Players in 1E AD&D were actually allowed/intended to read the Monster Manual. There are numerous "in milieu" passages in the descriptions that seem aimed at players as much or more than DMs (and the famous lie in the dark elf description -- stating that they are only legend). Plus, there are numerous direct references to the MM within the PH. And, last but not least, the cover blurb and introduction of the book itself -- "an invaluable aid to players and dungeon masters alike," "some DM's may wisely wish to forbid their players from referring to the MANUAL in the midst of an encounter" (emphasis mine). Compare to the in-no-way-ambiguous language in the DMG: "As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of an honorable death." (DMG, p. 8).
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
No Second Edition Love?
- Thread starter Remathilis
- Start date
Ranger REG
Explorer
What do you mean "like a god"? :\dcas said:
--DM is GOD (Game Operations Director)
My impression was that the MM was only to be used by players AFTER clearing it with their DM, mostly to read about their race (elf, half orc, halfling, gnome, dwarf), read about their horse, dog etc. and general "world knowledge" for instance our original DM allowed the ranger in the group to read some of the giant class descriptions). I'm sure the player was expected to read only what the DM suggested or agreed to so that the player(s) didn't "spoil the surprise" not just for themselves, but everyone else at the table (how many HD does a troll have, what do you use to kill it etc.). Lets face it, in every group there was one guy who sat at home and memorized every monster description and then magically new how to deal with it when encountered for the first time at the table (often DMs saw these guy as the "pain in the a$$" player). These players liked looking smarter then everyone else. They didn't understand, the point of the game is to have fun figuring stuff out as you go, not out manuver the DM or module writer by memorizing monster weaknesses etc.
I have no problem with players reading parts of the MM as long as they clear it with me first. this kind of freedom to skim through the MM does get the player "into" the game and lends alot of flavor (esp. for monsters they would likley know something about like orcs, goblins, etc. and ones that they've wondered about since child hood like dragons and pixies etc.). The idea is to let players see enough to be excited about the game, but not so much to take away the mystery. The player should be left in the dark as long as possible (the first few sessions at least) for their benefit. You only get to be a new player once.
I am a realist and I know most players went and read the 1E rules and MM anyway. But they did so with the mindset that they were going to change the game experiance for themselves, an dmost were preparing themselves to be a DM as well (which is fine). My point is that ideally the player get to experiance the game from the perspective of the player at least a few times before digging into the rules and monster specifics. Afterall the point is to experiance "make believe". Just as we all crave to know how a magician does his tricks, and then once we know wish we didn't. Often times too much knowledge can lead to a jaded and bored person. Let the DM spin his illusions if you want to experiance magic.
dcas, Perhaps calling DM "GOD" was a bad metiphor on my part. Lets just say he's the CEO. A good DM encourages players to field questions about rules their uncertain of as they come up, and allow them to object to things that they find grossly unfair (the DM is a busy guy afterall and makes mistakes). However, if your Nell Feldman down from accounting at your first board room meeting, don't try to talk over the CEO, or nit pick the CEO, or the CEO will likely drop a ton of bricks on your head.
The best way to deal with serious rules discussion is after the game or during breaks. You shouldn't be telling the DM "you don't understand this or that" during the game unless he's asking. What was great about 1E is the DM always could fall back on "non of these rules are written in stone comment by Gygax, "see it says right here in the rule book", and I'm doing it this way, don't like it maybe this isn't the game for you".
The idea was that the flow of the game was paramount to having fun, and the game couldn't flow if the players kept pushing the DM around. Anyhow, variations in the DMs style resulted in a less predictable game and usually made it more exciting (thats why its fun to sit with different DMs now and then). If a players PC died from an altered rule, the player just rolled up a new PC and didn't throw a cow. In 1E the DM was encouraged to be "master and commander" of his own ship, and variation between tables was seen as a good thing. And his players (his crew) were encouraged to back him up. If they didn't like one captain, find another or mutiny. In 1E the DM is like Kirk, he was never questioned by his crew openly (just the occasional raised eyebrow by Spock). The good player was like Sulu, always trusting his captain. 3E seems more like "The Next Generation" with everyone on the bridge (including the 13 year old piloting the Enterprise) questioning Picard openly. And every order being countermanded and then recountermanded by Number 1 or the fat psychic psychologist chick (hell they even sat together). It got so bad you didn't know who was in command.
Perhaps 3E was designed for this new mindset.
It did get developed around the same time.
Anyhow, to each their own. I'm sure alot of players of 3E find the "rules mastery" part of the game to be one of its greatest strengths. Of course, the 3E DM should should be mentally prepared to go fetch his own fresh beer and chips.
