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

[Darkwolf71]

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" 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.

Ok, in baby steps. Ready?

They matter because it is the players who have not DM'd that we are talking about.

Of course once you have DM'd you are going to be more knowlegable about the game and all it's rules. Of course you're going to have read the DMG at that point. I should certainly hope so.
If, however, you have not DM'd and have no intention of doing so you do not need to know the rules in the DMG. There. Is. No. Need.

 

[Maggan]

The "mystery and newness" doesn't seem to be that big a deal when it comes to keeping players guessing about the rules.

I agree. Had it been otherwise, D&D had been dead years and years ago, when the "newness" of the concept wore off. It's been ages and ages since people were guessing the rules and found that a major enjoyment of the game.

And yet D&D endures. And earlier editions of D&D are very popular with groups of gamers who know the rules inside and out and there and back again, so it would seem that for those that love the game to death, the "newness" and guessing the rules is not the defining trait in enjoyment of D&D.

/M

 

[Storm Raven]

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?

I'm still trying to figure out what the big benefit was supposed to accrue from keeping players ignorant of the existence of the Wandering Prostitute Table. Or the fact that when underground, ranges written in inches meant feet, but outdoors, they meant yards. Or the random NPC attributes table. And so on and so forth.

Exactly what would you learn from reading the DMG that would reduce the enjoyment of the game? What was there that would reduce the fun?

 

[Darkwolf71]

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

'Until I wanted to run my own games.'

That wording work better for ya?

Or, more accurate, 'Untill I felt I was ready to run my own games'.

 

[Storm Raven]

Ok, in baby steps. Ready?

They matter because it is the players who have not DM'd that we are talking about.

Of course once you have DM'd you are going to be more knowlegable about the game and all it's rules. Of course you're going to have read the DMG at that point. I should certainly hope so.
If, however, you have not DM'd and have no intention of doing so you do not need to know the rules in the DMG. There. Is. No. Need.

Okay, so the issue here is that you just aren't understanding what is being said.

The argument has been made that it is important in 1e D&D to keep players ignorant of the contents of the DMG. This is supposed to enhance the player's enjoyment of the game. Because, apparently, a major feature of 1e D&D is its resemblance to Calvinball.

But we have lots of instances in which we had someone at the table who had DMed before but is now a player. They clearly are not ignorant of the contents of the DMG. In this instance it does not matter how many players at the table had been DMs. Once you have one, the argument concerning the benefits of keeping players ignorant starts to fall apart.

Once you have many dozens of examples, it completely falls apart. The question of whether it was "1 in 3, or 3 in 8, or 6 in 6" is completely irrelevant.

 

[Storm Raven]

'Until I wanted to run my own games.'

That wording work better for ya?

Not really. It doesn't answer how you knew you wanted to. Since you apparently didn't know what it would entail, having never even owned a DMG, let alone looked inside one, how did you know?

 

[Darkwolf71]

Not really. It doesn't answer how you knew you wanted to. Since you apparently didn't know what it would entail, having never even owned a DMG, let alone looked inside one, how did you know?

Yeah, because I never saw my buddy DM either. So, I was totally clueless as to what it would require. I'm begining to think you are arguing for the sake of argument.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Okay, so the issue here is that you just aren't understanding what is being said.

No, the issue seems to be that you think I am defending someone else's points. I specifically said that reading the DMG did not lessen my enjoyment of the game. It did, however, change my perspective and the experience I had while playing the game. So, the matter of # of DMs to # of players is relevent. To what I am talking about.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yeah, because I never saw my buddy DM either. So, I was totally clueless as to what it would require. I'm begining to think you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Even though you saw him DM, apparently you were ignorant of the rules of the game. I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that you knew you wanted to run a game when you were explicitly ignorant of the rules presumably necessary to do so. If you knew what you were getting into ahead of time, then you weren't ignorant of the rules, and hence, your argument falls apart. If you didn't, then you couldn't have known what you say you knew.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, the issue seems to be that you think I am defending someone else's points. I specifically said that reading the DMG did not lessen my enjoyment of the game. It did, however, change my perspective and the experience I had while playing the game. So, the matter of # of DMs to # of players is relevent. To what I am talking about.

So, basically, you are arguing against a point that no one has made, and no one cares about? And you say I'm arguing for the sake of argument?