Explan DMG First Ed. to me!

[Akrasia]

...
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

Good grief!

Why do you insist on assuming the worst about people who disagree with you?

Why do you feel the need to accuse them of being 'disingenuous', holding a 'double standard', etc? :\

Why is it so hard for you to fathom the possibility that people might disagree with you for honest reasons? That they might prefer the style and flavour of the 1e DMG for sincere reasons having to do with the writing style found in that book, as well as its various contents?

Anyway, I again refer anyone interested in making a comparison not to look at a passage on determining characters' ages (which is bound to be dull in any case), but rather, say, the respective sections on artifacts and relics.

 

[Quasqueton]

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...

Let me rephrase this from another point of view...

It is sad that so many people these days feel it is somehow a bad thing to have a rule for everything, and think it is appropriate to refer to "DM fiat" as "common sense". Oh well, to each their own...

Quasqueton

 

[Turjan]

There's really no need to argue about how evocative and colourful the 3E DMG compared to the 1E DMG is or vice versa . It's a matter of taste, as simple as that, and 'de gustibus non est disputandum' .

That said, I get really curious how the 1E DMG is written. As I was not playing D&D during those days, I never had the opportunity to look into it. As far as what I know about the rules goes, I prefer D&D 3E. However, I experienced myself that parts of the 3E DMG are suited to treat my sleep problems - works faster than counting sheep; so I'd like to see whether the 1E DMG is less potent in this regard .

 

[SWBaxter]

In short, both 1e and 3e equally allow for 'DM fiat'.

I'm well aware of that. That's why I noted that there was no useful distinction between the terms "common sense" and "DM fiat" in the example provided. You might want to address your newly discovered understanding to the poster who took issue at the substitution of one term for the other - and on review of the thread, I think you'll discover that poster is you.

 

[Akrasia]

I'm well aware of that. That's why I noted that there was no useful distinction between the terms "common sense" and "DM fiat" in the example provided. You might want to address your newly discovered understanding to the poster who took issue at the substitution of one term for the other - and on review of the thread, I think you'll discover that poster is you.

Nice attempt at being cute. Keep at it!

My point was clearly that if one can accuse one edition of allowing 'DM fiat', then one could equally accuse the other edition of also allowing 'DM fiat'.

I think that the term 'DM fiat' is silly in either case.

 

[Akrasia]

... It is sad that so many people these days feel it is somehow a bad thing to have a rule for everything, and think it is appropriate to refer to "DM fiat" as "common sense". Oh well, to each their own...

Why is it sad that some of us have good DMs?

 

[Quasqueton]

That they might prefer the style and flavour of the 1e DMG for sincere reasons having to do with the writing style found in that book, as well as its various contents?

For the record, I greatly enjoy reading the 1e DMG. I actually have it on the bookshelf beside my bed, on the same shelf as my D&D3 books.

My problem with what you and others here are saying, is that you can't say something good about the 1e DMG without insulting (unfairly) the D&D3 material. You can't say, "I like the style, mood, and vocabulary of the AD&D1 DMG," without adding a slap at D&D3, "because the D&D3 DMG is dull, dry, and like reading stereo instructions."

And from what I've read, of both works, there is dull and dry material in both, usually in reference to the same rules or information. And there is evocative and colorful material in both, usually in reference to the same fluff.

And when I get time, probably not till late tonight, I'll quote here the material from the artifacts/relics sections that you say is so illustrative of the difference.

Quasqueton

 

[SWBaxter]

My point was clearly that if one can accuse one edition of allowing 'DM fiat', then one could equally accuse the other edition of also allowing 'DM fiat'.

That may be what the voices in your head were saying, but what you actually posted was "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'." Now, as I have shown and you have agreed, it is indeed appropriate to refer to what you were calling 'common sense' as 'DM fiat'. Presumably your sadness is at least partially lifted, so that's nice. Also presumably, you will respond with some snarky off-topic remark that you think is clever, and that's OK too - if you can't be right, you might as well at least get the last word in. Have a good day.

 

[Quasqueton]

Why is it sad that some of us have good DMs?

I didn't say it was, and it's not. Just like there's nothing sad about having a pretty girlfriend/wife. And just like that, it has no relevance to this discussion.

Quasqueton

 

[der_kluge]

Ah, Emirikol the Chaotic

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.