Explan DMG First Ed. to me!

[francisca]

The original poster wanted to know why he should buy the first DMG, and the best answer is found in those supplemental tables. Everything from Item saving throws to properties of gemstones, to dungeon dressing tables, to random dungeons to potion miscibility - so many things that you DON'T find outside of PDF supplements nowadays.

In reading the prose posted from each version of the DMG, I find myself agreeing with Wormwood. Obtuse yet delightful describes the 1E DMG to me -- it's more FUN to read than referential. To me, the 3E DMG reads no differently than the System Reference Document -- maybe it's the parts I'm paying attention to, maybe not -- but if 1E ever had an SRD, it would read TOTALLY differently from its original text.

That said, it does have a downside, as one poster mentioned: You can honestly lose your place in the 1E DMG trying to find the rule you WERE looking for, and pay more attention to the side diversions. I could go looking for a rule on using wolfsbane to cure lycanthropes, and instead spend 45 minutes by accident reading up on the rules for running lycanthropes as PCs!

Finally, maddman75's post really hit home to me; I and my friends were INDEED those average DMs back in the day who followed the rules literally as our 11- to 15-year old minds were wont to do, for the parts we COULD understand - it was 1988 and 2nd edition before I even used DICE for initiative and to-hits!

Scattered about the various edition war threads, you'll also find some really good quotes from the DMG pertaining to running the game and bending rules. There is lots of good advice, which flies in the face of alot of the "only use official AD&D minis" kind of quotes that people also bandy about. There is certainly more than cool random tables, though for the price of a used 1e DMG, they are worth it alone.

My suggestion to the original poster: buy it in PDF format from RPGnow.com. Why? Because the pdf is searchable, which works around many of the index/organizational issues that even die-hards like me acknowledge. If you find you really like it, drop the $10 or so on ebay for a copy.

 

[The Shaman]

While generally I love the 1E DMG, and find it just generally better in my POV, I have to admit that while I was enjoying reading Mr. Gygax's meandering prose I as often as not found that I had lost interest in finding the rule that I had been searching the text to find and hadn't yet.

Generous use of a highlighter helped me not to get lost reading when I was supposed to be looking for some specific piece of information - page tabs helped also.

Then again, those little highlighted passages could also be a distraction when I just wanted to sit back and enjoy the book's purple prose for awhile - one of the things I will always enjoy about the early books is that they read like pulp stories.

These posts made me sort of sad...

It's ok, if you've got a DM that's fair, isn't out to kill the party, and so on when the rules are being made up on the fly. That doesn't really bother me. But I don't like gaming with DMs that have a sadistic streak that like to pull all sort of nasty stuff with the PCs because he gets his kicks that way. Ok, granted 3e probably won't change the killer DMs, they'll just whine about how much 3e sucks and how much it strips DMs of their authority, and then go back to 1e or something and throw 1st level characters through the Tomb of Horrors or some such nonsense. I don't like the DM fiat when it amounts to nothing more than a power trip from someone with a lot of unresolved psycological issues.

As a DM, I like to have consistant rules, because if I make up a rule one time, forget it, and then make up something totally different the next time a similar situation comes up, likely at least one player will remember the earlier ruling and start complaining. And while I can squash complaints, it'll probably start an argument that will lessen the fun from the game, even if only a little while. I can't really blame the player too much either, since how's he to know that I simply forgot the earlier rule? I've been on both sides of the screen and I know it can seem unfair when the DM rules inconsistantly.

In all the years that I've gamed, I can only remember one GM with whom I refused to play. He was just bad - so very, very bad. We played for about an hour, I made an excuse to leave, and that was that.

IMHO, that is how you handle a bad GM - don't play with him or her.

Bad GMs exist regardless of the rules system - if a 3.x GM wants to hose the player characters, then it will happen: encounters that are too strong, invoking rule 0, whatever. This is not a problem that the rules can fix - standing up, thanking the host, and going home is the best way of letting a GM know that acting like a halfwit won't be tolerated.

