Quote from: Bobloblah;830335I actually think B/X and BEC of BECMI were probably the best in terms of teaching you how to actually run (and play) the game. The AD&D DMG was a great resource, but Gygax was a lousy writer, all those who fell in love with his prose notwithstanding.

I like the white box. But this is also a case where it very specifically and simply covers the basics. I would even agree that it is probably better in a lot of ways than the 1E DMG because it really gets into the nuts and bolt basics. If you read the 1E DMG or the white box, they both are useful to someone who has never gamed before. When you read the 2E DMG, it feels like it carries a lot of assumptions that it never gets into (like it was written for people who already read the 1E DMG).

Quote from: Matt;829872Amazing how many RPGers need the DMG to tell them how to play D&D the right way.  Wonder what they did before there was a DMG...sit in a room and roll up characters and then go home?

OD&D included a lot of specific instructions for how to run a campaign.

If you're asking how people played D&D before OD&D was published, the answer is: They were playing with the people who invented the game.

It does carry assumptions. By 1989 in the USA you'd have to have been very sheltered to not know about D&D and RPGs in general. And by then video game RPGs were becoming old hat, with already distinctive schools of structure (JRPG v. USARPG -- or linear v. sandbox). Remember, that's the year Phantasy Star II was released on the Genesis/Mega Drive, 16-bit was well on its way. Might & Magic II was already out, as were Bard's Tale, Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, Wizardry, Ultima, Y's...

Such structures and their variety were seemingly ubiquitous. Well, at least to me and my neck of the woods (and note, I came back to the States back in 1985 from a literal wasteland). What served me far more at that time was getting the game out of the dungeon and personalizing the world. Dungeons were not special or new or motivating to me and my peers at this time — video games already did it better than most pre-teen sucky GMs, and they managed the bookkeeping, too.

That meant focusing on things like aesthetics, i.e. on spell books or potions, or a discussion on how different levels of setting magic will change gameplay. Ideas about the verisimilitude and logic behind taxes and functioning societies helped think about setting first (versus the OOC game perspective of "make 'em lose loot before they power up too fast and 'beat' the game, besides that's what adventurers do."). A frank discussion on what makes an encounter (hint: a meaningful challenge, not necessarily gold or gore) and how combat and loot are not the "end all, be all"; the sheer XP options alone unfettered my game from the already stale structure of "off to the next room to grind some more!"

With that context, I ended up not missing anything in the 2e DMG. It served my time to my needs in an era already becoming jaded to routine. When I came back to 1e DMG and its delightful purple prose as an adult it was enlightening in some respects. But it was mostly for the passion, not for some old hat game structures that I grew up saturated in.

Kids may have missed a lot of backstory along the way, but remember, they grow up saturated as a product of their time. It's the reason why they end up fixing the smart phone, tablets, and smart TVs. (Or in my age, opening the child-proof medicine bottles and programing the VCR.)

Quote from: Opaopajr;830365It does carry assumptions. By 1989 in the USA you'd have to have been very sheltered to not know about D&D and RPGs in general. And by then video game RPGs were becoming old hat, with already distinctive schools of structure (JRPG v. USARPG -- or linear v. sandbox). Remember, that's the year Phantasy Star II was released on the Genesis/Mega Drive, 16-bit was well on its way. Might & Magic II was already out, as were Bard's Tale, Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, Wizardry, Ultima, Y's...

Such structures and their variety were seemingly ubiquitous. Well, at least to me and my neck of the woods (and note, I came back to the States back in 1985 from a literal wasteland). What served me far more at that time was getting the game out of the dungeon and personalizing the world. Dungeons were not special or new or motivating to me and my peers at this time — video games already did it better than most pre-teen sucky GMs, and they managed the bookkeeping, too.

