Explan DMG First Ed. to me!

[Quasqueton]

Nah. For every good GM there are a handful of poor GMs. However, both the 1st and 2nd Ed DMGs really did try to offer materials to "train" DMs. I find this somewhat lacking in 3.X. While some of us may not need it any longer, I for one enjoy reading DMing advice.

It's comments like this that make me wonder if you have actually read the D&D3 DMG. The whole book is chock *full* of direct DM advice and explanations to "train" DMs.

I find the AD&D1 DMG full of *information* (which is why *I* love the book); the D&D3 DMG is full of explanation (which is why I love the book).

Quasqueton

 

[Wormwood]

After a couple of days (and beers), I willing to admit that much of my love for the 1e DMG is due to nostalgia.

Give me 20 years. Maybe the 3.5e DMG will grow on me (but since it only took me 2 years to sell my 3e DMG, I wouldn't hold my breath)

 

[Felon]

I dunno, I don't think that the books WotC puts out today are the sort of things one can get nostalgic about. Too polished. Too efficient.

You can't get nostalgic for the smell of a book that never had a smell.

 

[woodelf]

I can pick up the 1eDMG, open to a random page, and just read for pleasure. The writing is dense, purple, idiosyncratic, and delightful.

The 3e DMG, on the other hand, is clear, concise, and as boring as stereo instructions.

Really?

COMPARE

At the onset of each and every character's creation it is necessary that you establish his or her age.

You can choose or randomly generate your characters's age.

I missed your point--in response to a claim that one is flavorful, if idiosyncratic, and the other is dry and to-the-point, you post a passage from the first that is idiosyncratic, though perhaps not terribly flavorful, and a passage from the second that is dry and to-the-point. I just kept the first sentence of each, because i think that makes the point concisely--they say the same thing, but one is an instruction, the other is a bit of descriptive introduction.

 

[woodelf]

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.

Even "well-written" is partly a matter of taste or preference. I figured out AD&D1 simply by reading the AD&D1 PH and DMG--i'd played exactly one session of Basic D&D before that, and was completely clueless (as is normal, IME, for one's first RPG session). And had no problem doing so. I was 10 (or maybe 9) and that was essentially my first RPG (except for that single session). And i had almost zero exposure to game rules of any sort prior to RPGs--i just didn't grow up playing many games (and none more complicated than Sorry)--I had Legos.

Now I've got 20 years of RPG experience under my belt, playing and running dozens of systems, and even writing a few. We were playing D&D3E for *months* before we figured out the combat rules--and, honestly, i'm not sure i ever would've figured out all the details correctly relying on only the PH/DMG. It was the D20SRD (which i think is well-written) which finally made them clear, and even pointed out a couple things we thought we'd figured out but had wrong. D&D3.5E is better, but still pretty unclearly written in at least that area. And it's not just me--plenty of RPers i've talked to, both those with tons of experience, and those with no preconceptions, found D&D3E very difficult to figure out from the rulebooks. Heck, even the almost-exactly-the-same rules, rewritten in Arcana Unearthed, are easier to understand.

 

[Telas]

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.

To extend a point made earlier: Good players are harder to find in 3.x than they were in 1.0. They're all powergamers and rules-lawyers. I have to say "because I said so" more in one session in 3.x than I had to do in a month of 1.0.

Telas

 

[Particle_Man]

I agree that a Warlock is a good build for Emirkol the Chaotic.

Anyhow, I have played all edition of AD&D. I got the 2nd ed. AD&D DMG and now would give it away to a friend that wanted to run 2nd ed, if there existed such that needed a dmg. I got rid of my 3rd ed DMG when 3.5 came out, and got the 3.5 DMG. When 4.0 comes out, I will similarly "upgrade". I would have no qualms about doing so.

I would never even consider getting rid of my 1st ed. DMG or PHB. I like the 1st ed. art (the Paladin in Hell in the phb, for example). I like the 1st ed. writing. Heck, I like some of the 1st ed. design features (for instance, that illusionists had spells that no one else had, and thus were different from magic-users). Those books are keepers, even as I play various versions of D&D (heck, I might be playing 12th edition decades from now).

 

[Psychic Warrior]

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...

Oh please. Are you trying to witty and worldly? To each their own indeed.

 

[Henry]

Ladies and Gentlemen, one warning, because my patience with poster-bashing is ending: No more insults on one another, please.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's comments like this that make me wonder if you have actually read the D&D3 DMG. The whole book is chock *full* of direct DM advice and explanations to "train" DMs.

I find the AD&D1 DMG full of *information* (which is why *I* love the book); the D&D3 DMG is full of explanation (which is why I love the book).

Quasqueton

Perhaps we are looking for different types of information re: DM advice.


RC