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

[Valiant]

Foster brings up a good point too, the players who also DM are supposed to abide by a code, allow the DM to DM by his own methods and interpretations, and to focus on being a player (stay on your side of the fence). When I'm a player I try to forget what I know and just adventure, its just more fun. As much as I hate the way many of AD&Ds rules are difficult (if not impossible) to peg down (such as initiative) they did amplify DM customization. A DM could use rules as simple or as complex as he wanted to.

PS another advantage (probably unintended) of those confusing rules is that it forces the reader to really dig threw (and spend alot of time reading and re-reading) the rule books to trt and figure it all out, this undoubtedly exposed many a DM to the pros related more to setting and attitude (something they may have gleamed over otherwise).

 

[Hussar]

Foster brings up a good point too, the players who also DM are supposed to abide by a code, allow the DM to DM by his own methods and interpretations, and to focus on being a player (stay on your side of the fence).

Which is no different than now. It carries exactly the same problems now as it did then, except that now, when a rule question comes up, it usually takes about 30 seconds to adjudicate and move on instead of having flaming rows over interpretations.

When I'm a player I try to forget what I know and just adventure, its just more fun. As much as I hate the way many of AD&Ds rules are difficult (if not impossible) to peg down (such as initiative) they did amplify DM customization. A DM could use rules as simple or as complex as he wanted to.

Again, this is no different than now. This is not a strength of 1e.

Any system which requires a "good" referee is a bad system.

 

[Hussar]

On the stats thing.

The anecdotal claim on the table is that the majority of 1e groups had 1 DM and the rest of the players were ignorant of the rules.

The poll of EN Worlders contradicts this claim.

What reason would there be that this claim would be so completely contradicted. If the split were 50/50, I could see it, but, when it's pretty heavily one sided, what would skew this so much?

 

[Numion]

Foster brings up a good point too, the players who also DM are supposed to abide by a code, allow the DM to DM by his own methods and interpretations, and to focus on being a player (stay on your side of the fence). When I'm a player I try to forget what I know and just adventure, its just more fun. As much as I hate the way many of AD&Ds rules are difficult (if not impossible) to peg down (such as initiative) they did amplify DM customization. A DM could use rules as simple or as complex as he wanted to.

It's a bug, not a feature, no matter what the rose colored glasses tell you.

More usually DMs didn't intentionally customize a rule because it was confusing; they just got it wrong and didn't realize it. This lead to quite a few (even more) unreasonable situations for the characters (the books' adversial tone probably caused quite a few DMs to always choose the alternative worse for the PCs when in doubt). The bug / feature might make great DMs even better, but it invariably made mediocre DMs even worse.

DMing is like driving: most people think they're better than the average, but in reality about 50% are worse than average.

 

[Storm Raven]

PS another advantage (probably unintended) of those confusing rules is that it forces the reader to really dig threw (and spend alot of time reading and re-reading) the rule books to trt and figure it all out, this undoubtedly exposed many a DM to the pros related more to setting and attitude (something they may have gleamed over otherwise).

More likely, it took time awa from paying attention to setting and attitude as the DM had to wade through the morass of confusing, poorly written, and often self-contradictory rules to figure out how the game was supposed to work. And then when he threw his hands up in disgust, spend more time trying to come up with house rules to patch the system into something usable.

Making the rules confusing and difficult is not a feature, no matter how much you try to spin it as such.

 

[Umbran]

Ah, so you have nothing whatsoever to add to the discussion and can henceforth be ignored. Good to know.

Storm Raven, that was uncalled for. Unconscionably rude, in fact. If somehow you feel this was acceptable - you were wrong. Please don't do it again.

Anyone else should also reconsider rudeness at this point. Hold yourself to a higher standard of civility, or hold your tongues, please. If somehow this is confusing, or you feel the need to otherwise comment on it, please feel free to e-mail one of the moderation staff.

