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

[Eremite]

The appendices were great. I can remember:

- making stacks of cool monsters using the tables for generating creatures from the lower planes;
- sending parties off on wild goose chases thanks to "extra bits" I added into adventures from the dungeon dressing tables;
- using the traps and tricks ideas a lot.

I won't weigh into the 1E vs 3E argument as I personally don't think there is an argument: 3E is so profoundly superior in almost every way that there's very little to say!

 

[Akrasia]

... I won't weigh into the 1E vs 3E argument as I personally don't think there is an argument: 3E is so profoundly superior in almost every way that there's very little to say!

Just to be clear: I was not claiming that 1E was superior to 3E.

As for your claim that 3E is "profoundly superior", well, I used to think that too, until I DM'ed two 3E campaigns.

I agree that 3E is "profoundly superior" for DMs who have plenty of time, actually enjoy spending that time statting up NPCs, monsters, etc. (some do, and I am very happy for them), and like combats that take a long time (and 30 minutes is way too long for an average combat IMO).

I can hardly wait until I get to play 3E. But 3E is definitely not "profoundly superior" to the alternatives, from my point of view as a DM with lots of other demands on my time.
:\

 

[Wormwood]

When I read the 1e DMG, I get the impression that Gygax was writing to his peers.
When I read the 3e DMG, I feel that WotC is writing to their customers.

Both styles have their place, and I think both works are admirable.

 

[fredramsey]

Much of what I liked about the 1st ed. DMG was that it opened up the game from simple dungeon crawls to the idea that worlds could be designed and real stories could be told.

However, information was all over the place, poorly organized, and practically useless as a reference.

As I said before, if you haven't done so, I would read the 3.5 DMG pretending you are a new DM. There is a lot of good stuff in there, lots of advice, tables, etc.

Let's not confuse nostalgia with objectivity

 

[philreed]

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.

You'll love Forbidden Arcana: Potion Mixology, then:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2258


It's also in print at www.lulu.com


In my opinion, the 1e DMG is a masterpiece designed to spark creativity. I _wish_ there was a comparable product today. Another very useful book -- not a game book -- is The Writer's Complete Fantasy Reference.

 

[diaglo]

When I read the 1e DMG, I get the impression that Gygax was writing to his peers.

i get them same impression with the newer edition DMGs. it is written for a bunch of 10 year olds on Ridalin.


i use the 1edADnD DMG (1979) revised. but that doesn't mean it is the best thing since sliced bread.

the Original 3 Booklets (1974) are better.

 

[rogueattorney]

Time - The importance of keeping track of time in the campaign (Major Essay); keeping track of time in the dungeon.

My farvorite section of the book. Absolutely inspirational reading. This is how I want my campaigns to work.

N) Inspirational and Educational Reading

It's great to read the books that inspired the game, rather than all the books that have been inspired by the game.

R.A.

 

[Psion]

FWIW:

I think that when you speak of the 3e and 3.5e DMGs, you are talking about two different works. They added a lot of new material to the book in the edition change.

I think that some aspects of the 1e DMG were certainly admirable, mostly things like tables, lists of rankings, government types. Where 1e differs from 3e here is that 1e had a bit more "rub of the real" and 3e gave you something probably a little more practical. I think both are aspects of the game that the GM could use.

Which is the reason I keep both handy.

I certainly think that, in retrospect, there were bits in the 1e DMG I could happily do without, like a whole different rather baroque system for unarmed combat.

 

[D+1]

To at least a small extent you can't compare the 3.x and 1E AD&D DMG's. The former was written after 25 years of advancement in RPG game theory, rpg playtesting with D&D and many other systems, etc. The latter, while perhaps written not while the game was still in it's infancy but certainly before it had yet reached maturity, is in so many ways a completely different work because it was not yet well-realized exactly what a DMG, or indeed ANY rpg book, could or should be much less the what the game itself could or should be. The elder DMG was written because there was SO MUCH STUFF that it was desired to impart to gamers it could not possibly fill one book. It took three books. And they weren't all written simultaneously as the 3E books largely were. With the 3E books they were publishing a comprehensive game system that was largely already complete (and TESTED) and were seeking to do it quickly and efficiently. With the 1E books it was a full year betwen the publication of the MM and the PH, then between the PH and DMG.

In trying to keep that in mind you cannot compare the actual game SYSTEM itself that each book uses. You can't compare the two DMG's and give the newer one an edge simply because the game system is in some way superior. Therefore comapring the two is a HEAVILY subjective excercise, much as any ordinary review would be subjective.

The 1E DMG was BADLY organized. But I never really faulted it for that. There was so much information covering so many subjects and no pattern for a previous book having done much the same thing to refer back to. It was all-new ground being broken and so as far as that goes I think it was at least adequate. The authors writing style is REPEATEDLY referred to by everyone who reads the original DMG. Regardless of the content of the book it cannot be denied that the large vocabulary and slightly archaic prose style of the author imparts an amazing amount of character to the game as a whole. I think it CAN be faulted for failing to adequately explain some rules that NEEDED a simpler, even simplistic[/] explanation and modern prose style as well as CONTRIBUTING to the disorganization of the material due to the authors tendency to drift from topic to topic rather than working to bring it together into a cohesive, organized whole.

But again, I hesitate to be overly critical in that area - it was the first RPG book of its kind. ALL books that came after it would be compared to IT, not IT to THEM. They would note it's mistakes and inadequacies and try not to repeat them. They would note it's achievements and strengths and try to copy them. If the author had known then what we know now it WOULD be the perfect RPG book. I'm not sure it could be given that title now - but it would be in the running.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

i use the 1edADnD DMG (1979) revised. but that doesn't mean it is the best thing since sliced bread.

the Original 3 Booklets (1974) are better.

Interestingly, Gary Gygax himself didn't seem to think so. In the Introduction to the AD&D Player's Handbook he makes the following statement:
"ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS will prove superior to any past offerings in the fantasy role playing game field." (PHB 7)

In the Preface he refers directly to the Original D&D: "I am convinced that it [Advanced D&D] does for the old D&D + supplements what GREYHAWK did for D&D when it first appeared, and then some." (PHB 6)