[OSSR]AD&D 2nd Edition: DUNGEON(tm) MASTER Guide.

[tussock]

The bastard son of the DMG, it's the
2nd edition DMG

This newly revised and updated version of the AD&D(tm) game provides everything Dungeon Masters need to create thrilling role-playing challenges. For intermediate through advanced players. Ages 10 and up.

So, this is a book which meant well, Zeb seems like a good guy, it's just a product of it's time and place in the evolution of RPGs as we know them today. In that it's terrible and full of bad advice that will make you a bad GM.

It's likely a good preview for the 5th edition DMG too, given how Mearls likes him some DM-authority figures who arbitrarily change all the rules several times per combat.


Special credit for the credits page, where they thank everyone who's written more than 1000 words for D&D over the years, and mention some of their "hundreds" of playtesters. I'm reading the 3rd printing from 1992, and they used stealth errata so it'll be subtly different than any other printing in many ways, but the bad bits are there anyway.

Forward
Exhorts the DM to not use the rules, not learn the rules, and to answer any questions about the rules by MAKING SHIT UP! OK, in part that's because the rules are incomplete (moreso than modern RPGs), but they're clear that ...

By now, you should be familiar with the rules in the Player‘s Handbook. You’ve probably already noticed things you like or things you would have done differently. If you have, congratulations. You‘ve got the spirit every Dungeon Master needs. Curiosity and the desire to make changes, to do things differently because your idea is better than the other guy’s - these are the most important things a Dungeon Master needs. As you go through this rule book, I encourage you to continue to make these choices.

So before you play the game, or try anything, just assume the rules are shit and you should change every single one of them at a whim. BUT!

Don’t be afraid of experimentation, but do be careful. As a Dungeon Master, you have great power, and “with great power comes great responsibility.” Use it wisely.

So change everything, but any mistakes that pop up are YOUR FAULT. The power tripping and ego inflation: it is not subtle here. The DM of 2nd edition is your GOD. Did your sword attack hit when you rolled a 20? Maybe, be sure to ask the DM.


Introduction
This is awesome. Players must not be allowed to know the rules in here, stuff like how combat works and what things exist in the world, because CONFUSION and SUSPICION are your allies. Also, they might notice you changed everything and are cheating all the time.

The rules to the AD&D 2nd Edition game are balanced and easy to use. No role-playing game we know of has ever been playtested more heavily than this one. But
that doesn't mean it's perfect.

That may have even been true in 1989, ignoring the work of one Frank Mentzer. But this is amongst a screed telling you to change everything at a whim, all the time.

There are hundreds of triicks, shortcuts, and simple principles that can make you a better, more dramatic, and more creative game master.
But you won't find them in the DUNGEON MASTER[\i](tm) Guide.[/b]

Yes, that's an actual quote. This 200 page book on guiding the DM does not tell you how to be a better DM. At all. Doesn't even try. Deliberately avoids the notion. WHUT?!?


Player Character Ability Scores
Gives some sample rolls for the six different ability generation methods, that seem to be someone literally rolling dice and writing down five characters with each method rather than a fair statistical summary, but whatever. Anyway ...

Many players see their characters as nothing more than a collection of numbers that affects game systems. They don't think of their characters as personalities to be developed. Players like this want to "win" the game, somehow. These players are missing out on a lot of the fun.

If you're wondering how the Stormwind fallacy ever got traction, here it is on page 10 of the 2nd edition DMG. Anyhow, the next few pages are a discussion on punishing people for the dice rolling you made them do, and how people who make backgrounds are real roleplayers and won't mind having crap stats. They actually dissuade you from picking any sort of benchmark for acceptable bonuses, and tell you over and over again not to let anyone play Paladins or Druids, to make them more special when someone gets lucky with their dice (and is stupid enough to play a Paladin in 2nd edition).


Player Character Races
Discusses the class limits and gives level limits for the races (which are a secret for players to find out later ) and then tells you not to get rid of them because Humans would suck if you did, and then tells you five different ways of getting rid of them to make players of demi-humans happy. So good luck with that.

Oh, and provides advice on making custom races from monsters. Which is a screed on how a Giant would have +2 Str with a rolled minimum of 15 (and some random penalties pulled out your ass to match), not get gaint-like attacks or natural armour or anything, and then you should punish them for playing one by having all their equipment break all the time and townfolk try to randomly assassinate them.

Player Character Classes
Oh gods, it keeps getting worse. This is the screed where the King should be a zero-level soldier with 1d8+1 hit points because adventurers are special and nobles are hereditary fools, and also it's not common to find more than one thousand 2nd level Fighters in a group.



I'm a have to stop for a while. That is objectively terrible world-building. The Fighter actually has a class feature about becoming a Baron at 9th level with a castle and troops, but they forgot that right before explaining how you might like to not give them that if you feel like it.

[tussock]

Right. Sorry, derailed myself. So after the world-building part of describing how the various character classes don't seem to have any of their class features (like followers and castles and apprentices and all that) and princes should be zero-level for no reason at all, they tell us that

While there is no set breakpoint for high level, character duties and responsibilities begin to change around between 9th and 12th level.

