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

[Hussar]

Hussar, as I stated on that thread, if you've been playing this game for 20+ years you would expect every member of the group to have DMed (and thus had the rules explained to them or read (in part or in whole) the DMG). We even forced players to DM who had no desire to because we wanted some fresh gaming (but that was after many years).

The question should have been, when you first started playing AD&D (say within the first year or 2) did you rotate DMs between members of the group, or keep the same DM. Or, how long was it before the players started reading the DMG?

Actually, the length of time is irrelavent.

The claim on the table was that in 1e groups, ONLY the DM had knowledge of the DMG, and all players were ignorant of what was in that book. The claim on the table is that this is the norm.

You yourself just stated that this is not the norm.

So, which is it? Is it that groups usually have/had only one DM or not? The poll says that you're wrong. That most groups did include at least one other person who had Dming experience. How long they've been playing isn't important because that's not the claim I'm trying to refute.

The claim is that 1 DM is the norm. That's not true. And, except possibly in very new groups, was rarely true.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Most people decide if they want to play a game or not based upon reading the rules, rather than cluelessly watching a bunch of people they don't know play a game. I still don't think your explanation makes any sense, but then again, you do seem to be advocating that it is good for a rule system to need players to be ignorant of the rules, so there is a lot about what you are arguing for that I just don't think makes sense.

So, I should have dropped 40 or so bucks on a rule book that I may never have had any use for? Ya know, I'm young, single, and well paid, but that seems just a bit wasteful IMHO. In any case, that's really not the point. If you try just a little, it's not hard to figure out that the point of my little anecdote was that I knew I wanted to DM by watching my DM.

 

[Lanefan]

Except that when you obtain the magic item (assuming you have identified it as a magic item), you get that information pretty much by using the magical identification process. So, exactly how does knowing something you would find out anyway cause problems?

Who says you're going to find it out? Identify as a spell is not guaranteed (in any edition) to give you all the information about a given item. And, if you-as-player already know what the item is/does as soon as you pick it up, bang goes the role-playing fun of field-testing it.

The biggest reason for the DMG (and MM) being off-limits really is the mystery. It's like the Wizard of Oz...all the magic goes away once you look behind the curtain, and while everything still works exactly as it did before, the wonder is gone.

Even in my game, where some of the players had been DMing 1e longer than I had and may well have known parts of the DMG off by heart, I have a red binder of DM-only tables and rules-item information that *nobody* else gets into, including fumble tables, wild-magic surge effects, new monsters, magic herb tables, glyhp-of-warding info, magic item info, etc., etc. I'd think every DM would have such a binder, as a matter of course, containing their own selection of non-player goodies.

Lanefan

 

[Melan]

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

Very good point.

 

[Daztur]

I don't mind games that have a lot of holes in the rules that require GMs to make up a lot of rules on the fly.

I don't mind games that have a lot of crunch, as long as the crunch focuses people on what's important in the game.

But both at the same time? Gah! Take the bad rules away!
I'd play either OD&D or 3.5ed over 1st or 2nd in a heart beat...

 

[Valiant]

Actually, the length of time is irrelavent.

The claim on the table was that in 1e groups, ONLY the DM had knowledge of the DMG, and all players were ignorant of what was in that book. The claim on the table is that this is the norm.

You yourself just stated that this is not the norm.

No, once again, I claimed that the rules suggest the players do not read the DMG, only the DM does so. If our group had stopped playing in 2 years then we would have only had 1 DM. It just so happens we've been playing off and on for 25+ years, so all of us have been DM.

So, which is it? Is it that groups usually have/had only one DM or not? The poll says that you're wrong. That most groups did include at least one other person who had Dming experience. How long they've been playing isn't important because that's not the claim I'm trying to refute.

I never made that claim and have no idea how your pole is supposed to apply to me. The only claim I made was when a group of players first starts playing AD&D 1 person takes the role of DM the others take the role of characters, this is how you play. The information in the DMG and MM is supposed to be kept away from the players (for the many reasons stated above). One does not get the impression that the role of DM switches from game session to game session. You didn't need to take a pole to see if most groups eventually switch DMs, I think the vast majority have (players getting bored, DM burn out etc.)

[The claim is that 1 DM is the norm. That's not true. And, except possibly in very new groups, was rarely true.

When did I claim that? You are putting words in my mouth. What I said was that the directions tell the DM not to share the information in the DMG or MM with the players. It also gives the DMs hat to one person to run a series of game sessions. It never addresses when the next person should take over as DM. PLease go back and reread my posts, I think your miss-reading what I said.

In AD&D (unlike 3E) the information about the rules is for teh DM only (whoever that is).

 

[shilsen]

Funny how the "What DON'T you like about 1e AD&D?" thread turned into an edition war while the "What DO you like about 1E AD&D?"" thread is doing just fine, without people popping in and telling other people that their tastes are wrong.

Any chance we could go back to what the threads were apparently intended for?

 

[Valiant]

The biggest reason for the DMG (and MM) being off-limits really is the mystery. It's like the Wizard of Oz...all the magic goes away once you look behind the curtain, and while everything still works exactly as it did before, the wonder is gone.

Even in my game, where some of the players had been DMing 1e longer than I had and may well have known parts of the DMG off by heart, I have a red binder of DM-only tables and rules-item information that *nobody* else gets into, including fumble tables, wild-magic surge effects, new monsters, magic herb tables, glyhp-of-warding info, magic item info, etc., etc. I'd think every DM would have such a binder, as a matter of course, containing their own selection of non-player goodies.

Lanefan

Good comparison, and a great idea with the red binder. I need to put together my notes and do something like that.

 

[Hussar]

Of course, remember that at the time that Gygax, Arneson & their friends were the only players in existence. Taking turns DMing was a necessity!



Funny, in my experience it's been just the opposite. DMs are few and far between.

As players we weren't allowed to see the DMG until we were trained as DM (for me that was about 2 years before I saw the inside of the DMG)

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.

I never made that claim and have no idea how your pole is supposed to apply to me. The only claim I made was when a group of players first starts playing AD&D 1 person takes the role of DM the others take the role of characters, this is how you play. The information in the DMG and MM is supposed to be kept away from the players (for the many reasons stated above). One does not get the impression that the role of DM switches from game session to game session. You didn't need to take a pole to see if most groups eventually switch DMs, I think the vast majority have (players getting bored, DM burn out etc.)

Which is it? When you first start playing? Or two years later? That's a pretty decent half life for most D&D groups.

I'm curious though. How does this differ between editions? Do 3e players pick up the DMG first?

 

[an_idol_mind]

Most people decide if they want to play a game or not based upon reading the rules, rather than cluelessly watching a bunch of people they don't know play a game.

I'm not entirely sure this is true. Most of the time, if I want to show someone a new game, I introduce them through play rather than handing them the rules. With D&D, I almost exclusively throw the players into an adventure rather than showing them the Player's Handbook.

As to the argument about whether knowing the rules is a bad thing or not, I can see both sides. I enjoy running a game with someone who's totally new to role-playing, because they inevitably try something that people who know the rules never think of. That's a lot of fun. On the other hand, I also like gaming with experienced players, because then I don't have to stop as often to explain new rules.