Explan DMG First Ed. to me!

[TheAuldGrump]

Which I have been using very successfully for the past several years with two different campaigns. The first was a Boot Hill/1E AD&D hybrid campaign (which we're starting our 8th module of tonight). Gary Gygax has read the ENWorld "Story Hour" of that campaign and has enjoyed it. I also have a second campaign that uses hybrid Boot Hill/3E D&D rules.

Please don't knock something until you've tried it.

Please don't assume that because I am knocking it I didn't try it.

Tried it. Didn't like it. Clear enough?

The Auld Grump

 

[Silver Moon]

Please don't assume that because I am knocking it I didn't try it.
Tried it. Didn't like it. Clear enough? The Auld Grump

Fair enough. We happen to love it, and we probably wouldn't have even attempted the concept if it hadn't been in the DMG to begin with.

 

[SWBaxter]

I find it simply amazing that anyone can prefer the flat, bland prose of 3e to the goofy vocabulary, oddball phrasing and weird grammar of Mr E. Gary Gygax.

Nowadays, I get a good laugh out of Gygax's writing - mostly with, sometimes at. When I was 11 years old and trying to figure this AD&D thing out in order to run games for my friends, I would've happily sold my soul for something 1/10th as well-written as the 3E DMG, because the 1E version isn't even close. So it all depends what you mean by "prefer"... I probably won't occasionally page through the 3E DMG 25 years from now, and I certainly will never run a game using the 1E DMG as a primary rulebook. Different criteria means different ranking.

 

[FireLance]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the thing I loved the most about the 1e DMG - the comics!

"Or the familiar gets it."

"This had better work."

"Papers and paychecks"

"+3 backscratcher"

I still get a chuckle when I think about them.

As for the issue of rules: in my view, more rules are good in the same way that more tools are good. More rules and tools means having a better chance of having the right thing for the job. However, more rules and tools means more complexity, and some people don't want to deal with that.

The more tools mindset thinks, I better have everything around so that I can deal with everything that can possibly happen.

The less tools mindset thinks, I don't need to clutter my life with things that will only be used rarely. If a situation arises that isn't covered by what I have, I'll jury rig something and get on with it.

I think it is true, though, that rules and tools can substitute for skill, and if you're not very good, you'd be better off using more tools than less.

 

[maddman75]

I've done a lot of arguing about editions on the net - served a lot of time at Dragonsfoot debating in the EW forum. I've come to a conclusion about 1e, and why some people love it and some hate it, and they talk about it as if it were two different games. Its because there were two different games.

The first, IMO, was the much larger group. They were average DMs - it was a lot harder to find good DMs in the old days. Not knocking old timers, but it just makes sense. I've been doing this for 15 years now. Back when AD&D came out, *no one* had put that much time into it. Even the creators, it was all too new. So they looked to the book. Book says you can't cast on horseback, you can't cast on horseback. Book says you die from some random effect, you die from some random effect. Now that bit in the afterword may come into play after a lot of arguing or if there were no rules for the situation, but that's about it. Most DMs would assume that Gary Gygax was smarter than them, he made up the game. So they went with what he said.

That is the 1e this group remembers. Good times yes, but rulebooks that were hard to understand and poorly organized. They remember being restricted by the arbitrary nature of some rules, they remember playing for months on end to finally get their fighter to 4th level, only to die because the mage cast haste on them. They remember a game that was mostly hack & slash, and you didn't get too attached to any paticular character.

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.

Then these two groups get on the internet and wonder why they can't see common ground.

 

[Ourph]

I've done a lot of arguing about editions on the net - served a lot of time at Dragonsfoot debating in the EW forum. I've come to a conclusion about 1e, and why some people love it and some hate it, and they talk about it as if it were two different games. Its because there were two different games.

The first, IMO, was the much larger group. They were average DMs - it was a lot harder to find good DMs in the old days. Not knocking old timers, but it just makes sense. I've been doing this for 15 years now. Back when AD&D came out, *no one* had put that much time into it. Even the creators, it was all too new. So they looked to the book. Book says you can't cast on horseback, you can't cast on horseback. Book says you die from some random effect, you die from some random effect. Now that bit in the afterword may come into play after a lot of arguing or if there were no rules for the situation, but that's about it. Most DMs would assume that Gary Gygax was smarter than them, he made up the game. So they went with what he said.

That is the 1e this group remembers. Good times yes, but rulebooks that were hard to understand and poorly organized. They remember being restricted by the arbitrary nature of some rules, they remember playing for months on end to finally get their fighter to 4th level, only to die because the mage cast haste on them. They remember a game that was mostly hack & slash, and you didn't get too attached to any paticular character.

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.

Then these two groups get on the internet and wonder why they can't see common ground.

