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

[rogueattorney]

It was part of a useless system that purported to "balance" classes. Since it failed in this utterly it had no reason to exist adding complexity to the game and making PC levels MORE irrelevant when attempting to compare them to each other and monitor the pacing of advancement between characters.

Wow! The "useless" system that "failed utterly" was such a dismal catastrophy that it spawned an industry. You might like the 3e way better, but I think you're overstating your case just a tad.

R.A.

 

[Faraer]

Like the purportedly 'broken' rules that millions of people have used without difficulty.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Yes, some things are broken, but other things, though not broken, are annoying. If there's something I don't want my players to use, I'll tell them not to use it beforehand and if they want to use it, they can go start up thier own game and allow it there.

About the topic at hand, the 1E DMG has great value. Seriously, I'm so glad I got mine way back when for five bucks. It was a STEAL.

 

[BOZ]

if it ain't broke don't fix it -

but if it's broke, do what you have to do to make it work better.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

SO, what do you think? Is the 1e DMG brilliant? Awkward? Overrated? Underappreciated? Inspired? All of the above? None of the above? Is there any good quality it has that our present 3.5 DMG lacks?
Discuss.

All of the above, minus overrated. It's almost impossible to overrate the 1e DMG. Along with I6 Ravenloft, it is one of the true works of art - quality, intellectual, popular art - from our game. D&D has not anything to show more fair.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Wow! The "useless" system that "failed utterly" was such a dismal catastrophy that it spawned an industry. You might like the 3e way better, but I think you're overstating your case just a tad.

R.A.

I think he was talking about the separate XP tables, not the system itself.

 

[Particle_Man]

Why is the idea of separate xp tables for different classes complicated? If you are playing a single-classed character, you look up one chart no matter what system you use (1st ed. or 3rd ed.). It is just a specialized chart (for the thief, for example) vs. a generalized chart. The only difference is if you are multi-classed (then you divide your xp up by 2 or 3 and consult different charts, one per class), but multi-classing was so totally overhauled in 3e that you have an apples and oranges situation there anyhow (3rd ed multi-classing is more like 1st ed. dual-classing, without the prereqs).

There are things I found complex about 1st ed. (encumbrance, weapon vs. ac mods, in short, all that stuff people usually ignored anyhow), but xp charts were not one of them.

 

[Akrasia]

... There are things I found complex about 1st ed. (encumbrance, weapon vs. ac mods, in short, all that stuff people usually ignored anyhow), but xp charts were not one of them.

I obviously agree. I also think that the different experience tables did a reasonable job in "balancing" the classes. It is a different mechanic from ensuring that all character classes are "equal" at each an every level (which 3.x does not really succeed at, given that even in 3.5, class abilities are front-loaded), but hardly a complex or invalid mechanic.

There were two articles (one in Dragon, #117 IIRC, and another in OD&Dities, #7), that broke down the various abilities of the different class abilities in Basic/Expert/Rules Cylcopedia D&D classes into "experience point values". You could then construct new classes by means of these "experience point values". Reconstructing the base classes using these systems, all the classes were quite well balanced (except for Elves, who actually got a pretty bad deal, relatively speaking). A fair bit of thought went into "class balance" in pre-3E D&D.

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

Standardized ability score modifiers, on the other hand, is a huge improvement in 3E over 1E AD&D.
(But of course basic/expert/RC D&D always had those too. )

 

[Ron]

Standardized ability score modifiers, on the other hand, is a huge improvement in 3E over 1E AD&D.
(But of course basic/expert/RC D&D always had those too. )

I agree with you and I always admired the simplicity of D&D in comparison to AD&D at this point. However, Gygax, and probably most people at time, thought that AD&D's complicate ability modifiers were rather a more realistic design.

Concerning the 1st edition Dungeon Master Guide, I don't have it anymore, but after reading all posts in this thread I am almost looking for a new copy. It was a great book and very appropriated for random reading (open any page and start reading), as it appears that Gygax did not give much of thought about the order he would write the stuff.

I consider the current Dungeon Master Guide the worst of the core books. Although it got much better with the 3.5 revision, it still full of near useless chapters and lacking of some flavor. Perhaps WotC's designers could learn a lesson or two (but not organization) from the original book.

 

[diaglo]

About the topic at hand, the 1E DMG has great value. Seriously, I'm so glad I got mine way back when for five bucks. It was a STEAL.

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.