Or, if you read the rules, you reach name level and get a keep and shit. Then waffles about how high level PCs who use their class feature mooks should be promoted levels automagically and stuff. No rules or anything, just, ...

As the campaign progresses, the DM can slowly spin a web of intrigue around Varrack as enemies, open and hidden, seek to block his progress or use him to topple his own lord. Against these odds, Varrack may find himself destined to become the King's champion, gaining new titles, responsibilities, friends, and enemies along the way

Which is to say, the monster manual can't handle high level PCs and so you should invent some sort of political theatre for people to play. Only don't let them become a king or anything, because he's a zero-level nobody, because adventurers are special.

Whenever you look at how stupid 3e NPC classes are, remember they were improving on something that was vastly worse.

Oh, and there's the build your own class tables, which you should not try to use.


Alignment

[*]It is not a hammer to pound over the heads of players who misbehave. It is not a code of behavior carved in stone. It is not absolute, but can vary from place to place.
[*]The DM should never tell a player, "Your character can't do that because it's against their alignment," ...
[*]Unconscious change happens when the character's actions are suited to a different alignment without the player realising it.
[*]The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point count to gain the next level (or levels In the case of a multi classed character) are doubled.

So. If you wondered why people used to hate alignment, and have constant alignment wars on the internets: there it is. The 2nd edition DMG again. Alignment is whatever you want it to be, never telling players what you expect of them, and when they don't read your mind and act like you wish you should double their XP requirements for a while. Maybe with a warning at some point.

Plus some joy like how a helm of opposite alignment prevents you earning XP while you're cursed with it, ontop of it possibly causing later XP penalties if you roleplay it wrong and "voluntarily" change your alignment. God 2nd edition is awful.


Proficiencies (Optional)
A quick 2-page note about how people who choose effective weapons are doing it wrong and should be punished. Also, in praise of basket-weavers. In spite of being called optional here, pretty much everything written for 2nd edition assumed you were using them, and leaned heavily on them for later rules and expansions.


Money and Equipment
Starts with a bit about economics that isn't related to the game in any way. There's advice on taking all the player's money away from them by virtue of hand-waving, even though you can't actually do anything useful with money in 2nd edition, it's just taking it away so you can give it back again as more treasure.

So I'm also supposed to change all the prices and stuff, invent new equipment, account for inflation via recovered dragon hoard, .... No. It wants me to screw anyone who buys a horse, screw Rogues who invest in lockpicking, and how there's secret good weapons that get +1 damage which you can totally just buy at 1st level (if only you'd read the DMG, which you're not allowed to).

Also, rules for cutting ropes, smashing doors, and making item saves should you fail your personal save vs fireball or whatever. NB: Item saves vs Lightning Bolt as surprisingly nasty; expect your metal sword to disintegrate should it ever have to conduct electricity.


Magic
Speaking of electricity.

However characters acquire new spells, always remember that you are in charge. You have complete control over what spells the player characters get.
If a player character has a spell you don't like or one that severely disrupts or unbalances your game, it is not the player's fault! Who gave the character the spell? Who allowed it in the game? Controlling spell acquisition is an important responsibility.

So, you may not realise, but Wizards are broken, spells are pretty much entirely fucked up, and you're just supposed to personally micro-manage the spells any Magic-User gets hold of so that stops being a problem. Which means giving them awesome spells at low level that don't scale like Sleep, and crap ones at high level if you want to keep playing D&D at all, but they don't say that, you're just supposed to guess or something.

So no one did that. Ever. The actual advice is if you get it wrong (because they don't really help, this not being a book of advice for GMs, just 200 pages of things you might like to think about) you should capture and destroy the player's spellbooks.

Also spell research, where they suggest you do it right rather than wrong, without seeing much need to clarify that.


Experience (XP Awards)
Most people gave out tiny amounts of XP in 2nd edition, because the actual numbers they give are very small compared to the amounts you need. I'm assuming here that the vague references to, well ...

Awarding experience points (XP) is one of the DM's most difficult jobs. The job is difficult because there are only a few rules (and a lot of guidelines) for the DM to rely on. The DM must learn nearly everything he knows about experience points from running game sessions. There is no magical formula or die roll to determine if he is doing the right or wrong thing. Only time, instinct, and player reactions will tell.

Where they proceed to not tell you how much XP to award for people having the right kind of fun (but not the wrong kinds of fun) for not dying (on top of not getting any XP if you do die) and for becoming a better player of the game (while noting that people who optimise are scum and shouldn't get as much, however that works). Also, there should be story rewards (if the players do what they were trying to do rather than go off the rails, or something, it's really vague).

Then some actual numbers for killing monsters, and optionally for casting spells and using other class features in ways that don't kill monsters but are "significant" anyway, or for finding non-magical treasure (with a warning not to do that, even though you probably should if you ever want anyone to see 2nd level).

