Nothing has been interpreted 40 years after the fact. It was interpreted during 1e back in the early 80's.
Yes. The DM that dictated which rules were used. The PHB didn't have primacy. You also clearly haven't read the 1e DMG introduction which not only does not state that the rules inside it are all options, but in fact says otherwise. It states straight out that they supplement and augment the PHB rules, which means that the DMG changes them. The PHB rules are secondary to the DMG rules, regardless of whether or not the players read the DMG, which virtually all of them did anyway.
Sure, except not. I've already states that I'm basing it on actual game play. I lost far more PCs playing 1e than 2e, and with many of the same DMs, so it wasn't a DM thing.
Other than the fact that it said otherwise, sure. Seriously, read the introduction in the 1e DMG. You'll see that the things inside are not optional rules outside of every rule in every book being technically "optional."
They are flat out contradictory no matter how you understand them or how many glances it takes. The PHB states that 0 hit poins = death. Not maybe death. Not sometimes death. Always death. The DMG states that 0 hit points is never death. It's unconsciousness and you may eventually die or not. Those are mutually exclusive positions. You cannot have 0 hit points be both always death and never death.
Per the DMG introduction, the rule in the DMG was an augmentation to the PHB rule and was not at all an optional rule.
[/COLOR]Hmm. It seems you have read the intro and just didn't understand it. Here are some portions that will help you.
"It is incumbent upon all DMs to be thoroughly conversant with the PLAYERS HANDBOOK, and at the same time you must also know the additional information which is given in this volume, for it rounds out and completes the whole. While players will know that they must decide upon an alignment, for example, you, the DM, will further know that each and every action they take will be mentally recorded by you; and at adventure’s end you will secretly note any player character movement on the alignment graph."
"After the material which pertains directly to the PLAYERS HANDBOOK comes the information which supplements and augments."
"And while there are no optionals for the maior systems of ADVANCED D&D (for uniformity of rules and procedures from game to game, campaign to campaign, is stressed), there are plenty of areas where your own creativity and imagination are not bounded by the parameters of the game system. These are sections where only a few hints and suggestions are given, and the rest left to the DM."
The DMG rounds out and completes the PHB rules. Then it offers supplements and augmentations to the rules. Then it says straight out that there are no optionals for the major systems. Unless you are suggesting to me that hit point damage and PC death is a minor system...
DMG says it pretty plainly it is options. I quoted it where it actually encourages the DM to cut rules from it and not use everything in it. This was something that Gary through his actions constantly did, though more so probably in homegames. ONLY someone reading it with modern reading as they would with 4e would make the conclusion it says something else. Others (arneson was famous for it) would flat out alter rules as they saw fit (rather than DMG, they saw EVERY rule as optional in D&D and AD&D).
AS PER THE OFFICIAL RULINGS, the PHB, pg 105 WAS the actual official rule in most games held. Just because you decided to ignore it doesn't make your mistaken interpretation of a rule the one that was considered the official one used..
Anyways, you are free to your own opinion (along with what...3-4 others in this thread out of millions who played AD&D 1e) that 2e is the most lethal. Obviously, for you, it is...but it is OBVIOUSLY NOT the most lethal for many others.
Obviously, you disagree about 1e or 3e being able to be more lethal, and it being more of a DM's view. We will just disagree.
However, I'm done arguing with 4e guys over how 1e and the DMG was run. You want to read it with a modern view (instead of how it actually was, this is how part of the OSR branches came about, with DM's having the power to pick the options out of the DMG...not rule lawyers and players saying since an option is listed in the DMG it must be a rule...something NOT EVEN GYGAX adhered to...and he WROTE the dang thing...though his stance on the PHB was a little stricter and stronger as far as rules go...every rule in the DMG...not as much. Of course, if you adhered to every rule in the DMG...it could be a very interesting game...but then again HE wouldn't have misinterpreted the ZHP as it has been in this thread).
I came to point out a fallacy of interpretation. I was OPEN to being convinced if one could have actually used the correct rules as they were used. I didn't side necessarily with 1e being the most lethal and in fact my opinion was open for any edition being lethal. I pointed out why I wasn't convinced by the discussions here, and...I WAS NOT.
Anyways, you are free to your opinion, but if YOU ACTUALLY WANT to convince those who don't SHARE your opinion you probably should have addressed the things we had a problem with. I was never arguing that 2e couldn't be more lethal than 1e, but the representation of the 1e rules. If you are going to ignore the actual official rules and rulings of 1e, than there's probably NO WAY your going to convince those who are long time players and were around during the 1e years of your opinion.
Thus far, even the 3e argument (which is why I now will say 3e could be just as lethal, as before I probably would have put 2e or 1e in front of it as far as lethality went) is better than the one presented here.
As such, I can see there is no REAL desire to actually convince those looking at it about the point of the thread, but merely try to argue that ONE point of contention determines which edition is actually more lethal (and there are FAR more other points, some which I brought up briefly, that could be utilized to say 2e was NOT as lethal if one used the official rules or looked at it).
There are a host of other things that would go counter to the idea of 2e (theif specializing in Remove traps not as likely to be killed outright using that skill, Weapon Specialization in core 2e, but not core 1e giving Fighters multiple attacks at 1st level, some wizard spells having greater power and ability to be abused...etc...etc...etc) being more lethal and they could have been addressed or discussed
Those here seem FAR more concerned about what was an OPTIONAL rule (as in, officially not utilized in many official games, with deference to the PHB ruling...though ZHP could be used by DMs if they wanted to have there players unconscious rather than dead...Something I believe Gygax would do [though he would just ignore the death at 0 or even -3 HP rulings and would even go to -200 HP and PC's being unconscious if it fitted his more personal games] and arguing that they HAD to have the correct ruling on it and no one else ever used anything else (as if, especially in AD&D 1e) or that others even interpreted it or saw it differently.
Thus, I AM NOT convinced, and as I don't see any arguments actually addressing my concerns or thoughts (show that 2e was more lethal WITHOUT what I would say is your misinterpretation of the ZHP rule), I'd say there's really no point in continuing the conversation.
Thanks for your time, but until someone actually comes up with a more convincing argument, I'm going to have to say that at this point we are probably going to have to agree to disagree.
My opinion being that 1e-3e can be more or less lethal, any of them could be more lethal than the other, it being more dependent on the DM and the way they run their game and interpret the rules.
Your opinion, from what I can tell, being that 2e is the most lethal D&D as per the rules (which we disagree on how they are even interpreted, much less how they are applied) than any other edition.
I like it.