I have no problem with players reading parts of the MM as long as they clear it with me first. this kind of freedom to skim through the MM does get the player "into" the game and lends alot of flavor (esp. for monsters they would likley know something about like orcs, goblins, etc. and ones that they've wondered about since child hood like dragons and pixies etc.). The idea is to let players see enough to be excited about the game, but not so much to take away the mystery. The player should be left in the dark as long as possible (the first few sessions at least) for their benefit. You only get to be a new player once.
I am a realist and I know most players went and read the 1E rules and MM anyway. But they did so with the mindset that they were going to change the game experiance for themselves, an dmost were preparing themselves to be a DM as well (which is fine). My point is that ideally the player get to experiance the game from the perspective of the player at least a few times before digging into the rules and monster specifics. Afterall the point is to experiance "make believe". Just as we all crave to know how a magician does his tricks, and then once we know wish we didn't. Often times too much knowledge can lead to a jaded and bored person. Let the DM spin his illusions if you want to experiance magic.
dcas, Perhaps calling DM "GOD" was a bad metiphor on my part. Lets just say he's the CEO. A good DM encourages players to field questions about rules their uncertain of as they come up, and allow them to object to things that they find grossly unfair (the DM is a busy guy afterall and makes mistakes). However, if your Nell Feldman down from accounting at your first board room meeting, don't try to talk over the CEO, or nit pick the CEO, or the CEO will likely drop a ton of bricks on your head.
The best way to deal with serious rules discussion is after the game or during breaks. You shouldn't be telling the DM "you don't understand this or that" during the game unless he's asking. What was great about 1E is the DM always could fall back on "non of these rules are written in stone comment by Gygax, "see it says right here in the rule book", and I'm doing it this way, don't like it maybe this isn't the game for you". The idea was that the flow of the game was paramount to having fun, and the game couldn't flow if the players kept pushing the DM around. Anyhow, variations in the DMs style resulted in a less predictable game and usually made it more exciting (thats why its fun to sit with different DMs now and then). If a players PC died from an altered rule, the player just rolled up a new PC and didn't throw a cow. In 1E the DM was encouraged to be "master and commander" of his own ship, and variation between tables was seen as a good thing. And his players (his crew) were encouraged to back him up. If they didn't like one captain, find another or mutiny. In 1E the DM is like Kirk, he was never questioned by his crew openly (just the occasional raised eyebrow by Spock). The good player was like Sulu, always trusting his captain. 3E seems more like "The Next Generation" with everyone on the bridge (including the 13 year old piloting the Enterprise) questioning Picard openly. And every order being countermanded and then recountermanded by Number 1 or the fat psychic psychologist chick (hell they even sat together). It got so bad you didn't know who was in command.
Perhaps 3E was designed for this new mindset.
It did get developed around the same time.Anyhow, to each their own. I'm sure alot of players of 3E find the "rules mastery" part of the game to be one of its greatest strengths. Of course, the 3E DM should should be mentally prepared to go fetch his own fresh beer and chips.
Last edited:
Malhost Zormaeril
First Post
Funny, that's sort of like a description I've heard for the difference between a school teacher and a university professor. The school teacher is supposed to be this figure of authority who hands down the knowledge to the students, who absorb it unquestioningly. On the other hand, the professor is supposed to treat his students more like peers who can discover things for themselves and just need a nudge in the right direction; sometimes, they can even teach the professor something.
TX, You are most comfortable when the roleplaying experience is a top-down one: The DM delivers the adventure to the players, who submit to his superior knowledge of what is going on. It is very much the DM's game, and the players are expected to abstract their knowledge of "the system" and merely state their intents in reaction to what the DM lays out before them. The DM by his part adjudicates the action based on what he thinks would play out. That's a particular stance very much in line with what I heard was Gygax's position in the 70s/80s.
It's also more untenable when the position of DM rotates regularly. When everyone is a DM one time or another, this kind of position breaks down, because everyone will adjudicate differently and parts of one DM's rulings will inevitably intrude upon another's play. That's why the judges (the DMs) agree to follow a constitution (the rules). Eh, this metaphor makes more sense in countries with Roman law, so I hope you catch my drift. This is the position of the Second Edition, very much refined by the Third.
Full disclosure: I know there are teachers who don't handle teaching in a top-down fashion, and professors who do so; and also that the transition from delivering knowledge "from on high" to instigating the process of discovery by the student should be a gradual one, such that there should be several middle stages throughout junior high, high school and early university years. Those are just the two ideal extremes between alphabetisation and graduation.