 

[Matthew_]

So, are we now debating the merits of the system, rather than just stating what we do not like and why? Sounds like a recipe for an edition war.

Another thing I don't like about 1e AD&D is the 2D8 starting Hit Dice of the Ranger Class. As a Sub Class of Fighter, I would have preferred them to have 1D10 Hit Dice, as they do in 2e AD&D and 3e (not 3.5e) D&D. I guess I'm just a sucker for a clean progression.

 

[Darkwolf71]

"Most groups had rotating DMs."

Ok really, that battle standard has been repeated so often it begins to sound like a childish rant. And, in actuality it is irrelevant to the topic. Yes, many groups did indeed have multiple DMs, mine included. However, how many new players were given immediate access to the DMG? None, in my experience. Nor should they have. Perhaps that's why the respective titles were chosen? You know, Dungeon Master's Guide vs. Player's Handbook.

I played for several months without ever having read the DMG. Was I somehow receiving 'less' enjoyment of the game due to my ignorance? I don't believe so. The mystery was part of the fun. Then I DM'd my first game. Wow! That was fun too. Did I suddenly enjoy the game 'more'? No. I did have a different experience with the game from that point forward but it was not 'more' or 'less' enjoyable.

Also using the 'Multiple DMs' poll as ammo is weak at best. As I recall it was simply 'one' or 'more than one'. Didn't ask about how many players did not DM at all, or how long they played before DMing. Or whether access to the DMG prior to taking on that mantle was encouraged or even allowed.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Ok really, that battle standard has been repeated so often it begins to sound like a childish rant. And, in actuality it is irrelevant to the topic. Yes, many groups did indeed have multiple DMs, mine included. However, how many new players were given immediate access to the DMG? None, in my experience. Nor should they have. Perhaps that's why the respective titles were chosen? You know, Dungeon Master's Guide vs. Player's Handbook.

My general experience with all editions is that new players aren't going to be trying to crack open the DM's Guide anyway. Many of them don't even go through the Player's Handbook. I've introduced many new players to the game, and I've never handed them any sort of rule book to do it. It's almost always, "Here's a character sheet, and here's some dice. I'll walk you through character creation, and then you'll learn the rules as you come across them." If they like the game, maybe they'll buy the Player's Handbook. I don't know of any players who go out and get a DM-specific book unless they're planning on DMing, though.

 

[Storm Raven]

Ok really, that battle standard has been repeated so often it begins to sound like a childish rant. And, in actuality it is irrelevant to the topic.

Actually, to me, the "DMG was forbidden to players" mantra sounds like the childish rant. It is just a backdoor attempt to make a glaring weakness of the system (a poorly explained rule set) into a "strength" by claiming that ignorant players somehow got more out of the game than knowlegeable ones.

Yes, many groups did indeed have multiple DMs, mine included. However, how many new players were given immediate access to the DMG? None, in my experience. Nor should they have. Perhaps that's why the respective titles were chosen? You know, Dungeon Master's Guide vs. Player's Handbook.

Most new players didn't even look at the PHB, at least not until their second gaming session or so. But once we figured out that the dire language about not showing players the DMG was just silly (and it only took a short time to figure that out), there wasn't really any concern about a player taking a gander at those supposedly forbidden pages.

The real question to ask the "DMG should be forbidden to players" crowd is this: what exactly was contained in the book that would have ruined the play experience of a player? What were they not supposed to know that was in there?

Also using the 'Multiple DMs' poll as ammo is weak at best. As I recall it was simply 'one' or 'more than one'. Didn't ask about how many players did not DM at all, or how long they played before DMing. Or whether access to the DMG prior to taking on that mantle was encouraged or even allowed.

But none of your additional questions really matter. If keeping the DMG away from the players is somehow important to enjoying the game, it doesn't matter when the player looked in it. For the argument to work, it has to ruin his enjoyment of the game somehow once he has seen the inside of the forbidden text. And that seems to be clearly not be the case.