And some optional training rules that are shockingly horrible even for the standard of 2nd edition. How they could make the 1st edition ones worse is a question for the ages.


More later. Been fun so far. There are just so many horrible quotes I'm skipping over.

[CCarter]

[*]The instant a character voluntarily changes alignment, the experience point count to gain the next level (or levels In the case of a multi classed character) are doubled.

The alignment change system is appalling. Character development? In a roleplaying game? This must be stopped!
Pretty much another railroading tool where the PCs have to do the adventure because they're good and if they don't, DOUBLE XP TO LEVEL UP BITCHES!!

(edit: quote tags)

[Username17]

The weirdest part about this is how much more player-friendly the 2nd edition AD&D DMG was than its 1st edition predecessor.

-Username17

[shadzar]

So change everything, but any mistakes that pop up are YOUR FAULT.

your incompetence and inability to read is so funny! please keep going, i have never been to a Ren-fest/faire and always wondered how the court fool would act and am loving your rendition of it in this thread and these forums.

Either you really are the court fool, or jealous of Gail Gygax cause she got to suck Gary's cock and you didn't?

shall we once again compare?

AFTERWORD

IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

Foreword to the 2nd Edition


...
At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.
...


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

you really must have wanted Gary's cock cause he seduced you with his Gygaxian prose. "Zeb" put the same thing in a 5 word sentence.

The DM controls the game, the DM must make changes to make the game work for those playing. the game is more important than any one player. if the game doesn't work the players have nothing to play in, so you change you also will ahve to fix it. if it doesn't work out of the book for you group, so too will YOU, the DM, have to fix it and make it work.

both of these say the same fucking thing, yet for some reason you hold 1st edition to be lesser DM-heavy handed, while EVERYONE knows Gary was a rat-bastard DM behind the screen.

Item Code: #9147 (T1-4)
Title: The Temple of Elemental Evil
Type: Adventure
Author: Gary Gygax with Frank Mentzer
Published: 1985

you are just too funny twosucks!

[virgil]

By the Dire Doorknobs of Dormammu, how does a criticism of the "rules are guidelines" philosophy have anything to do with earlier incarnations, let alone make qualitative comparisons?

[CapnTthePirateG]

The weirdest part about this is how much more player-friendly the 2nd edition AD&D DMG was than its 1st edition predecessor.

-Username17

Wait what?

[tussock]

@Shadz

AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL

to do things differently because your idea is better than the other guy’s

Those are saying the opposite thing. 1st edition is iron consistency that sensibly bends a little for the needs of your campaign and hardly at all for what players think. 2nd edition openly celebrates DMs who want to change the rules of combat half way through one to increase the dramatic tension or just help tell a funny story. YFI.

@CapnTthePirateG: 1st edition is very hostile to certain kinds of player input, specifically around how the rules work. It seeks to restrict player input only to choosing where to go and what to try, with resolution ideally being consistent but entirely up to the DM. 2nd edition has little notes about listening to player input before you go nuts and rewrite half the game like any real DM would.




Combat

The trick to making combat vivid is to be less concerned with the rules than with what is happening at each instant of play. If combat is only "I hit. I miss. I hit again," then something is missing. Combats should be more like, "One orc ducks under the table jabbing at your legs with his sword. The other tries to make a flying tackle, but misses and sprawls to the floor in the middle of the partyl" This takes description, timing, strategy, humor, and (perhaps most important of all) knowing when to use the rules and when to bend them.

So even amongst their good advice, noting that you can be a bit florid with your descriptions in combat, they have to say that you should arbitrarily change the rules all the time. And then totally don't bother to provide any instances of rules that might have people duck under tables or fall on their ass for any reason at all (except to note some huge penalties for doing any of that sort of thing), because you making shit up on the spur of the moment would be better than any actual advice or rules, or something.

It goes on to point out that hack-and-slash is lazy and bad, and then give thirty pages of very little other than bland hack and slash with obnoxiously huge holes for people to exploit. It's like their giving advice for a different game system, one you're supposed to write yourself, which is a lot of the 2nd edition DMG.

First they have to take time to explain that your positive modifiers to hit subtract from your THAC0 and their positive modifiers to defence subtract from their AC before you subtract their AC from your THAC0 to find what number you need to roll to hit ... which is ever so bad when you write it out in full like that, but they did want to be consistent with the 1st edition combat tables so there you go.

Then of course they changed the THAC0 tables so they weren't consistent after all, but whatever. I'm sure they meant well.

A round is approximately one minute long.

There are no emoticons for how 2nd edition combat actually works. It's a clusterfuck. The example shows players arguing about what actions everyone should take as the DM tries to hurry them along, followed by rolling initiative.

Initiative: low initiative is good, so the modifier for your various actions and situations are expressed as a +2 penalty for slippery ground or a -2 bonus for being hasted. Unlike your +3 strength bonus to hit that you subtract from your THAC0.

