Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 4712566" data-attributes="member: 32740">I'd make this an even longer, better organized post, but it's getting late so I'll just put up some random notes I jotted down while reading the thread. Concerning where the combat matrices were in 1E - just being in the DMG doesn't mean that players weren't still given that information as a matter of course.  Saying that the DMG is for DM's and players should keep their busybody noses out of it didn't mean that all the info in there was "forbidden knowledge".  It meant that the players should be letting the DM run the game, not having the players run the DM. Don't read too much into the lack of organization and coordination between the 1E PH and DMG.  As Gary stated therein this was all very piecemeal stuff being pulled together from various existing sources as well as new added stuff.  That is to say that Gary and other DM's had been using a lot of it.  But then again, he later admitted that some parts he definitely did NOT use and were included only to appease others who DID want such information.  The fact that some stuff that probably SHOULD have gone into the PH instead went to the DMG only indicates that the release of the MM, PH, and DMG were each a YEAR apart - the game was being written AS it was being released. The downside of the game being handed over to the players is... the game is being handed over to the players - which means it is gradually being taken OUT of the hands of the DM, in whose hands it had been SOLIDLY placed in previous edtions.  With 3E I believe the pendulum swung too far over the course of its printed lifetime from DM to player control, with the DM being seen as subservient to the rules and held IN CHECK by the players manipulation of the rules.  In older editions (OD&D and 1E especially) the DM was for practical purposes a "codesigner" who was fully expected to add, modify and delete as he saw fit.  It wasn't until the players were presented with practical realities (if not open statements) to the effect of, "These are the OFFICIAL rules, accept no substitutes," that I personally started to chafe as a DM against the shift towards the players. In the old days players DID have a different experience when playing the game.  By being denied UPFRONT information from the MM and DMG they HAD to approach play from a learn-as-you-go standpoint, and don't expect things to always remain the same.  As of 3E it started to become a matter of, these are the rules, the rules do not change, you may as well have access to the lot from the get-go.  I feel that much information that has been given over to players IS better left as a mystery to be revealed to them by the DM through active play.  That means players should be expected to NOT have access to the MM and DMG. If nothing else the downside to the players is that they are OVERWHELMED with information that they are expected to master if they want to be considered as being "good players".  I've come to see a lot of complaints from players on the boards about their fellow players ability to "play a fighter PROPERLY" or words to that effect.  There isn't supposed to be right/wrong way to play D&D - until there IS because someone wants it to be so. A lot of the discussion could be summed up as the continuing struggle of D&D as a rules-heavy game versus D&D as a rules-light game.  Both approaches have been tried.  The same approach does not work for everyone. Rules laywers were a pox on 1E DM's.  It only became worse when WotC started treating the rules for D&D in exactly the same way they treated the rules for the competitive game of M:tG.  Rules lawyers were given the training, legal precedent, and tacit approval to insist that the DM is not, in fact, ultimately in charge of the game - the rules are. I nonetheless have encouraged DM's to be transparant with their rulings and what they do behind the screen.  When players know WHY the DM is ruling as he does they have less/no reason to object that he does indeed make the rules. The discussion has reminded me that in 1E we came to refer to the PH as, "The Book of Common Knowledge."  Mostly it was just as a reminder that players do still need to have a reliable source to refer to that their characters operate under, and it was the one thing the DM couldn't tell them not to look at.  At the very least if a DM was going to change/omit information from it there should be a hard copy for players to refer to. In 3E the players and DM eventually came to be expected to be held strictly to the same set of rules - which I hold to be total bunk. I'm also reminded that during the big runup to the release of 3E and just after I said (a LOT) that 3E should be judged according to how 3E did what it did, not according to how 2E or 1E did it.  That is, just because it did things differently didn't make it either superior or inferior.  Judge each version of the game by its OWN merits, by what IT purports to do (or doesn't purport to do but does.) Lastly, yes it's true in any edition that the DM can make up his own monsters, but that's one of the great fallacies.  The DM shouldn't HAVE to make up his own monsters due to the players being GIVEN complete access to monster data. I otherwise agreee with Jack7 and Plane Sailing.</blockquote>

Verification