Actually, I think you may have some of that backwards. For instance, I remember being restricted by the arbitrary nature of the rules, dying from haste and not getting particularly attached to any character because they could die from some random effect. But I also remember the DM being open to interpretation and running a fairly fast and furious rules-lite game where nobody really got bogged down in rules minutia on the players side. I like all of that.

I think you'll find that people who started off with OD&D or Holmes Basic (before the advent of 1e) are probably more likely to feel comfortable bending and molding the rules to their own preferences (and likely had a much easier time understanding and using the rules due to their former experience). It's unfortunate that so many people started their gaming career with the 1e books and came away believing they were confusing and restrictive. I think the single biggest criticism that can be laid at 1e's feet is that the books lacked context for the guidelines, practices and bits of wisdom that had been developed in the hobby when D&D was a much more free-form thing and in many ways assumed that young or inexperienced players would be tutored by someone who had been exposed to the game in those earlier stages and could pass on the context (something that really didn't happen that much IME). Obviously there were enough absolutes included in the books that many people came away thinking AD&D was a straight-jacket rather than a well-fitted coat (to use the obligatory 'tailor' analogy ).

 

[francisca]

I've done a lot of arguing about editions on the net - served a lot of time at Dragonsfoot debating in the EW forum. I've come to a conclusion about 1e, and why some people love it and some hate it, and they talk about it as if it were two different games. Its because there were two different games.

The first, IMO, was the much larger group. They were average DMs - it was a lot harder to find good DMs in the old days. Not knocking old timers, but it just makes sense. I've been doing this for 15 years now. Back when AD&D came out, *no one* had put that much time into it. Even the creators, it was all too new. So they looked to the book. Book says you can't cast on horseback, you can't cast on horseback. Book says you die from some random effect, you die from some random effect. Now that bit in the afterword may come into play after a lot of arguing or if there were no rules for the situation, but that's about it. Most DMs would assume that Gary Gygax was smarter than them, he made up the game. So they went with what he said.

That is the 1e this group remembers. Good times yes, but rulebooks that were hard to understand and poorly organized. They remember being restricted by the arbitrary nature of some rules, they remember playing for months on end to finally get their fighter to 4th level, only to die because the mage cast haste on them. They remember a game that was mostly hack & slash, and you didn't get too attached to any paticular character.

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.

Then these two groups get on the internet and wonder why they can't see common ground.

Best post EVAR.

I myself started in the first camp, then sorta had an epiphany one day. As a result, I'm a bit put off by the "rules for eveything" style of 3E, while at the same time can point out lots of cases where DM fiat can and do come into play. I'm also amazed when people talk up 3e for being able to do things like slap character classes on monsters. I did/do that all the time with 1e. I didn't need WotC to give me license to do so. The inevitable counter argument is that such rulings are ad-hoc and arbitrary in 1e, whereas in 3E they are balanced. Perhaps from the outside looking in they look ad-hoc, but as a DM, I always try to make those kind of rulings balanced and sensical in regards to the context of my game and the people sitting around my table, regardless of edition.

 

[maddman75]

I used to do it all the time too. But it didn't work as well as it does now. They are designed to have levels slapped on them, rather than just guessing at it like in AD&D. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the ability for the DM to just make stuff up is not a feature of a ruleset. It applies equally to all RPGs ever made.

 

[DarrenGMiller]

I am not sure what point you are trying to establish here. If it is simply that there are particular passages in the 1e DMG that are as dry as equivalent passages in the 3e DMG? I fail to see why that is an interesting fact, or something that bears on the overall character of the respective books.

While not relevant to any resolution of the discussion at hand, I did find it interesting.

DM

 

[francisca]

I used to do it all the time too. But it didn't work as well as it does now. They are designed to have levels slapped on them, rather than just guessing at it like in AD&D. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the ability for the DM to just make stuff up is not a feature of a ruleset. It applies equally to all RPGs ever made.

Well, I disagree a bit. I'm not convinced that the whole CR/ECL system is as good as it is billed to be. I'm not calling it utter crap, not by a long shot, but it's not as infallible as some would have you believe.

For me, the downside to the d20 way is the legwork involved, even after doing it for a while, building NPCs/beefing up monster with char levels is way more time consuming than slapping char levels on monsters in AD&D. It got much better with time, and even better when I stopped obsessing about every skill point. Again, the argument is that 3e is more balanced, but as I find the mechanism to be a bit suspect, I'm not sure it is really any better than what I do with 1e.

The upside to the d20 way is that it is less likely for a new DM to hose the players by guessing wrong when building NPCs, etc..., as long as you are within the CR system.

Maddman, your point concerning the DM skill is well made, and well taken. I'd argue that it isn't much easier to find a good DM today, IMO.