What DON'T you like about 1E AD&D?

[Storm Raven]

Storm, I think were coming from different places. We only had the 3 core books for 3 or 4 years (making our own dungeons) and we didn't mess with reading Dragon, nor have I ever attended a GEN CON. I imagine most players were like me (the average D&D player in 79-81) you may have been more hard core. We just couldn't afford stuff like that. We had 1 set of books between us for several years.

That is neither here nor there. The question you have posed is "could you have known how the creators of D&D played the game and advocated playing it without the internet". The answer is yes, there were easy to obtain sources that gave you exactly that sort of information.

BTW did Gygax (or anyone from TSR) actually suggest starting players read the DMG (unless of course they were training as DMs)? If so thats news to me.

That is also neither here nor there. Given that it appears that most groups had rotating DMs, the only way that having the DMG be forbidden territory to players works is if once someone DMs he could never later be a "mere player". But that isn't the way it appears to have worked fvor most groups, and more importantly, it isn't the way it worked for the core designers (and later contributors to later products and/or Dragon). Consequently, the theory that the game supposedly was designed to be opaque as a necessary element just doesn't wash.

But, to answer your question directly, in many articles in Dragon that gave play advice, it was recommended to players that they help the DM by knowing the rules thoroughly. In addition, many articles aimed at players contained information relating to material that could only be found in the DMG.

 

[Hussar]

Who are these "most groups" of which you speak? Do you have anything besides your own assumption to back that up?

"Most groups" I knew had exactly one referee who ran whatever game was being played.

Yup, at least of EnWorld gamers, it's a 3:1 ratio.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=212677

So, I think that it's fairly safe to say that the idea of a given group only having one person who knew how to DM is a minority. Sizable minority, but, minority nonetheless.

 

[T. Foster]

While I was the DM about 90% of the time in our old AD&D group, several of the other players also owned the DMG and had at least passing familiarity with its contents. The dire warnings in the DMG intro about players prying into it being "worthy of less than honorable death" and so on, were at least 50% tongue in cheek and it was obviously understood that in at least a significant minority of groups more than one player would be familiar with the contents of the DMG.

Nonetheless, though, the game absolutely does encourage a split between "player info" and "DM info," and it's understood that even when players know what's in the DMG they're still expected to abide by an implicit "code of honor" that says they'll play dumb and respect the authority of the DM (after all, if they've read the DMG they've read all the stuff about DMing being a special fraternity, the contents of the book being the exclusive purview of the DM, etc.). I absolutely never in all my years playing 1E saw a player allowed to (or even try to) refer to the DMG during a session, and it was considered poor form to study the DMG between sessions if you weren't actively DMing a game. The idea of a player quoting the DMG in an argument with the DM was completely unheard of -- the rules in the PH were considered "fixed" and inviolate (unless the DM had announced house rule changes in advance), but how (or whether) the DM used the rules in the DMG was entirely at his discretion and he was under no obligation to answer to the players for anything (at least during the session -- players could of course discuss things after the game with the DM, and DMs who did a bad job weren't often called on to resume the seat).

That's how everyone I played with back in the 80s approached things, anyway.

 

[Numion]

In my area nobody took the "DMG is only for DMs" rule seriously. This has a specific reason: most (if not all) people came into D&D with the Red Box, which included both the players' and DMs' guides. Once you had bought the box as a player, what were you going to do? Not read the DMs part?

Once people 'graduated' to AD&D, nobody viewed the DMG as anything special, since the 'privilige' thing had already been settled by the packaging of the D&D red box.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know, Numion, maybe that's where the difference lays. I started with the Mentzer red box as well, so, yup, DM info right there in my face.

As far as opening the DMG during the game, well, I've also never seen it in 3e as well, so, for me, that hasn't changed. Although, to be fair, we have referenced the online SRD more than once, mostly for the effects of particular conditions. Then again, I and the other DM's usually just tell the player the name of the effect and expect the player to go look up the rules. YMMV obviously.

 

[Odhanan]

That's how everyone I played with back in the 80s approached things, anyway.

Same experiences here.

 

[TerraDave]

How did I miss this thread?

Oh, I have issues, and before reading other replies, I want to share:

1) Inconsistent and ad-hoc mechanics:
----Different and inconsistent non-magical ways to listen
----Different and inconsistent non-magical ways to sneak
----Different and inconsistent non-magical ways to reduce chance of surprise
----Seemingly arbitrary modifiers coming from ability scores

2) Rules too often not used (but usually for a good reason)
----Weapon speeds
----Weapon vs. armor
----Training
----Minutia in spells
----Minutia regarding magic items (like failure for certain races)
----The rules for surprise or tied initiative
----Unarmed combat

3) Overly complicated, restrictive, and ineffective ways of balancing classes
----Level limits for non-humans
----Different experience point charts
----“Flavor” restrictions (looking at paladins and rangers)
----Intentionally unbalanced power curves (e.g. wizards start weak to get strong latter)
----Use of ability prerequisites

4) Remaining substantial in-balance
----Overpowered high level spellcasters (especially wizards; to be fixed in 4th ed )
----Overpowered multiclassed spellcasters
----Desperate need that non-casters have for magic items at higher levels (hasn’t changed)
----Underpowered thieves
----In balance across races (why play a human if it is a short lived campaign?)
----Assassin, monk, druid, and illusionist classes that can sometimes be powerful, but just don’t quite fit. (also to be fixed in 4th ed ).
----Psionics
----Barbarian and cavalier

5) Gaps in a pretty long ruleset
----no skill system, or any guidance on a lot of common, in play activities.
----Proficiencies introduced to solve this problem really didn’t, and actually made 1) worse.
----Monster customization

 

[billd91]

Nonetheless, though, the game absolutely does encourage a split between "player info" and "DM info," and it's understood that even when players know what's in the DMG they're still expected to abide by an implicit "code of honor" that says they'll play dumb and respect the authority of the DM (after all, if they've read the DMG they've read all the stuff about DMing being a special fraternity, the contents of the book being the exclusive purview of the DM, etc.). I absolutely never in all my years playing 1E saw a player allowed to (or even try to) refer to the DMG during a session, and it was considered poor form to study the DMG between sessions if you weren't actively DMing a game. The idea of a player quoting the DMG in an argument with the DM was completely unheard of -- the rules in the PH were considered "fixed" and inviolate (unless the DM had announced house rule changes in advance), but how (or whether) the DM used the rules in the DMG was entirely at his discretion and he was under no obligation to answer to the players for anything (at least during the session -- players could of course discuss things after the game with the DM, and DMs who did a bad job weren't often called on to resume the seat).

That's how everyone I played with back in the 80s approached things, anyway.

That's very different from how we played in the 1980s. Players regularly used the DMG to look up their magic item descriptions and help the DM find any rules that were hazy (like unarmed attacks). The only stuff routinely off limits was monster info.

 

[Maggan]

I never played 2nd Edition, only AD&D 1st, but my group always referenced THAC0.

Same here.

/M

 

[TerraDave]

Now that I have skimmed through this, two more general comments:

AD&D as a rules light, improvisational game: Yes, with a good DM that is trusted by the players, you can really rely on that DMs discretion, let him wing things, not look at the books too much, and have a good time. But AD&D was not written as "rules-light" or free form (or what would later be called) story telling game. Not even close. It had systems and sub-systems galor. And you where strongly encouraged to use these rules, in all their all-over-the-place glory. The fact that it also had random rules gaps, and rules that where written to be ignored, does not make it a better game, even if it made DM skills and cooperation more critical for its success.

T. Foster: you win this thread. We should really have some history of D&D thread at some point, pull all this stuff together.