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

[kenobi65]

the charts and tables in the back of the book rock. especially the nice, obscure ones.

3 words:

Potion Miscibility Table.

There's nothing like the off chance of blowing a PC to smithereens because he drank two potions in rapid succession.

But, seriously...

Beyond Gygax's dense, unique prose, the one thing that struck me then (and still does, now) about the 1E DMG is the philosophy that the DM must rigidly control the information that the players have (and, in most cases, keep them in the dark as much as possible).

Personally, I've got enough issues running a game, beyond keeping track of the abilities of every durn magic item, which the players aren't supposed to be able to find out particularly easily. IME, players will just waste time trying to learn these things, anyway ("I swing my +1 sword, then I swing this new one. Is it easier to swing, or not?"). It wasn't worth it to me to hoard that sort of info back in 1982 (when I started DMing), and it still isn't today.

Another example of this, of which the last poster just reminded me -- the to-hit and saving throw tables were only in the DMG, thus making them, in philosophy, the domain of the DM. What good purpose does this / did this serve, other than making too many annoyed players buy a DMG, too?

That being said...it was still an inspirational book for me, as a novice D&D player. One of my favorite bits in the back of the DMG was the "suggested reading" bibliography; most of the novels I read in the first few years I was playing D&D were taken directly off that list!

 

[billd91]

The 1st edition AD&D DMG is a mixed bag. It has tons and tons of potential useful information and tons and tons of turgid, overblown prose, both at the same time.
As such, it does work to spark the imagination.

I prefer the prose of the 3rd edition DMG, in general, because it's clearer and more concise... like a manual should be. I don't think it covers the same breadth, though, and so neither the 2nd edition nor 3rd edition DMGs have ever been as good a general gaming resource than the 1st edition. The 3.5 edition DMG is better than 3.0 because of its reorganization, in general, though I don't like some of the rule changes.

 

[BOZ]

just recently, the halfling necromancer in our epic campaign came across the hand of vecna itself. he thought it would be really cool to cut off his own hand and attach the artifact (hey, power! what's the worst that can happen, since i'm already evil?)

i grinned and ran to grab the 1e DMG, because i knew good and well how the DM likes to hyrbid in rules from other editions and even other RPGs if he thinks the game will run better. let's just say, that player was not so excited when the DM decided to use the 1E version of the Hand over the wimpy 3E version.

 

[Mercule]

It is, quite simply, the best gaming manual ever written. I still use it today. The 3.x DMGs should have been templated from it. I know Monte made a vague nod in that direction, but not enough.

 

[devilish]

Love those charts in the back.
Used to love making random dungeons for characters -- they
never made sense ("What's this 10X10 room doing here along
a corridor that ends in a cul-de-sac?") but
we didn't ask questions back then.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

just recently, the halfling necromancer in our epic campaign came across the hand of vecna itself. he thought it would be really cool to cut off his own hand and attach the artifact (hey, power! what's the worst that can happen, since i'm already evil?)

i grinned and ran to grab the 1e DMG, because i knew good and well how the DM likes to hyrbid in rules from other editions and even other RPGs if he thinks the game will run better. let's just say, that player was not so excited when the DM decided to use the 1E version of the Hand over the wimpy 3E version.

You DO realize that now I have to run and look up the Hand of Vecna in my AD&D 1e DMG, right? Here we go...

 

[MerricB]

I'm with the "mixed bag" people.

The 1E DMG is great for some of its prose and inspiration.

It's absolutely horrible for some of its rules descriptions (surprise and initiative in particular).

I rather wish that some of the style of writing - which is generally entertaining - had been used in later D&D books, but I'm very glad that better rules writers have taken over since then.

Cheers!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

3 words:

Potion Miscibility Table.

There's nothing like the off chance of blowing a PC to smithereens because he drank two potions in rapid succession.

Well, that plus the wandering harlot table

 

[Wolv0rine]

just recently, the halfling necromancer in our epic campaign came across the hand of vecna itself. he thought it would be really cool to cut off his own hand and attach the artifact (hey, power! what's the worst that can happen, since i'm already evil?)

i grinned and ran to grab the 1e DMG, because i knew good and well how the DM likes to hyrbid in rules from other editions and even other RPGs if he thinks the game will run better. let's just say, that player was not so excited when the DM decided to use the 1E version of the Hand over the wimpy 3E version.

Err... I've never liked this kind of thing myself. All I have to do is consider the idea of chopping off my own hand for the hell of it to come to the conclusion that at the VERY least if a player stated he wanted to cut off his hand for any reason, ANY reason... he's facing a truely monstrous Will check to even take the notion seriously. With some mitigating bonuses if it's the only way to save his life.
That being said... 1E artifacts were tough to nail down, seeing as how..well... there was no exact powers for any of the artifacts. Which was interesting in that any given artifact would almost definately be different from campaign to campaign.. but could be confusing when you wanted to know WHAT artifact X or Y did.

 

[kenobi65]

Well, that plus the wandering harlot table

Gawds, yes. The brazen strumpet, the slovenly trull, the cheap trollop, the wanton wench.