Talk:Dungeon Master's Guide

message: 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)
thread_title: Tense

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: The errata link doesn't work.  The linked page requires authorisation to view.
Frankymole (T) 17:17, 07 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cover

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Titles with and without apostrophes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disclaimer at the begginnig