Your team gets one initiative roll (or optionally one each, which it suggests you might switch in and out of at a whim) and you all add your various personal initiative modifiers to find when your declared action happens, including this glorious piece of nonsense

A warhammer is heavy. Swing it in one direction and it pulls in that direction. It has to be bought back under control and repositioned before it can be swung again. The user must regain his balance and plant his feet firmly. Only after doing all this is he ready for his next attack. Compare how quickly someone can throw a punch to the amount of time required to swing a chair to get a good idea of what weapon speed factors are about.

That backwards-ass bullshit polluted people's minds for over a decade. As an optional passage, you should ignore it, because it's bad for your game.

Attacking: we get run-around-them for +2 to hit and no shield type facing (in one-minute combat rounds), no allowance for weapon reach at all (pikes go last, daggers go first), apparently two-handed swords take up 10' fighting space instead of the usual 5' in some way I'm supposed to intuit as a general rule.

Hitting a Specific Target: at -4, I can do damage and make you drop your potion, or maybe a wand, but not your weapon, or something. I likely have to choose to do this before I know what you're going to be trying to hold in your hand this round, so ... it's either awesome or useless, your guess as good as mine.

Movement in Combat: you can move and full attack. Yay. You can withdraw if someone else on your team stays in the melee and blocks.

Attacking Without Killing: these rules are horribly punative and complex and ... I guess better than the unusable horror of 1st edition in that you might theoretically use them, even though they're much worse than 3e's grappling rules and will get you killed.

Touch Spells in Combat: require a regular attack, or an attack vs AC 10 to hit an ally.

Critical Hits: which optionally suggest an extra attack, and fumbles which suggest losing next round's attack on a 1 (because you dropped your sword or fell over or whatever, even though that all carries big penalties if you follow the other rules, but rules are for fools and aren't to be used here, or something).

And ... this turns into a really long chapter detailing the potential intricacies of 2nd edition combat and healing and death and morale and special attacks and turning undead and various optional rules around that which you probably shouldn't use (except hovering at death's door, because everyone used that so PCs don't have to die all the time). All very compartmentalised and each piece doesn't really interact with the other bits very well, but at least there's a good few tables with numbers on them that you probably roll some weird dice combination to use while maybe subtracting your positive bonuses.

So, not much to pick at, really no advice here at all, just the mechanical horror story that is 2nd edition and some of the very strange things they said to try to justify it.


Technically, it's a fair bit easier to use and understand than 1st edition, if you strictly ignore all the optional bits. But 3e completely kicks it's ass in every way imaginable.


Next up: treasure and magic items, encounters, and NPCs.

[Hicks]

Seriously, the 1e DMG exists as a testament to the evils of E. Gary Gygax. The book reveals the lie set forth in the PHB, that everything the player was told is wrong, and instructs the DM to punish and torment the players at every turn. The 2e DMG is positively liberal in its leniency and transparency to the player. It still sucks, buy at the time it was a huge step forward for player agency.

[Username17]

The weirdest part about this is how much more player-friendly the 2nd edition AD&D DMG was than its 1st edition predecessor.

-Username17

Wait what?

The 1st edition AD&D DMG's alignment section asked the DM to keep a secret vector graph for each character where they plotted their actions (and the effects of their actions) on a chart. And then if they moved from one alignment to another the DM was supposed to announce an alignment shift with no warning. This right after giving a nonsensical tirade about what the alignments mean, and then admitting that as the DM you're going to have to establish the difference between Good and Evil or Law and Chaos your own damn self.

That's kind of dickish, but no more so than 2nd Edition's alignment section. Where it really goes off the rails is that you don't take XP penalties for shifting alignment, you straight up lose a level. Then if you're a Cleric, Paladin, or Druid you lose all your powers. Then if you're a Magic User, your familiar tries to kill you. Keep in mind that this bullshit kicks in like this:

Characters who knowingly or unknowingly change alignment through forethought or actions permanently lose the experience points and level due to disfavor.

Gygax had this to say about how his system "worked":

Although it is possible for a character to allow himself or herself to be blown by the winds as far as alignment is concerned, he or she will pay a penalty which will effectively damn the character to oblivion.

The 2nd edition DMG is dickish, confused, and disempowering. But it's basically player-friendly for the most part. The AD&D DMG basically wants you to shit in the players' open mouths.

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, as much as I like depicting our gaming predecessors as a pack of mouth breathers, it must be said that the much parodied "Fuck it, let's all go Chaotic Neutral and pull our motivations out of hat" and Lawful Stupid playstyles fall under the "I don't condone it... but I understand" category given the bullshit they had to put up with.

[shadzar]

Forward
Exhorts the DM to not use the rules, not learn the rules, and to answer any questions about the rules by MAKING SHIT UP! OK, in part that's because the rules are incomplete (moreso than modern RPGs), but they're clear that ...

By now, you should be familiar with the rules in the Player‘s Handbook. You’ve probably already noticed things you like or things you would have done differently. If you have, congratulations. You‘ve got the spirit every Dungeon Master needs. Curiosity and the desire to make changes, to do things differently because your idea is better than the other guy’s - these are the most important things a Dungeon Master needs. As you go through this rule book, I encourage you to continue to make these choices.

finally fucking found this since you cut the first sentence out i though maybe i have a revised copy of the book. no paragraph starts with "by now".

shall we finish reading the fucking foreward to learn what is being talked about?

now i presented the whole damn AFTERWORD from 1st edition, scroll up to find it. here is the foreward to 2nd, 1st printing, without Steve's addition in the revised.

