Quote from: Benoist;520286I'll just say that I revised the statement in a post afterwards because I realize how this came off as an absolute. What I meant was that I found it intriguing that the people who like the game the least also happened to be the people who used the least of its rules. And I stand by that: it's intriguing.

If you have never seen something like Vancian magic, actual memorization, in action, for instance, I don't know what to tell you. Should I take your opinion seriously when you are bitching that Wizards are super powerful in old editions and that Vancian magic sucks? Well, based on the little-to-no-experience you would actually have in playing the game with those rules, I'd say "no".

I advise you to avoid generalizations and address specific posters. "You might have liked the game better if you'd actually played it as written,"  is a dick thing to say, but it bothers me a whole lot less than your initial statement because it addresses a specific poster with a specific experience as opposed to extrapolating the habits and histories of countless other individuals who may or may not like the game or played by the RAW.

Personally, I believe, evil middle school DMs aside, all my issues with 1e begin and end with the third point in my initial post.

Quote from: Aos;520282In those days, the PHB was far more widely read than the DMG. I know this is going to torque some of you but this fact all comes down to Gygax for a few reasons-

Off the top of my head-

1. The writing style and organization of the book. Some of you might like it, but I understand that some people like a lot of things most others don't. Examples abound, insert one here involving eating and shit if you like.

I'm one of those guys who like this. The DMG is a dialog, a conversation. It's not a manual to use a toaster. I like that aspect of it quite a lot, because I feel like I'm being talked to like I'm an intelligent, functioning DM from the get-go. Mileages will and do vary, of course. Remember it's supposed to be the "Advanced" game, however, not the "Basic" game, so I guess the assumption that you already are a functioning DM is part of that.

Quote from: Aos;5202822. The fucking font. Could it be any fucking smaller?

I agree on that front. The size of the font, the general layout of the book, all these things could have improved the readability of the DMG tremendously.

Quote from: Aos;5202823. This is the big one, past the TOC, this is the first line of the DMG:

"What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee."


That one line and the entire approach it hints at led to a lot of folks not reading the most important chunk of the rules, which led to lots of people playing the game wrong and eventually to threads like this one.

That I have more than no problem with: I think it's actually a good thing. I think it's a good thing because the bulk of the dealings of the rules remains on the DM's side of the screen. The players only need to know what pertains to their character in the PH, and the DM basically asks you "what do you do?" and adjudicates the game from there with the tools provided in the DMG. A LOT of pleasure from the game comes at first from the fact you don't know what's going on behind the curtain of the Wizard of Oz.

Why does it bother you?

Quote from: Aos;520294Personally, I believe, evil middle school DMs aside, all my issues with 1e begin and end with the third point in my initial post.

I think a big part of the problem was that we were middle-schoolers in the first place and didn't bother to read the whole DMG in the first place (not talking about you, I saw you said you read it), or were so self-absorbed that we just couldn't understand half the stuff it was saying. As I said elsewhere, the only DM I knew back in the day that ACTUALLY knew the contents of the DMG and played the game as the referee knowing the different moving parts of the game was my cousin who actually introduced me to RPGs. I can't remember a single instance of a DM afterwards who had read the entire DMG and knew its contents thereof - it was usually more of a matter of using the Monster Appendix, the Combat Tables, the Harlot table, and a few parts here and there that were read diagonally most of the time (like stuff about aging and the infravision/ultravision parts, those kinds of things).

Quote from: Benoist;520301I'm one of those guys who like this. The DMG is a dialog, a conversation. It's not a manual to use a toaster. I like that aspect of it quite a lot, because I feel like I'm being talked to like I'm an intelligent, functioning DM from the get-go. Mileages will and do vary, of course. Remember it's supposed to be the "Advanced" game, however, not the "basic" game, so I guess the assumption that you already are a functioning DM is part of that.


I agree on that front. The size of the font, the general layout of the book, all these things could have improved the readability of the DMG tremendously.


That I have more than no problem with: I think it's actually a good thing. I think it's a good thing because the bulk of the dealings of the rules remains on the DM's side of the screen. The players only need to know what pertains to their character in the PH, and the DM basically asks you "what do you do?" and adjudicates the game from there with the tools provided in the DMG. A LOT of pleasure from the game comes at first from the fact you don't know what's going on behind the curtain of the Wizard of Oz.

Why does it bother you?

Fuck, none of it "bothers" me. If i want to play D&D I'll play OD&D or (more likely) B/X. 1e need not apply- not even as a supplement*.  

The prose style and what not is no problem for me, the organization however is a deal breaker. It is very reminiscent of some of the worst papers I was forced to read in grad school. I'll be looking at stuff like that for the rest of my work-life, I'd rather nor have that in my rpgs, thanks.

As for my last point- I was merely pointing out that there should not be such shock that few people read the rules when the creator of the game advises that most of the game's participants avoid doing so.


Edit * unless using the dugeon dressing tables counts as using 1e as a supp.

I feel like, when the 1e DMG came out, they still hadn't quite cottoned to the fact that people would be learning the game FROM the books, and not just using them as a play-aid, having learned the ropes "in the field".  (D&D hadn't really "blown up", yet, to where it outpaced the speed of oral transmission.)  The PHB and DMG both really do read as if they assume you've already been playing/running a campaign as you sit down to read them.

Quote from: Aos;520294Personally, I believe, evil middle school DMs aside, all my issues with 1e begin and end with the third point in my initial post.

For real, you don't like that there were some books the players around the table weren't supposed to read? It's better when all the mechanics are transparent for everybody?

I mean, it's the internet age, so there's no real going back, but there's some virtue in not seeing what's behind the curtain, I think.