TX, You are most comfortable when the roleplaying experience is a top-down one: The DM delivers the adventure to the players, who submit to his superior knowledge of what is going on. It is very much the DM's game, and the players are expected to abstract their knowledge of "the system" and merely state their intents in reaction to what the DM lays out before them. The DM by his part adjudicates the action based on what he thinks would play out. That's a particular stance very much in line with what I heard was Gygax's position in the 70s/80s.
It's also more untenable when the position of DM rotates regularly. When everyone is a DM one time or another, this kind of position breaks down, because everyone will adjudicate differently and parts of one DM's rulings will inevitably intrude upon another's play. That's why the judges (the DMs) agree to follow a constitution (the rules). Eh, this metaphor makes more sense in countries with Roman law, so I hope you catch my drift. This is the position of the Second Edition, very much refined by the Third.
Full disclosure: I know there are teachers who don't handle teaching in a top-down fashion, and professors who do so; and also that the transition from delivering knowledge "from on high" to instigating the process of discovery by the student should be a gradual one, such that there should be several middle stages throughout junior high, high school and early university years. Those are just the two ideal extremes between alphabetisation and graduation.
Malhost, nice summary. Your correct, this breaks down quickly when all the players are also DMs. The exception, however, is when they all learned from the same guy. Pre-internet, this wasn't much of a problem. Today we talk about rules at the table way more then we did in the past.
The best answer to DMs also being players is a gentlemens agreement that each DM will be allowed to use his own house rules (thus any miss-interpretation of BTB rules can fall under that house rule catagory and not cause at the table conflict). In my case this was never a problem, as we all basically used the same methods.
Also, 1E has fewer rules to worry about compared to 3E. So much is left up to the DM to determine.
The best answer to DMs also being players is a gentlemens agreement that each DM will be allowed to use his own house rules (thus any miss-interpretation of BTB rules can fall under that house rule catagory and not cause at the table conflict). In my case this was never a problem, as we all basically used the same methods.
Also, 1E has fewer rules to worry about compared to 3E. So much is left up to the DM to determine.
JRR_Talking
First Post
never played 2e at all
played stacks of oD&D and 1st, played other things then until the arrival of 3rd. Just about had enuff of 3.5e so am stopping GMing it for a while though i still playing Living Greyhawk
played stacks of oD&D and 1st, played other things then until the arrival of 3rd. Just about had enuff of 3.5e so am stopping GMing it for a while though i still playing Living Greyhawk
Goblinoid Games
First Post
Malhost Zormaeril said:
IMO, it isn't fair to put it in these terms. One thing that is different about 1e compared to other versions of D&D is that there actual are rules that are secret from players. The DMG is explicitly off limits to players, and contains many, many bits of info that players are not "supposed" to be privy to.
But usually, in my experience, disputes occur more often over DM rulings for things that do not have hard and fast rules. In this case I think that yes, a player should state disagreement and leave it at that. A good DM will make note of it and reconsider similar rulings in later games. The main point in having the DM as the final ruler is to minimize game disruption, IMO.
frankthedm said:
They had to do something to the cleric to make it a viable class to play. In 2e the cleric did pretty much nothing but heal. In 3e it's often considered the most powerful class, but guess what? They still spend most of their time healing. It's very difficult to get someone in any of my gaming groups to play a cleric. They've got lots of power, but little opportunity to use it. Now if the cleric gets another cleric as a cohort to act as primary healer, he might just rule the game. Other than that he still ends up being a walking band-aid that occasionally turns undead and throws down some damage dealing spells or melee attacks.
Ranger REG
Explorer
To be brutally honest, it's nothing new. The Skill System concept, for example, have been in other RPGs during 1e and 2e eras.tx7321 said:Perhaps 3E was designed for this new mindset.
Mark Hope
Hero
In my experience, so long as you used speciality priests, there was no reason at all in 2e that a cleric had to do "pretty much nothing but heal". Clerics in my 2e games followed gods of Death, Knowledge, Time, the Sea, Pain and Cold - not one of them was a healer. In fact, we only had one priest of the goddess of healing throughout the 2e years. In 1e, it may have been true that they were pigeon-holed as healers (it was a strength of 2e that the system allowed clerics to step away from this stereotype), and in 3e that is certainly the case (no matter what deity the cleric follows, the system presumes that there will be a healer in the party, or at least nearby). The 2e sphere/specialty priest system wasn't balanced at all, but the basic design philosophy behind it hasn't been surpassed in any other edition of the game.Shazman said:
Similar Threads
