Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="der_kluge" data-source="post: 1894481" data-attributes="member: 945">EN has a valid point.  I don't have a 1E DMG laying around to reference, and even if I did, I probably wouldn't use it, because anything that I *might* be inclined to reference out of it, I could probably find in any number of 3rd party sources nowadays.  Does that stuff belong in a DMG?  Not for me to answer. I think the intent of the core books was to isolate fluff from crunch and provide (just the facts) with regards to the rules.  I'm also displeased that there is as much fluff as there is regarding races and gods, and things of that nature, since most DMs are just as likely to change that stuff as anything else.  So, in a way, my opinion is, "Who are *you* to tell me that all elves are good with bows, because in my campaign...".  I'd almost wished they just left that stuff out, and then put all that flavor into a Greyhawk, or FR setting book.  But, that's getting more in line with a GURPS style kind of rule book though, and that's not WoTC's mentality, be it for good or bad.I certainly haven't felt any reason to reference my 2nd edition core books for anything.  There are some very generic 2nd edition books that I still use - Aurora's Whole Realms comes to mind, for example.  Book of artifacts is still very useful, and so it Legends and Lore.  Those are great books which are mostly independent of the rules.  I think the reason so many people like the 1e DMG is that it was a grab bag for so much *stuff* which today would likely find a home in more specific, targeted sources nowadays.</blockquote>

Verification