Foreword to the 2nd Edition

A foreword is normally the place where the author of a book expresses thanks and gratitude. I'm not going to do that here. It's not that everyone involved doesn't deserve congratulations and praise, it's just that I already said all those things in the foreword to the AD&D Player's Handbook. Everything I said there is true for this book, too. On to other things.
Let's assume that since you're reading this, your are, or plan to be, a Dungeon Master. By now, you should be familiar with the rules in the Player's Handbook. You've probably already noticed things you like or things you would have done differently. If you have, congratulations. You've got the spirit every Dungeon Master needs. As you go through this rule book, I encourage you to continue to make these choices.

Choice is what the AD&D game is all about. We've tried to offer you what we think are the best choices for your AD&D campaign, but each of us has different likes and dislikes. The game that I enjoy may be quite different from your own campaign. But it is not for me to say what is right or wrong for your game. True, I and everyone working on the AD&D game have had to make fundamental decisions, but we've tried to avoid being dogmatic and inflexible. The AD&D game is yours, it's mine, it's every player's game.

So is there an "official" AD&D game? Yes, but only when there needs to be. Although I don't have a crystal ball, it's likely that tournaments and other official events will use all of the core rules in these books. Optional rules may or may not be used, but it's fair to say that all players need to know about them even if they don't have the memorized.
The Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master Guide give you what you're expected to know, but that doesn't mean the game begins and ends there. Your game will go in directions not yet explored and your players will try things others think strange. Sometimes these strange things will work; sometimes they won't. Just accept this, be ready for it, and enjoy it.

Take the time to have fun with the AD&D rules. Add, create, expand, and extrapolate. Don't just let the game sit there, and don't become a rules lawyer worrying about each piddly little detail. If you can't figure out the answer, MAKE IT UP! And whatever you do, don't fall into the trap of believing these rules are complete. They are not. You cannot sit back and let the rule book do everything for you. Take the time and effort to become not just a good DM, but a brilliant one.

At conventions, in letters, and over the phone I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question--what do you feel is right? And the people asking the questions discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines.
At the beginning of the first Dungeon Master Guide, Gary Gygax stressed that each of us, working from a common base, would make the AD&D game grow in a variety of different directions. That is more true today than ever. Don't be afraid of experimentation, but do be careful. As a Dungeon Master, you have great power, and "with great power comes great responsibility." Use it wisely.

David "Zeb" Cook
2/9/89

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

@Shadz

AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL

to do things differently because your idea is better than the other guy’s

Those are saying the opposite thing. 1st edition is iron consistency that sensibly bends a little for the needs of your campaign and hardly at all for what players think. 2nd edition openly celebrates DMs who want to change the rules of combat half way through one to increase the dramatic tension or just help tell a funny story. YFI.

look up where i bolded and tell me exactly where you get the idea that Zeb is talking about the DM being better than the players or some shit? tell me where it says to just change everything mid game?

you had a bad 2nd edition DM, and they fucked you over, and you blame the game for it. Grow up already!


unless i have my formatting order off, notice the big red words. this is the fucking most important part. in no where does it say fuck over the players like you insinuate it does. it states here is what we give you. "official events" the rules used will be the same from table to table for the specific event. at home, do whatever the hell you want to because Zeb is not your nanny, nor is he Gary who said "If you are not playing AD&D as written in the book, then you are not playing AD&D."

The DM is responsible for fixing his game when he or the players do something unexpected. TSR wont take calls 24/7 to fix your game, nor is some other DM ("the other guy") supposed to do it. these are YOUR players, and it is YOUR responsibility as their DM to handle any problem that arises.

yeah. if you want something not provided in the books, you have to MAKE IT UP. guess what, that is how EVERY fucking RPG works! make it up yourself, or hope the company makes it for you to buy, or you fucking do without!

again your concept of what is says comes from somebody being your DM and fucking you up the ass during play, and you cannot see beyond that to read English.

[deaddmwalking]

again your concept of what is says comes from somebody being your DM and fucking you up the ass during play, and you cannot see beyond that to read English.

The fact that I can read and understand English doesn't help me decipher what you're saying in the least.

[tussock]

tell me where it says to just change everything mid game?

The running example through the start of the combat chapter is literally the GM changing the rules every round of combat, explicitly described that it's because the DM feels different rules would work not too badly at the time.

In the third round of combat, the DM decides to use individual initiatives. Each character is involved in their own fight and there aren't too many to deal with.

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game. don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him; a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

Like, that's a lovely sentiment and way ahead of it's time in many ways, but it's totally unsupported by the rules and is literally a request for DMs to change the rules on the fly if people try dramatically appropriate things. While noting ...

Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.

like you insinuate

Your inference is your own. Re-read what I wrote to you last time, it's quite clear, and you have simply not grasped it.



Back to the DMG.


Treasure and Magic Items

So, money is said to be awesome because you can buy animals and followers, and magic items are important because they are pure power. So almost the first suggestion is

Is the world poor in magical items, such that the discovery of a simple potion will be seen as a great reward7 Or is it rich in magicaI items, such that the player characters will have many and will use them often just to survive? Will their supply of magic items be s great as to render them all but unstoppable?
Will the player characters be forced to undertake dangerous adventures just to have food from day to day, or will they have so much wealth that their adventures will involve those of the highest levels of society and power? Will the characters have too much money, making them difficult to coerce, bribe, threaten, or even challenge? Will they be poor (and, possibly, depressed and frustrated)?
Only the DM can answer these questions. And answer them he should, for they will shape the campaign as surely as any other single factor.

And that, dear folk, is why so many 2nd edition DMs were bastards with giving out a barely a fucking potion or two. Because it's nicer than making them slaughter goblins to buy food, and you wouldn't want players being difficult to coerce, now would you.

It goes on to describe how DMs, should they ever feel difficulty in providing a challenge, need only stop giving out magic items and destroy the player's equipment by cheating like a miserable bastard, and if the players notice that and don't like it ...

There is only one cure - starting over.
Require all the characters to retire, and begin anew with 1st-level characters, being careful not to make the same mistakes again.

So rocks fall, everyone dies. That is why we have a wealth-by-level system now.

Then there's the very high level (and unlikely to work but will fuck you up anyway) system of making your own magic items. Which is basically the DM makes some shit up if you beg hard enough and it takes forever and costs huge amounts of money. No one used it that I ever heard of back in the day.

At least recharging wands and stuff is functional (and did get used), acting as a free way to store your downtime spell slots if you know the spell in the wand, and are 12th level or more, which you're not, because that's 750,000 xp.



Encounters

Ah, the meat of the game, tucked away in chapter 11. Anyway, there are only two types, Placed Encounters and Wandering Monsters. Fair enough, it's only 1989. Though it rather strongly hints not to use random encounters at all, so there might only be one type.

There's a few pages talking about how you might like to make your own encounter tables, rather than just giving you a set of encounter tables. That is so typical of this book.

Then there's some secret Surprise modifiers, that the DM is encouraged to change all the time. Encounter Distance is very neat and functional, around 10'-15' with surprise, line of sight otherwise, given in random dice ranges in various outdoors settings. An Encounter Reactions table is given should the reaction of monsters not be obvious. Note that it's quite rare for disinterested monsters to actually attack you if you avoid attacking them on sight, always good.

Anyway there's no hint whatsoever as to what monsters to use here, nor in the monster folders of the time (IIRC). Happily they suggest, should the worst happen and ...

The DM accidentally pitted his player characters against a group of creatures too powerful for them. So much so that the player characters are doomed. To fix it, the DM can

cheat. Change the rules. Change the monsters. Ignore everything, just let the players win without telling them that's what you're doing. Oops.

Heaps of people just play D&D that way all the time to this day. Seen it even on these boards with players confused as to how they could possibly be winning against such terrible foes. It's easy, the DM isn't using rules, they're just telling a nice story where you win and making you roll lots of dice for no reason along the way.

Remind myself of Mike Mearls there, only he thinks that's a good thing.

So that's why we got the CR system. Because borked estimates of monster power are more useful than no estimates of monster power.



NPCs

Ah, the huge table of common medieval professions. Not bothering to mention what they get paid (except for a couple of them later on), just to tell you what the words mean. Being in an old British colony, I know people with most of those as surnames, but I do not know anyone called Targash (the current example PC).

Do remember to hire a Dragoman next time you're in Thay: very useful.

Anyhow, we move on to the DM imagining how well Spies and Assassins might work, because there's no prices (suggestion later, up to 10,000gp) or rules or anything other than how you might like to punish the players for even trying. There's Sages, who eventually got their own book in this edition of books for everyone, but here are just a percentage chance and time required for various knowledge checks, because those are NPC-only in 2nd edition.

Finally, Soldiers, who, of course, will not go adventuring with you and so just may be less useful than they tell you all the time.

Finally, local officials have this funny way of getting upset about strange armies. If Targash comes to town to raise 300 heavy cavalry, the local lord is sure to notice! No one likes strangers raising armies in their territory. It is, after all, a threat to their power.

See, the local lord should either be a 9th level or higher Fighter, or a zero-level nobody. One of these people is threatened by 300 heavy cavalry and can't do anything about you raising them, and one of them is not because he would personally murder them all without breaking a sweat. It's a nice idea for story-time, but not so much fitting the rules. Again.

Henchmen are the good sauce. You get to play them and take them on adventures with you, unless the DM decides to overrule anything you do with them at his whim, which the book repeatedly suggests you do, as DM. It actually suggests if a player gets their henchman killed it should turn into a ghost and haunt them.