That meant focusing on things like aesthetics, i.e. on spell books or potions, or a discussion on how different levels of setting magic will change gameplay. Ideas about the verisimilitude and logic behind taxes and functioning societies helped think about setting first (versus the OOC game perspective of "make 'em lose loot before they power up too fast and 'beat' the game, besides that's what adventurers do."). A frank discussion on what makes an encounter (hint: a meaningful challenge, not necessarily gold or gore) and how combat and loot are not the "end all, be all"; the sheer XP options alone unfettered my game from the already stale structure of "off to the next room to grind some more!"

With that context, I ended up not missing anything in the 2e DMG. It served my time to my needs in an era already becoming jaded to routine. When I came back to 1e DMG and its delightful purple prose as an adult it was enlightening in some respects. But it was mostly for the passion, not for some old hat game structures that I grew up saturated in.

Kids may have missed a lot of backstory along the way, but remember, they grow up saturated as a product of their time. It's the reason why they end up fixing the smart phone, tablets, and smart TVs. (Or in my age, opening the child-proof medicine bottles and programing the VCR.)

My experience was very different from yours. Yes, we were all aware of D&D by the time 2E came out but that awareness didn't impart a knowledge about how to run or manage a game. I started playing in 1986, but was quite young and absorbed very little of the formal rules. When 2E came out, me and a group of friends became very serious about playing, but we were all going on very vague notions of how games were supposed to be run. Granted there was something in the air, but for us at that age, it didn't really translate into anything meaningful. So when I started running my own games, I was really searching all over for how to structure the things and how to organize my prep. I eventually did arrive at something that worked for me based on what I was able to glean from the blue books, various modules, dungeon, dragon and what other people in my group were trying at the time. My point about something like the 1E DMG is it is very specific in terms of offering up a blue print. That may have been old hat for you at the time, it may not have been the only way to run a game, but at least it was something.

I'm not saying the 1E DMG has all the answers. I am saying the 1E and 3E DMGs were good at helping people just taking on the responsibilities of GMing for the first time, while the 2E DMG wasn't. And again I say this as someone who would rather play 2e. But that book had noticeable gaps that you really can't assume new players coming to the hobby (or just new GMs) are going to have.

I still remember my significantly older brother trying to run me through 1e once I showed interest in RPGs. He's of peer age to everyone here whose childhood was affected by OD&D. First thing he did was start me at the entrance of the dungeon and the lure of treasure, and danger!, below — first thing I said was I go back outside, seal it up, and go back to town.

It's still my go to response when thrown mise en scene into a dungeon. Certain structures carry no magic anymore for plenty of people. 2e DMG helped me bring the logic of setting magic back, the reason to play in the first place back. You have to sell the wanting to do something, and then follow its own logical creation, before you bother with the manner of execution.

For me, even young, it was Inspiration>Realization>Execution. I can forgive a lot in execution. I can tolerate some incoherence. I cannot forgive uninspired. I wasn't alone in that.

Quote from: Opaopajr;830371I still remember my significantly older brother trying to run me through 1e once I showed interest in RPGs. He's of peer age to everyone here whose childhood was affected by OD&D. First thing he did was start me at the entrance of the dungeon and the lure of treasure, and danger!, below — first thing I said was I go back outside, seal it up, and go back to town.

It's still my go to response when thrown mise en scene into a dungeon. Certain structures carry no magic anymore for plenty of people. 2e DMG helped me bring the logic of setting magic back, the reason to play in the first place back. You have to sell the wanting to do something, and then follow its own logical creation, before you bother with the manner of execution.

For me, even young, it was Inspiration>Realization>Execution. I can forgive a lot in execution. I can tolerate some incoherence. I cannot forgive uninspired. I wasn't alone in that.

