Let's talk about the AD&D 1e Dungeon Master's Guide

[Maliki]

Iv.e always found he first edition Dungeon Masters Guide to be one of the most used books in my collection. I used it when I DM'd 2nd edition and I used it when when I ran 3rd edition campaigns. I liked the feel of the book, it was enjoyable reading, while the 3rd edition books are better organized and contain a lot of useful information to me they are too text book like to be a fun read.

 

[Numion]

Really, it is laughable that people think that a "single" experience table is such a huge improvement for 3.x.

Different experience charts were a minor but unnecessary complication in 1e. The purpose of abilities gained at each level combined with experience charts is to ensure that each class gets the same reward per experience point. This can be altered by changing either the experience chart for each class, or the abilities gained by the class each level. 3e realized that you don't need both to ensure balance. Just give each class the same amount of increase in power per level and use the same experience table.

The advantage is that 10th level means 10th level .. for every class. Makes standardization of adventures much easier, but I guess the word 'standard' to be poison to the free spirits railing against 3e

 

[Belen]

I loved the 1e DMG. It taught me everything I needed to know in order to be a DM. Heck, I may even go back an re-read it now.

I have been running 3e since 2000. The 3.X DMG just lacks the ability to train new GMs. It is a great toolkit, yet that is all it will ever be. It lacks the cohesion, advice, and gumption of the 1e version.

The culture of 3e says that the "game serves the rules." This is inherit in just about everything that Wizards produces, and the DMG is not strong enough to teach beginners that the "rules should serve the game." (Reproduced with permission of Psion. )

Do not get me wrong, I enjoy 3e. It is a great game to play. Yet it sucks to run unless you have a handy computer and a program like E-tools or HeroForge to help make stating NPCs easier. The rules are so intensive for a GM, that excessive work is required to challenge players, who are very proficient in crafting effective characters. A simple NPC build gets wiped every time! This leads to less time preparing for other areas of the game....like plot etc.

To put it in better terms, I GM'd 2e for 3 years and never burned out once. I GM'd 3e for 4 years and burned out 3 times.

Yet I still GM 3e. I just love DnD too much to quit, even if 3e is not really DnD. However, for the very first time, I am considering trying a new system. This will probably be Castles and Crusades for a more DnD-like game, while I will go with Blue Rose for the ladies.

Just my thoughts. I know a lot of people truly enjoy 3e. It fits the current generation of computer gamers and allows a lot of customization and cool abilities. I just think it lacks the soul and character it once had.

 

[Belen]

Different experience charts were a minor but unnecessary complication in 1e. The purpose of abilities gained at each level combined with experience charts is to ensure that each class gets the same reward per experience point. This can be altered by changing either the experience chart for each class, or the abilities gained by the class each level. 3e realized that you don't need both to ensure balance. Just give each class the same amount of increase in power per level and use the same experience table.

The advantage is that 10th level means 10th level .. for every class. Makes standardization of adventures much easier, but I guess the word 'standard' to be poison to the free spirits railing against 3e

Standardization is fine. They suffered a major failure with the spell casters though. Magic does not scale well with the non-magic classes, so no balance exists at high levels.

They also continually break their own rules by adding to the system, such as the divine feats.

Conditional feats are truly broken in the sense that they break the game and slow the pace to a crawl. For example, the feat "Dodge." It requires a inordinate amount of work for such a simple feat. The player has to remember who to apply it too, the GM has to remember which mook it applies too and it usually just gets lost in the shuffle. That is just ONE feat to track.

Spells that add temporary modifiers also affect the game. Suddenly everyone has to remember that they get that +1 to hit etc.

Also, advanced combat can also be a mess. Grapple, bull rush etc. They all use a slightly different mechanic. I have yet to be in a group that does not spend time looking at the advanced options just about every time they are used. It does not help that AoOs are involved, unless you have the right conditional feat. It really defeats the purpose here.

In theory, these things are fine, but that theory relies on every player being a master of the game who makes an extreme effort to keep track of all the optional mods etc.

In practice, it is a nightmare. It slows down combat and drains the essence out of the game.

So yes, the underlying d20 system is simple, but the current game is terribly complex.

 

[Akrasia]

.... So yes, the underlying d20 system is simple, but the current game is terribly complex.