I also feel uncomfortable bending or making up rules in 3.x. The rules are so codified that it just feels wrong. It is funny... I have a player who quotes rules at me and lets me know if I am doing something wrong (actually, more than one). He is the same player who resents me now for not allowing his Paladin of Heironeous to survive a combat with a Priest of Orcus even though the die rolls say he died, because "Heironeous is a stronger god. Orcus isn't even a real god." etc. He also corrects me if I overcharge the party for item purchases, but lets it by when I undersharge. Hmmm... DM fiat when it benefits your character, strict adhgerence to the rules when it benefits your character.

A player like that gets a friendly warning, then a rebuke, then shown the door. It's one thing to discuss a ruling - I'm absolutely open to that. It's another thing to snipe and carp incessantly. If or when that player is behind the screen, then the call is his or hers to make - until then, I wear the daddy pants at the table. If I screw up or if I'm inconsistent on a ruling, let me know, I'll adjust as necessary - on the other hand, there are often facts not in evidence, stuff the players do not know, and if I reject a request to adjust a ruling, that could well be why.

I still believe, especially after reading this thread and the "first edition feel" thread, that one of the legacies of 1e gaming is the ability to GM on the fly with comfort and confidence. Regardless of version, there is an element of trust that must exist between gamers in order for the game to work. If your GM or players aren't trustworthy, then what are you doing spending your precious leisure time with them? Life's too short for that nonsense.

 

[Belen]

"To try to explain some of the things I'm attempting to do with Arcana Unearthed (and the books that follow it), I'll occasionally have to back up a bit and explain some things that we did with the core rules. One thing, for example, that we tried to do was to "take the DM out of the equation" as much as possible. Now this has caused its own share of problems, but the reason we did it was to make the game as easy as we could for new players. If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying. So with Arcana Unearthed, I've intentionally backed away from that approach a bit. The champion of freedom, to use him as an example again, might get a bonus on attack rolls, saves, and checks in all situations pertaining to freeing captives or struggling against an oppressor. Although the book does provides guidance on how to judge such situations, it's ultimately up to the DM to decide when the champion gets the bonus."

One may or may not agree with him that the DMing making judgement calls makes the game "more difficult to learn". A possible counter-argument would be "so does making the DM remember rules for every situation". I think therein lies the root of the 1st vs. 3rd preference-schism.

That, and the tendency of 1st Ed DMG to turn into Schott's Miscellany.

I love Monte, but that philosophy when designing the core rules is a crock of smelly stuff.

I would say that learning the game is far, far easier when the player's are responsible for knowing a limited number of rules. As long as they can keep track of their character and associated abilities, then a player is golden. Heck, that is all a player needs to know! And it is much simpler to learn the game if only a small amount of knowledge is required.

The 3e philosophy creates and atmosphere where players are EXPECTED know far many more rules than in any previous edition. Not only do they have a huge range of options for their characters, but the combat rules are complicated as well. That does not even count the number of splat books that introduce addition rules for the players. Those rules sometimes even break the core rules!

The last thing I want in a game is to be in the middle of something and suddenly hear a player spout a rule or have to get into an rules argument.

A philosophy that "takes the GM out of the equation" is made for creating an argumentative atmosphere between GM and players. Having a rules for everything means that you have some players who will sit there and LOOK for a rule to either thwart the GM or have it their way. In 3e, rule 0 is a running joke.

Heck, I had never encountered a rules lawyer until 3e. 3e made some of my old players into lawyers. It even had them fighting over various interpretations of the rules.

Now, I am not saying that older editions were better. I agree that a more codified system helped improve the game, but there is such a thing as going too far and I think a happy medium can be reached. 3e is still a good system and I enjoy playing it.

Yet it took forming a group of newbies to enjoy GMing it.

 

[RFisher]

Let me share with you my favorite paragraph from the DMG:

As has been often pointed out, ADBD is a game wherein participants create personae and operate them in the milieu created and designed, in whole or in part, by the Dungeon Master and shared by all, including the DM, in imagination and enthusiasm. The central theme of this game is the interaction of these personae, whether those of the players or those of the DM, with the milieu, including that part represented by the characters and creatures personified by the DM. This interaction results in adventures and deeds of daring. The heroic fantasy which results is a blend of the dramatic and the comic, the foolish and the brave, stirring excitement and grinding boredom. It is a game in which the continuing epic is the most meaningful portion. It becomes an entity in which at least some of the characters seem to be able to survive for an indefinite time, and characters who have shorter spans of existence are linked one to the other by blood or purpose. These personae put up with the frustrations, the setbacks, and the tragedies because they aim for and can reasonably expect to achieve adventure, challenge, wealth, glory and more. If player characters are not of the same stamp as Conan, they also appreciate that they are in effect writing their own adventures and creating their own legends, not merely reliving thoseof someone else's creation.