I am not trying to defend the dungeon as the one true way. If you like adventuring in the city and don't like dungeons, that is cool (I am generally more inclined toward intrigue and investigations than dungeons myself). But what new GMs need is guidance on how to prepare, structure adventures, etc. I don't feel the 2E DMG succeeded in supplying any starting structure to help the new GM. This wouldn't have had to have been a repeat of the 1E DMG. It could have just been an overview of the different adventure structures and styles at the time, with some advice on realizing them. All I am saying is you can read through the 2E DMG and not find any information on the nuts and bolts of world building, adventure design, etc. That is a big shortcoming in my view. I won't deny it has some really great tools in it. It isn't a bad book. I just think the DMG for dungeons and dragons needs to have some basic information so new GMs know what their options are (and while dungeons are not for everyone, I think given the game's association with them, expecting some basic info on dungeon building is reasonable).

I have no opinion on the 2e DMG. Nothing about it left much of an impression. But I've never understood the gratuitous exaltation in some corners for the 1e DMG. Its pretty crappy.

Quote from: Haffrung;830292As a guide for someone completely new to DMing D&D, the Holmes Basic was probably the worst starting point. If you have a better candidate for worst, I'd like to hear it.

2e Gamma World. Its got alot of great advice. But its mostly mechanical. Whereas the B/BX advice is mostly personal. TSR should have played up that the two really compliment eachother.

Quote from: TristramEvans;830376I have no opinion on the 2e DMG. Nothing about it left much of an impression. But I've never understood the gratuitous exaltation in some corners for the 1e DMG. Its pretty crappy.

What parts? 1e's DMG while sometimes overly verbose. Did not seem to have anything gratuitous? At worst they hawk their own wares in it. But even that is only in like 3 spots. Minis, Modules, and I think the Geomorphs?

Quote from: TristramEvans;830376I have no opinion on the 2e DMG. Nothing about it left much of an impression. But I've never understood the gratuitous exaltation in some corners for the 1e DMG. Its pretty crappy.

As a rules reference at the table, yes it is. As a resource for campaign and adventure prep, it is a treasure.

Quote from: TristramEvans;830376I have no opinion on the 2e DMG. Nothing about it left much of an impression. But I've never understood the gratuitous exaltation in some corners for the 1e DMG. Its pretty crappy.

As much as I enjoy 1e DMG, I readily admit that its exaltation is gratuitous to me as well. I also have a similar opinion when I finally got my chance to sit and read CoC d20 DMG. It seemed like obvious advice to me, in the same way the "what is a role playing game, and what are these funny things we roll called dice?" chapter.

Maybe I read too much, or played too many video games, or heeded my art teachers, or aided by eclectic tastes... Whatever it is, I have a very hard time stripping myself down to that Ur-state to empathize where it all seems foreign and new. It feels to me like technical writing on not even how to make a sandwich but how to hold it, bite it, and chew. There's a lot of received knowledge there that I don't even bother challenging because it seems apparent.

That's my personal empathetic failing, I know (and I try really hard nowadays to be nicer). I can only trust what another's experience is unquestioningly. But, I also have to be honest, I slip into being that smart-ass kid that looks askance at other peers who aren't getting (what I feel are) the basics.

Dungeon Magazine was where the good 2e adventures were.  There are several threads here and there on this topic.  Great stuff!

Quote from: TristramEvans;830376I have no opinion on the 2e DMG. Nothing about it left much of an impression. But I've never understood the gratuitous exaltation in some corners for the 1e DMG. Its pretty crappy.

I own it for purely historical value. And whimsy: there's some quirky and funny stuff in there.

Quote from: TristramEvans;830376But I've never understood the gratuitous exaltation in some corners for the 1e DMG. Its pretty crappy.

This comment reads like one of those bad film critiques of Star Wars...1st edition DMG is the best RPG book ever, sorry.

Quote from: Brad;830466This comment reads like one of those bad film critiques of Star Wars...1st edition DMG is the best RPG book ever, sorry.

Gord the Rogue is a better RPG book than Gygax DMG. But seriously, there are at least a dozen better RPG books on my shelf at the moment. DMG at best is a on inspirational mess of poorly edited stream of consciousness with the occasional $40 word thrown in as Gygax tries to make himself sound intellectual while discussing elves and hobbits.