Gygax and a belief in his own infallibility.--Affentitten 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

External Links

The errata link doesn't work. The linked page requires authorisation to view.

Frankymole (T) 17:17, 07 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't work, that just means you need an authorization. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

DM's screen

FTA:

"For many players, the three core rulebooks were referred to so often that some dungeon masters wore out one or more copies of each book over the years. This led to the development of the Dungeon Master's Screen: two heavy-duty boards with the most oft-used tables printed on them for easy reference."

I've no idea where the history as provided for that accessory comes from but it doesn't reflect the actual history since the DM's screen was designed by Bill Owen in 1975/76 for Original D&D ( http://www.acaeum.com/jg/MoreFineProducts.html ) and published by Judges Guild in 1977, long before there were "three core rulebooks". Not quite sure where that would fit into the hierarchy on WP given that the infoboxes are TSR-centric, yet Judges Guild was producing official material for TSR before they got their act together on "additional items" such as modules and various accessories. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While I think most of it's true (wearing out several copies of the core rulebooks--it certainly happened in our little group), the screen did more than just contain commonly used table. It was actually a shield to hide material from players so as not to ruin the adventure for them. The section should probably be removed or changed to reflect what can actually be referenced. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It may not even be necessary to include in this article at all. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion prompted me to go into my closet and dig out my old D&D books; I have a copy of the 2nd edition of the screen (from 1979). I think it is worth mentioning that the primary point of the screen is to screen players' eyes from the DM's maps and information. To quote the text on the screen itself: "These screens are useful for shielding maps and other game materials from the players." If it happened that it made a handy reference so DMs didn't have to go digging in their books, so be it, but it wasn't the primary purpose. If folks decide it's worth keeping the reference to the screen in this article, I'll upload a scan of the cover of the screen that I have, but I'm not going to take the time if it's about to be removed.

87Fan (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding that quote sounds like a better idea. 76.16.212.18 (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, any idea how to cite it? It's not a book - I can't find any ISBN # on it or anything 87Fan (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could tell you - maybe just provide the publisher's name and publication date? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok I updated the article. I think the 2nd edition cover needs to be moved to the left side for flow, but when I moved it it interfered with subsequent sections, so I figured that I'd let someone else who's better at image layout deal with it. Anyway, my edits for the screen are up, so go ahead and make any changes as folks see fit.

Looks like the DM screen image needs a FUR. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. This is the first non-album cover image I've uploaded, so I missed it the first time

87Fan (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Cover

If you look carefully, this article, at different points, claims different artists did the original cover. Who did it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.71.170 (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - there have been a few different editions with different covers, or do you mean that it says there have been different artists for the original 1979 edition? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Titles with and without apostrophes

I changed the titles of the DMG for 1st and 2nd edition to the titles on the covers. Why were those reverted? OregonPinkRose (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the first edition book, but I just checked my copy of the 1989 second edition book, and both the spine and cover say "Dungeon Master's Guide". 99.126.204.164 (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing about the first edition. This was my first BRD so I was a little worried. http://www.ebay.com/itm/2nd-Ed-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Dungeon-Masters-Guide-2160-/251076846030 That's the one I'm talking about. The same one as the picture on the Wiki. But on that same e-bay page I see which one you have. Interesting. Maybe we should change the picture to match the book that shows the apostrophe?OregonPinkRose (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're talking about now. The one on the e-bay page - and the one in this article - was the 1995 reprinting of the 1989 book. The original book looked like this; I know, because I got it soon after it was printed. A later printing looked like this, but I'm not sure what year that was in. The 1995 printing had moslty the same text, but the layout, art, etc was changed. I think the right thing to do is mention both titles but we need to figure out when "Dungeon Master's Guide" was changed to "Dungeon Master Guide" - sometime between 1989 and 1995, but when? 99.126.204.164 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer at the begginnig

I feel that the disclaimer prefacing the book shows that d&d can be serous, but can also be humorous. It also pokes fun at how certain DMs play. if you would like to abridge this disclaimer go ahead, however I feel that we should at least mention it. Nector deorum et virorum 13:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nector42 (talk • contribs)

It's a very long quote to include for just one version of the book. I have seen long quotes from other older versions of the DMG from prior editions that could also be used which also accomplish the same thing, but I don't think we need to make this article one big list of quotes from the book. And why is a quote from the 5th edition DMG more relevant than a quote from other versions of the DMG? I think the section on the 5E DMG needs to be built up with quotes from non-primary sources, because as you have it right now the primary source quote is easily the largest part of that section. I honestly don't think it's needed at all. It would be much better to find a review of the book which tells the reader that the game can be serious and also humorous. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

well what other quotes accomplish this better, I am all for a different more abridged quote as long as it portrays the info done by the disclaimer. Nector deorum et virorum 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nector42 (talk • contribs)