I am amazed at the gap between "theory" and "practice" in d20. When I first read through the 3E books 4 years ago, I thought the "unified mechanic" solved so many problems. Two campaigns (as DM) later, it has proven to be the slowest FRPG I have ever played -- and has certainly involved more rules consultation than any other. (That problem, of course, gradually diminished over time, although it has always been a bit of a race between greater familiarity with the rules, and greater options available to PCs and NPCs at higher levels).

 

[XO]

"More Rules Consultations"

The problem for 3E & 3.5 is since the DMG is less than appetizing fare, and not very conducive to a sit down (no entertainment value whatsoever, and oh so little flair) that the DM is then stuck "reading" or making hsi first approach at the gaming table.

In some ways, the SRD is friendlier (probably because it doesn't purport to be of great interest, being a catalog of rules), and that is saying a lot !

 

[irdeggman]

You can either have 1000+ pages of material that tells the story for you or you can have 320+ pages that supply you with the information necessary to create your own story.

People complained a lot about the price of the 3.5 books when they came out - imagine if to get the same rules information you had to pay for the "imagery" of 1st ed with all of the rules info included.

No as far as I'm concerned there is a huge difference in how the products are presented. 1st ed told the story for you (1 setting one story) while 3.5 tells you how to tell a story.

IMO that is the single point that causes people to want to reject 3/3.5. The fact that is is written and presented as an outline for the DM to craft a setting, a scene, a story with.

3/3.5 is designed to be viewed as a movie with scenes and epic styled finales. 1st ed was totally modular and lent itself to playing as a series of disjointed adventures. IMO people have a hard time breaking their old sterotypes of how D&D should be played and that causes the issues.

Here is an example of how 3.5 is much better than earlier versions. How is holy water prepared? In 2nd ed there was an almost uncountable amount of different descriptions that people came up with for how to do it since it wasn't laid out in the text. The same argument for how clerics made magic items could be made.

pg 205 (PHB) Bless Water spell – Cl 1, Pal 1 and that is how holy water is made. The spell description contains the process and all the infor a player or DM needs to know. The process for creating magic items laid out in the PHB and DMG (3.5) is pretty specific for how to make items and contains "guidelines" for how to make new types of items. It is the same for all spellcasters. In 1st and 2nd ed there was no process for how anyone except for magic users could make items and that was at best sketchy.

 

[Storm Raven]

what do you think i have to say about the price of books now. considering i don't think they are even worth what the 1edADnD DMG revised (1979) is worth.

That, after accounting for inflation, they cost less than the 1e DMG cost you in 1979.

 

[Storm Raven]

Conditional feats are truly broken in the sense that they break the game and slow the pace to a crawl. For example, the feat "Dodge." It requires a inordinate amount of work for such a simple feat. The player has to remember who to apply it too, the GM has to remember which mook it applies too and it usually just gets lost in the shuffle. That is just ONE feat to track.

Dodge is sort of unique in this regard though. It has an easy fix too: just modify the Dodge feat to provide a general +1 Dodge bonus to AC. You don't have to remember to specify the feat any more.

Spells that add temporary modifiers also affect the game. Suddenly everyone has to remember that they get that +1 to hit etc.

And this was different in previous editions? Things like Bless, and Prayer aren't new. When I DM I usually put the onus on the players to remember their bonuses. If they forget, that's their problem.

Also, advanced combat can also be a mess. Grapple, bull rush etc. They all use a slightly different mechanic. I have yet to be in a group that does not spend time looking at the advanced options just about every time they are used. It does not help that AoOs are involved, unless you have the right conditional feat. It really defeats the purpose here.

They all use essentially the same mechanic, and it only takes about two combats to get a firm grip on the minor differences. Do you complain that different spells have different mechanics?

In theory, these things are fine, but that theory relies on every player being a master of the game who makes an extreme effort to keep track of all the optional mods etc.

And if they don't, then its to their own detriment, not mine. I find that the game has been, and remains, the easiest to use version of D&D produced.

 

[mmadsen]

i paid $12 for mine back in 1979. i thought it was too expensive back then. i complained about the price then.

what do you think i have to say about the price of books now. considering i don't think they are even worth what the 1edADnD DMG revised (1979) is worth.

Using an inflation calculator would quickly tell you that what cost $12 in 1979 would cost $32.34 in 2003.