Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8792689" data-attributes="member: 2209">I went almost the entire 3e era, DMing a lot, with just the 3.0 PH and SRD as core rules that I owned and read.The SRD had all the 3e and 3.5 core rules I was interested in and I was not in the market for DMing advice.I had also gone the entire 2e era with just the 2e PH and using my 1e DMG and monster manuals. I remember copying over xp award tables and level limits from a friend's 2e DMG and not feeling a need for the other parts.When I started in 1981 I did read all of the Moldvay Basic Set's 32 pages, and I read a lot of the 1e DMG. I can't say for certain whether that was cover to cover for the DMG in the 80s, but I re-read it cover to cover a few years ago.I also read the 4e and 5e DMGs cover to cover.Moldvay was great for learning D&amp;D. The 1e DMG was more than a bit of a challenge with scattered information, lots of digressions, some contradictions in advice and rules, and sometimes complicated arcane rules. Lots of atmosphere though.4e was very readable and I remember liking it. 5e has a few gaps, some odd choices of emphasis, and fairly poor organization, I often find it difficult to find what I am looking for when I go searching through it. I am glad I read it cover to cover, it has some interesting takes and options and advice, it supports the 5e make it your own ethos fairly well, but I think the 5e version in particular could be organized better for usefulness as a DM tool.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Voadam, post: 8792689, member: 2209"] I went almost the entire 3e era, DMing a lot, with just the 3.0 PH and SRD as core rules that I owned and read. The SRD had all the 3e and 3.5 core rules I was interested in and I was not in the market for DMing advice. I had also gone the entire 2e era with just the 2e PH and using my 1e DMG and monster manuals. I remember copying over xp award tables and level limits from a friend's 2e DMG and not feeling a need for the other parts. When I started in 1981 I did read all of the Moldvay Basic Set's 32 pages, and I read a lot of the 1e DMG. I can't say for certain whether that was cover to cover for the DMG in the 80s, but I re-read it cover to cover a few years ago. I also read the 4e and 5e DMGs cover to cover. Moldvay was great for learning D&D. The 1e DMG was more than a bit of a challenge with scattered information, lots of digressions, some contradictions in advice and rules, and sometimes complicated arcane rules. Lots of atmosphere though. 4e was very readable and I remember liking it. 5e has a few gaps, some odd choices of emphasis, and fairly poor organization, I often find it difficult to find what I am looking for when I go searching through it. I am glad I read it cover to cover, it has some interesting takes and options and advice, it supports the 5e make it your own ethos fairly well, but I think the 5e version in particular could be organized better for usefulness as a DM tool. [/QUOTE]

Verification