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

[Darkwolf71]

Actually, to me, the "DMG was forbidden to players" mantra sounds like the childish rant.

Perhaps, but the other has been repeated, nearly verbatim, in the majority of your posts.

But none of your additional questions really matter.

Oh? Really? Why is that? Because they perforate your neat little pre-conceived notions? The generic "One or Many Dms" means nothing. It has no room for difference between 1 DM in a group of 3, and 3 DMs with a group of 8, or 6 DMs in a group of 6. I think my additional questions matter very much. And so would even more questions that I probably did not think of.

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.

Well, no. It doesn't actually have to 'ruin' the game for him. It merely has to remove the mystery and newness, which it does, as I pointed out in the second paragraph of my post. You seem to have missed that part.

 

[Darkwolf71]

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.

Sorry I didn't address this before, you edited it in as I was posting.

As opposed to your backdoor attept to justify your way of things as being more valid than another?

Shall ye be 'Pot' or 'Kettle'?

 

[an_idol_mind]

This thread is beginning to highlight my biggest problem with any edition of the D&D game.

Any sort of criticism of the system, valid or not, is inevitably construed as an attack, thus beginning an edition war.

It happens whenever people discuss any previous edition. It happens when people discuss the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. Heck, it's even happening with 4th edition, and that's not even out yet!

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

This thread is beginning to highlight my biggest problem with any edition of the D&D game.

Any sort of criticism of the system, valid or not, is inevitably construed as an attack, thus beginning an edition war.

It happens whenever people discuss any previous edition. It happens when people discuss the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. Heck, it's even happening with 4th edition, and that's not even out yet!

D&D Is Serious Business.

 

[prosfilaes]

However, how many new players were given immediate access to the DMG? None, in my experience.

I don't remember if I started with D&D 1ed or 2ed, but I do know one of the first things I did was read through all the books. I suspect that a lot of people who are readers would do so.

Nor should they have.

You pick up a game and don't read all the rules?

 

[billd91]

You pick up a game and don't read all the rules?

Depends on the game, but yes. There are some games you don't need to read all the rules to to play, particularly if players have different roles within the game or if there are different segments of the game that may or may not come into play. I won't, for example, bone up on the Pacific Theater of Operations rules when playing an Advanced Squad Leader scenario set in Poland.
I may also skip reading the game master's supplements and other rules if I'm playing in an RPG. I might read them, but it depends on how much time I have and how much the GM expects me to know those rules.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I don't remember if I started with D&D 1ed or 2ed, but I do know one of the first things I did was read through all the books. I suspect that a lot of people who are readers would do so.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that is not the backhanded insult it could be taken as. In my youth and teens I read... voraciously. In my AD&D prime I could give chapter and verse on any topic in any of the 1st ed books. And when we switched to 2nd ed I could with them as well. I only wish I had the time and attention span to read as much now as I did then.

You pick up a game and don't read all the rules?

I don't read the rules that aren't intended for me, no. In fact I didn't have a DMG until I was ready to run my own games.

 

[Storm Raven]

Oh? Really? Why is that? Because they perforate your neat little pre-conceived notions? The generic "One or Many Dms" means nothing. It has no room for difference between 1 DM in a group of 3, and 3 DMs with a group of 8, or 6 DMs in a group of 6. I think my additional questions matter very much. And so would even more questions that I probably did not think of.

Because they don't pertain the the question being discussed. The difference between "1 DM in a group of 3, and 3 DMs with a group of 8, or 6 DMs in a group of 6" is of no probative value for this discussion - once the majority of groups jump the threshold of "1 DM per group" it ruins the "DMG must be verboten to players" argument. The additional questions you bring up have no real value, because they are beside the point.

Of course, if you think they matter, perhaps you'd care to explain why they would matter. Something you have not bothered to do as of yet.

Well, no. It doesn't actually have to 'ruin' the game for him. It merely has to remove the mystery and newness, which it does, as I pointed out in the second paragraph of my post. You seem to have missed that part.

No, I didn't. Because it is wrapped up in the "enjoyment of the game" portion. The question was does the game depend upon keeping the players in the dark concerning the inside of the DMG to maintain their enjoyment as players. And it doesn't. Nor does it appear that game was designed with that in mind. The "mystery and newness" doesn't seem to be that big a deal when it comes to keeping players guessing about the rules.

I would say that if you are relying upon playing Calvinball as DM in order to keep the "mystery and newness" if the game, there are problems with your campaign. The mystery and newness should come from "what are the servants of the snake-eyed god up to" not "oh my god, I wonder what the rules for climbing a tree are". I would argue that it detracts from player enjoyment to have a poorly designed, and at times unintelligible rule set.

 

[Maggan]

I don't read the rules that aren't intended for me, no. In fact I didn't have a DMG until I was ready to run my own games.

That seems like a catch 22. How do you know if you're ready to read the DMG unless you know what's in it?

Unless some "senior" gamer told you that you were ready or something like that, I guess. Which still seems very strange to me, since how would they know that you were ready, if you haven't done any DM'ing?

/M

 

[Storm Raven]

As opposed to your backdoor attept to justify your way of things as being more valid than another?

I'm not saying one way is more valid than the other. I'm saying that the "bug" of the game (poorly designed and sometimes unintelligble or unusable rules) doesn't make the game "better" because there was some big benefit to keeping players ignorant of the rules. I'm also pointing out that the game, as designed, and as it appears to have been commonly played, didn't play that way in practice either.

If you wanted to keep your players ignorant of the rules, that's your business. But don't run around trying to claim that is some sort of brilliant design feature. It wasn't. If it was, then you should have discarded D&D in favor of "Cops and Robbers", since that game has no rules other than "what we say so at the time". Those who argue the wonderfulness of the vaguensss of D&D's rules should have dropped D&D for that instead - they would have found the lack of definition in those rules even more "mysterious and new".