You can also buy specific spells off a table, with "minimum" prices set out, as well as suggestions for greater or lesser service and allegiance. Which should all make more sense than 3e's general rule with it being so specific, but then really doesn't. Druids sell Control Weather for 20,000gp, which I suppose is for making all those solid gold statues of bears or something.

Plus some random NPC personality traits, suggestions for physical appearance, and a couple of notes about making them pop and stuff, which is all good. Also points out that you can totally make them on the fly, but should try to keep notes thereafter to be consistent, which is nice to see.


That's enough for now. That chapter was passable and got better at the end. It's distracted me, got me off my game.

[shadzar]

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game. don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him; a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

Like, that's a lovely sentiment and way ahead of it's time in many ways, but it's totally unsupported by the rules and is literally a request for DMs to change the rules on the fly if people try dramatically appropriate things. While noting ...

Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.

i get it now, you think D&D is a game about players telling each other bedtime stories, and EVERYTHING they try, must always succeed?

do you not see in the last bit you are quoting that is says like i have SO many times. "the players can try to do anything"? is that or is it not correct tin D&D, ALL editions that the players have the right to try anything, within reason, within the game?

also being a game based on resolution through RNG is there a guarantee anything tried will work?

you highlight the basic principle of D&D, and then bitch about it. it seems to me you do NOT want to play D&D, but want to tell your novella about your special snowflake character and the other players are to sit there and just take it?

or are you saying that a DM that lets a player try anything within the game is bad?

or are you saying a DM that uses chance to determine the success of an action is a bad DM for not just letting it work the player wanted it to?

you really sound like the perfect example for my thread of someone who just doesn't get D&D. you are more interested in your characters novella than understanding it is a game played by EVERYONE at the table, and not your personal toy and all about YOU.

the job of the DM is NOT to give you everything you want to succeed, nor ANY other singular player (see Gary's order of priorities in the AFTERWORD). the DM has the responsibility to make the game work the best for all.

if a majority of the time you are not having fun in the game, then find a group that enjoys the same stupid shit you do. if the DM is not making the game fun for any of the players, then maybe they just arent cut out to be a DM, or not ready yet, or don't understand the players.

i love how you read only what you wanted form the introduction as well.

Introduction

Besides rules, you'll find a large portion of this book devoted to discussions of the principles behind the rules. Along with this are examinations of the pros and cons of changing the rules to fit your campaign. The purpose of this book, after all, is to better prepare you for your role as game moderator and referee. The better you understand the game, the better equipped you'll be to handle unforeseen developments and unusual circumstances.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Tailor your campaign to fit your own style and the style of your players.


Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

the DM MUST change the rules because his players are NOT: Gary Gygax, Frank Mentzer, Dave Arneson, Zeb Cook, and Luke Gygax.

again something underlying that i repeat over and over MANY times about how the GAME itself should be designed in a way that ALLOWS the game to be changed to suit different playstyles because those mentioned that created the books BASED ON THEIR GAME PLAY EXPERIENCES, are not the ones you play with, and are NOT you either.

so you make D&D your own as the DM so YOU can enjoy it, cause a DM that isnt having fun wont present a fun game to the players. Within that you make the game fun for the players, even if their pet Drizzt-clone doesn't get played this game.

WotC didn't and doesn't follow this concept because still into DDN they are adding crap that reduces fun for many, and is impossible of being removed: feats, skills, class roles, bloodied condition, etc.

do you demand a player have NWP: fire-building in order to light a torch in games you run?

do you allow a player to trip that giant without any kind of dice rolled either a dex check from the giant with some penalties given to it due to player actions....the player just succeeds at everything they try?

chance of failure is the risk for chance of success, ergo the concept of a GAME, not just acting. cause an RPG without the elements of a game (success and fail possible) is just one big MTP. i can only guess you prefer to play MTP rather than D&D?

[deaddmwalking]

Shadzar,

Changing the rules isn't the same as not including a chance of failure. But beyond the confusing drivel you're spouting, there's a larger issue that I hope I can politely make you aware of.

As much as I like 3.x, I understand that the system has flaws. While I'll happily describe both the defects and advantages it offers when someone asks, I'm certainly biased toward recommending it (since it's my preferred 'official' system). But I can enjoy a joke at it's expense. Order of the Stick, for instance, had a lot of fun with the 'silliness' of the 3.x rules.

I get that you like 2nd edition, but do you have to take it so seriously? No system is perfect - having fun poking out those flaws is something you should really learn to enjoy - even if it's something that you love.

Laughing at 2nd edition should be no harder than learning to laugh at yourself - and that's important, too.

Clearly your attempts at unfunny rebuttal (which seem to largely miss the points claimed to be addressed) are not winning you any converts. If you care about 2nd edition as deeply as you appear to, you have to let some of these things go.

