Explan DMG First Ed. to me!

[Akrasia]

It is disingenuous to say the writing of AD&D1 is evocative and D&D3 is dry. Where D&D3 is dry stereo instructions, I find AD&D1 very similar. I find plenty of evocative prose in D&D3 material, just as I can find it in AD&D1.

Quasqueton

Why is it 'disingenuous' to say that the writing of the 1e DMG is evocative and the writing of the 3e DMG is not?

People who express that view are not trying to 'deceive' or 'mislead' anyone. For whatever reason, you happen to disagree with them. No need to accuse them of being 'disingenuous' (especially since the opinion also happens to be held by many people who in fact prefer the rules of 3e over those of 1e).

 

[The Shaman]

Comments like this one reflect a basic misunderstanding of the whole spirit of 1e and its DMG.

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').

Emirikol can zap people from horseback because it makes sense for him to do so. That is the 1e rule for casting spells from horseback.

Very well said - and for those of you looking for "1e feel," that's part of it, IMHO.

And now we have actual rules as to how it can be done rather than relying on DM fiat.

If you trust your GM, GM fiat is no big deal.

If not, why the heck are you gaming with her/him anyway?

Believe it or not, we used to play 1e AD&D for hours and hours on end without a single rules argument this way...

 

[Wormwood]

Why is it 'disingenuous' to say that the writing of the 1e DMG is evocative and the writing of the 3e DMG is not?

People who express that view are not trying to 'deceive' or 'mislead' anyone. For whatever reason, you happen to disagree with them. No need to accuse them of being 'disingenuous' (especially since the opinion also happens to be held by many people who in fact prefer the rules of 3e over those of 1e).

Honestly, I was tempted to go through my 1e DMG and quote evocative passages, thenpost a comparison to dry bits of the 3.5 DMG . . . for like a minute.

Then it dawned on me what an internet kind of thing that would be to do.

I watched Spongebob instead.

edit: of course, in a couple of hours when I can buy beer, I may review my decision.

 

[Quasqueton]

Then it dawned on me what an internet kind of thing that would be to do.

No, the Internet kind of thing is to make blanket statements without giving evidence or example, and then dismiss those who state otherwise with examples.

Quasqueton

 

[SWBaxter]

It is sad that so many people these days feel the need to have rules for everything, and think it is appropriate to refer to 'common sense' as 'DM fiat'. Oh well, to each their own...

It seems to me that DM who had ruled that an illusionist couldn't cast spells from the back of a galloping horse could equally appeal to "common sense". And yet - since different DMs could easily make different rulings - that also means the decision could be appropriately referred to as "DM fiat".

 

[Akrasia]

It seems to me that DM who had ruled that an illusionist couldn't cast spells from the back of a galloping horse could equally appeal to "common sense". And yet - since different DMs could easily make different rulings - that also means the decision could be appropriately referred to as "DM fiat".

Or it could simply mean that they are running two different kinds of campaigns, and what makes sense in one does not make sense in the other.

The same holds for 3e: if you are running a campaign in which it makes sense for a rule to be changed (regarding casting from horseback, or whatever), the DM has the right to change it (remember: rule 0!).

In short, if one feels the need to use the term 'DM fiat', then both 1e and 3e equally allow for 'DM fiat'.

[Edited for clarity.]

 

[Akrasia]

No, the Internet kind of thing is to make blanket statements without giving evidence or example, and then dismiss those who state otherwise with examples.

Quasqueton

... and also to accuse people who disagree with you of being 'disingenius'? :\

Anyway, Wormwood's point, as I understood it, was that it would have been a pointless task to go through the 1e DMG, quote a number of passages that were evocative and colourful, and then quote a number of 3e DMG passages that were dry and dull. Yes it could be done, but it would be pointless.

Just as picking out specific passages from both books that appear to be equally dry and technical is a pointless task. Selective quoting is not going to settle this debate. (A debate that, in any case, largely comes down to taste.)

I am certainly not going to bother quoting extensive passages from both books. Instead, I'll just advise people to read the respective sections on artifacts and relics and make up their own minds.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I had some problems with the 1e DMG.

Random tables for things that didn't need to be randomized. DUngeons, random gemstones with no connection to either wealth of the owner nor the adventure level.

Rules for using Boot Hill in AD&D.

And Gary Gygax telling everybody to only use [official[/i] AD&D Miniatures, that all others were inappropriate. Never mind that the "official" figures of the time looked worse than most of their competition. (At the time they were made by MiniFigs.) This is the one thing that annoyed me above all others. D&D has often had problems in regards to miniatures... While I neither play nor purchase D&D Miniatures it seems like they have found something that reaches a wide audience this time. I really liked some of the Ral Partha D&D miniatures line, but thought that others (the blister pack adventurers) were as exciting as department store dummies.

Flip side, there were cool things too, sometimes even the random tables I complained about above. I used the random tables, but never to randomize anything. (Hmmm, I need a cheap gem... *Rustle, Rustle* A how about a spiricule?) The random dungeon on the other hand could go hang.

Really nifty cover. (I liked the covers for both the PHP and the DMG, but not the Monster Manual. I would love to see an edition of 3e using the 1e covers!)

Parts actually used regularly? Experience table, wandering monsters, magic items, you know, the same stuff that is used regulary in 3e...

Coolest part shared between the two? The combat and dungeoneering example is the same on in both books! What a cool in joke.

Summary: I liked both books about equally, they are both very definitely the DMG.

For those who loved the random tables in 1e, you may want to find Gary Gygax's World Builder, which is full of such things. Not my cuppa, but others really like it.

The Auld Grump

 

[Quasqueton]

Anyway, Wormwood's point, as I understood it, was that it would have been a pointless task to go through the 1e DMG, quote a number of passages that were evocative and colourful, and then quote a number of 3e DMG passages that were dry and dull. Yes it could be done, but it would be pointless.

Just as picking out specific passages from both books that appear to be equally dry and technical is a pointless task. Selective quoting is not going to settle this debate. (A debate that, in any case, largely comes down to taste.)

Yes, I agree it would be pointless to quote the best passages from the 1e DMG and then quote the worst passages from the 3e DMG. But that seems all that anyone remembers when making the comparison. I, however, picked a random passage in the 1e DMG and then looked up the match in 3e (no, I did not search and choose a pair of passages to fit my opinion).

I note in your above post that you seem to dismiss the concept that 3e might have any evocative and colorful material equal to 1e. Double standard, turning a blind eye, wearing rose-colored glasses, and all that.

Quasqueton

 

[harmyn]

It is sad that so many people these days feel the need to have rules for everything, and think it is appropriate to refer to 'common sense' as 'DM fiat'. Oh well, to each their own...

Normally I don't do this kind of comment on a thread but in my experience it should definitely be done and that is the following comment for Akrasia's thoughts ----

DITTO THAT!@!!@!

Just had to agree out loud with this.