Where does this appear? Towards the front? In an intro perhaps? Nope. p. 80, second ¶ under the heading "Saving Throws".

I love the book. Dismiss it as nostalgia if you wish. I do recognize some flaws. e.g. I think in many ways it fails to communicate the game that Gary actually played.

As for the style, it is what it is. I take it for what it is & enjoy it. But then, I enjoy Jack Vance's fiction & George Lucas' dialogue.

 

[Silver Moon]

Then there's the second group whose DM didn't let the rules restrain them. They did what made sense and was fair, and didn't kill off characters because of some random event from the book. They had an open to interpretation, rules-light system and can't imagine anything better.

That's me to a tee! I've been DMing for over two decades and as one player put it "am unencumbered by rules" - BUT I bend over backwards to play fair and always give the players the benefit of the doubt, my main emphasis being fun.

I've been DMing a campaign since last summer using 3x rules which almost came to a grinding halt in December when "Rules Lawyering" came into play. First time that's ever happened to me, and things were tense for several weeks thereafter. Since then the players have gotten more used to my style and we've had fewer problems.

 

[maddman75]

That's me to a tee! I've been DMing for over two decades and as one player put it "am unencumbered by rules" - BUT I bend over backwards to play fair and always give the players the benefit of the doubt, my main emphasis being fun.

I've been DMing a campaign since last summer using 3x rules which almost came to a grinding halt in December when "Rules Lawyering" came into play. First time that's ever happened to me, and things were tense for several weeks thereafter. Since then the players have gotten more used to my style and we've had fewer problems.

Heh, I remember a post of RPGnet of a downright Gygaxian way of dealing with Rules Lawyers. The DM said that only his books were the One True Books. Whenever the rules lawyer got into a big debate over a paticular rule, the DM would take the Pencil Of Doom and draw a line through the rule in question. It no longer exists. If the player backed off from his rule-lawyery ways, then eventually the rule may come back through the Eraser of Life.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Page 68 the cartoon drawing of adventurer pounding on a door as water is filling the room about to be attack by a skeleton who is up to it neck in water. Nice mood setter.

I assume that I am not the only one who noticed that this picture was "redone" for the 3.0 DMG? Not the only thing, either. Even the dungeon example was an update using the exact layout from the original DMG, with the example of play updated only in terms of new rules.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To quote: "It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, you are creator and final arbiter."
(DMG, p. 230.)


Excellent advice, IMO. Pity so many players these days fail to take it to heart (despite the 'rule 0').

Because "Rule 0", as useful as it is, lacks the clear direction of the 1st Ed DMG quote. It is the same by denotation, but worlds apart by connotation.


RC

 

[Benben]

I have to believe that if this art were to show up in a d20 product today, most would review said product as having bad art.

Yes I can believe both old and new grumps would describe it as too cartoony.

As an aside I gave a mighty inner cheer when I read the description for the warlock's eldritch blast in Complete Arcane, because I could finally design, hopefully play Emerikol the Chaotic. Sure I could have used an arcane caster in any of the previous editions, but the warlock from Complete Arcane seems like the perfect fit for Emerikol.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As an aside I gave a mighty inner cheer when I read the description for the warlock's eldritch blast in Complete Arcane, because I could finally design, hopefully play Emerikol the Chaotic. Sure I could have used an arcane caster in any of the previous editions, but the warlock from Complete Arcane seems like the perfect fit for Emerikol.

Heh, I statted him out for fun this weekend as a level 6 CN sorcerer with mounted combat, mounted casting, weapon focus (ray), point blank shot and every ray spell from 0-3. I'm thinking he'd actually be a fun NPC for my next campaign, as a sort of anarchist in a world without modern political systems. (I mean, why call someone "the Chaotic" unless that's a defining characteristic?)