QuoteI feel like, when the 1e DMG came out, they still hadn't quite cottoned to the fact that people would be learning the game FROM the books, and not just using them as a play-aid, having learned the ropes "in the field".

Oh yeah it's definitely written like that.

r

Quote from: Imp;520323For real, you don't like that there were some books the players around the table weren't supposed to read? It's better when all the mechanics are transparent for everybody?

I mean, it's the internet age, so there's no real going back, but there's some virtue in not seeing what's behind the curtain, I think.

Nope, once again, what I am saying is if the creator of the game tells the better part of the player base not to read the rules, there shouldn't be any real surprise that nobody fucking read them. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I agree with you point about maybe it being better when not everyone understands the rules, sadly I think whatever you gain from this is at best ephemeral  and the price (no system of checks and balances combined widely misunderstood rules) is a bit too high.  I am a firm believer that no set of rules can protect you from a asshole GM, but players knowing the rules will probably help a decent DM more than harm. Fuck, if I've got something wrong, I'd rather a plyer let me know than get fucked by my ignorance.

Quote from: Aos;520325Nope, once again, what I am saying is if the creator of the game tells the better part of the player base not to read the rules, there shouldn't be any real surprise that nobody fucking read them. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Nah. I can't get behind that. The assumption was that the material in the DMG would be read by the DM. Nevermind the players. Part of the problem comes from the fact the DM himself wasn't reading the book and/or understanding its contents, IMO.

you are still misinterpreting my statement and reading in to it. Unless of course you think that Gary was encouraging everyone to read the book.

Quote from: Aos;520331you are still misinterpreting my statement and reading in to it. Unless of course you think that Gary was encouraging everyone to read the book.

No, I'm not misinterpreting what you say. It's just that "DMs" doesn't mean "nobody". You can't say "well, it was for DMs only, so you shouldn't be surprised nobody read the rules." Well, no: what about DMs?

I think you perceive two different groups (players and DMs) where (largely) only one really exists.

Players initially skipped it because they are told to at the very beginning of the book. Is this a point of contention? i can scan the page if it is.

DMs skipped it, because for the most part they started out as... wait for it... players and learned how to play the game from others, assuming all the while that those others had actually read the rules, which, they  for the most part, did not, because most of them started out as players too. Its a loop. What know it all teen-ager is, after playing the game for three or four years, going to feel compelled to read the DMG before they run their first game? None of them; they already know how to play- or at least they think they do. The opportunity to get them to read it at all came and went in the first sentence of the DMG, years before that moment.

I mean the DMG has got to be the most widely unread rulebook in what is likely the most played rpg in the world. That did not just happen, there are reasons for it, which go beyond "LOL, those dudes were lazy."


Edit: lots of editing for clarity.

Quote from: Aos;520336I think you perceive two different groups (players and DMs) where (largely) only one really exists.

Players initially skipped it because they are told to at the very beginning of the book. Is this a point of contention? i can scan the page if it is.

That point is not in contention at all. We both agree the DMG was supposed to be "DMs only" material.

Quote from: Aos;520336DMs skipped it, because for the most part they started out as... wait for it... players and learned how to play the game from others, assuming all the while that those others had actually read the rules, which they  for the most part, did not, because most of them started out as players too. Its a loop. What know it all teen after playing the game for three or four years is going to feel compelled to read the DMG before they run their first game? none of them, they already know how to play. The opportunity to get them to read it at all came and went in the first sentence of the DMG, years before that moment.

No, see, I can't agree to that. DMs start as players. They learn the game by playing it. Bit by bit they find out more about its inner workings, its logic, while still being exposed to it from the player's side, where there's some mystery and so on. It's actually useful in the formation of a DM to appreciate what the players' side of the equation feels like and how it should be managed later when one becomes a DM. It makes you keep in mind that the game world is the thing, not the rules that are used behind the curtain.

THEN, the player in question graduates to the status of DM and reads the DMG. If a guy assumes he can run the game without having read the DMG then the fault's on HIM, not the DMG. From there, having read the DMG, he finds out what is behind the curtain, what he didn't figure out by now in any case. And then, everything makes sense, because the player is grounded in actual play and understands how these pieces work together. Or at least, has a chance to understand.

Quote from: Benoist;520334No, I'm not misinterpreting what you say. It's just that "DMs" doesn't mean "nobody". You can't say "well, it was for DMs only, so you shouldn't be surprised nobody read the rules." Well, no: what about DMs?

Also, Ben, i never said nobody, I said the better part of the payer base, as inmost people played and did not DM, which makes them the larger portion of the player base, but not everybody.

My contention is that it's all about DMs, not the DMG itself.

Quote from: Benoist;520338That point is not in contention at all. We both agree the DMG was supposed to be "DMs only" material.



No, see, I can't agree to that. DMs start as players. They learn the game by playing it. Bit by bit they find out more about its inner workings, its logic, while still being exposed to it from the player's side, where there's some mystery and so on. It's actually useful in the formation of a DM to appreciate what the players' side of the equation feels like and how it should be managed later when one becomes a DM. It makes you keep in mind that the game world is the thing, not the rules that are used behind the curtain.

THEN, the player in question graduates to the status of DM and reads the DMG. If a guy assumes he can run the game without having read the DMG then the fault's on HIM, not the DMG. From there, having read the DMG, he finds out what is behind the curtain, what he didn't figure out by now in any case. And then, everything makes sense, because the player is grounded in actual play and understands how these pieces work together.

Emphasis mine, I would not dispute what you are saying one bit if the DMG did not have the issues it does, but it is poorly organized, written in a strange voice, and requires a microscope to see properly. The fault may be partially on the new DM, but it lies also with the book itself- whatever, though,  the largest fault can be attributed to the culture which surrounded the game, some issue with which I alluded to in  post 146.