Was there only one DM at your table?

[kenobi65]

One could argue that, if that is the case, then the argument that the game is better when the players don't know the rules doesn't work. After all, if those who had lots of DMs in their group (and thus had lots of people who knew the rules at the table as players) are still playing, and those who had only one DM and a bunch of "ignorant" players aren't. . .

That's kind of what I was thinking, too.

I'm totally theorizing here, but it seems to make sense that, in a group where there was only one DM (and he controlled a lot of the knowledge about the rules), if that DM dropped out of the group for whatever reason, the group would likely fold, and the players stop playing (at least until they found another group, and maybe permanently).

Compare that to a group in which several players could / did serve as DM. If the primary DM were to leave the group, it might be more likely for that group, and those players, to continue playing.

 

[Valiant]

So, basically your point is that in very new groups, you might have 1 DM with a group of inexperienced players. That's a very far cry from your original claims.

If you go back and read my posts you will see I only claimed one thing: that the directions of AD&D suggest the players only read the PH (not the DMG or MM) so that the game experiance is not ruined for them. Only at the time when someone is ready to actually start DMing do you show them the DMG (of course this could be the first time you've played or dmed if you don't have a DM already. It sounded to me you guys were saying that because the original creators of the game all took turns DMing that that meant new players were supposed to do the same (even though that was never mentioned).

BTW I wouldn't call any of us inexperianced players after 2 years. I think any of us could have started DMing after 6 months (or anytime really, the point is, once you've DMed and understand the mechanics of the game it will never be the same experiance as it was when you were only a player.

I suspect we actually agree on this issue, just a missreading of what we both meant.