[shadzar]

did you read my post before yours? i talk shit about 2nd all the time. why i only speak of it is because IT is the newest edition i know. 3.x is too much a pain in the ass to read like 1st edition books. aside from the shitty quality and lack of legibility, the game itself sucks.

i can only speak of 2nd as it is the one i know best, and have best access to without digging in a box in the closet for 1st or BD&D/OD&D. i have borrowed a 3.5 book or two from time to time to see what the hell people are talking about when I felt the need, but will delve no further into it than to look something up in it. i have no interest in playing it. ergo: why i take 2nd so "seriously" since you obviously miss where i shit all over the NWP portion amongst other, is because it is what i know. it is the BEST system to do what D&D is for. make adventures for the group of players you have to play with.

i have ZERO interest in making some playing in Kalamazoo Michigan happy with their game as i am not responsible for them. they are not someone i am playing with, nor my DM.

also in case you DO read the post you are responding to, somehow without reading it. notice how i mention NWPs in context of this thread.

HOW would you feasibly use NWPs if you don't change them. ask ANYBODY and they will tell you just how fucked up the concept is and how many people that confused. add to that confusion that Secondary Skills exist as a background tool to help fil in those gaps for people that cant formulate their own ideas...

i wont laugh at NWPs, i will stab them with a fucking spork until they are just a puddle of fucking goo! if it wouldnt ruin the spine of my book, the entire Chapter 5 would have been cut out of it long ago.

[CCarter]

Comparing the 1E and 2E DMGs is interesting.

Historically speaking, the 1st ed. version of the DMG has much of an 'Obey! Obey!' vibe since it was written by Gary. The making of AD&D was partly driven by his desire to suppress all the house-ruling going on in Original D&D, for various reasons - partly for tournaments, partly due to other people starting to publish their own D&D supplements (e.g. David Hargrave's Arduin books, which the author continued to sell after a Cease and Desist with direct references to D&D whited out). He had a rant in Dragon Magazine (#16 I think) that was related.

By 2nd Ed. however, even the people writing the DMG had to start realizing that the whole thing was an unplayable mess. So saying 'you should probably houserule that' counts as progress, albeit that its nowhere near as good as actually fixing rules problems. Also less dickish, again since it wasn't written by Gary.

[tussock]

@CCarter: EGG later recanted alot of that stuff. Both in his 3e columns in Dragon magazine, and on Dragonsfoot in his x00-page "ask Gary" thread. He was consistent in stating that he mostly interacted with tournament players who would complain that their DM used different rules, and people writing letters about rules that weren't in the game, and he was sick of having the same discussion with them all.

He admitted using very few of the printed rules in his AD&D home games (I've got notes somewhere about that, basically only used the combat matrix), and also apologised specifically for writing the unarmed combat rules found in 1st edition, the weapon vs armour table, for including the psionics rules, and for the Monk. Said most of the rules bloat was there because they got so many letters asking for more of it, and commercially it was good for him to beef up the word count all the time. IE: whoring it out.

Not that it matters for what's in the book, which is harsh and full of useless nonsense pretending to be rules. The 1st edition DMG is a much more curious and enlightening book to read for just that reason.



But moar DMG it must be. Last of it! Huzzah!


Vision & Light

I've no idea why this comes way after the encounters bit, but here it is anyway, chapter 13. So, you can't surprise anyone because they can all see your Light Sources. Which kinda makes all the previous rules about surprise and so on a bit useless, but whatever.

Also a note that real Infravision is stupid-complicated and you shouldn't use it (/optional), rules for being blind or in Darkness or fogs, and a page on how Invisibility secretly doesn't work because flour exists (and other secret DMG spell nerfs just for that one spell).

Later in the edition they'd spend copious page space trying to nerf Stoneskin with handfuls of gravel and so on, while pretending it was anything other than a complete game-breaker and never actually fixing it like they quietly did with so much of their stealth errata to other bits of the game.


Time and Movement

The starting rant is where they've noticed that some game mechanics specify events taking weeks or even months, and that it doesn't make much sense for the other PCs to wait for that to finish, so the DM should just ignore those rules or whatever. Automatic fast-forwards as needed with no consequences. Because time is hard and rules are still for fools.

Time as a game-balancer suggests giving extra adventures to anyone falling behind in level, by virtue of cheating the timekeeping system to keep all the other characters "busy". So, again, changing the rules and flat out ignoring them to cover other flaws in the rules. Strait after telling you how players hate that sort of thing.

Then basically page after page of reasons your horse will break down and die, your cart will bog, your boat will sink, you will be blown out of the sky, and how you all got lost three days ago and suddenly have no idea where you are. The suggestion to stick to the roads near rivers and go slow, only in the summer, so as to avoid all those rules is a good one. Though another way to avoid using these rules is to just not use them, like I never did back in the day.


A DM's Miscellany

A chapter for the rules that didn't fit in the other chapters because they named them incorrectly. Like, most of them have really obvious connections to certain parts of the game, but here they are not anywhere near those other parts.

[*]Listening is for more than thieves, but secretly doesn't work, especially if you use it a lot or have a high chance of success.
[*]Doors and how you probably can't open them, if you're lucky enough to even know a door is there.
[*]Lycanthropy and how you're not getting any XP now and have lost your Paladin card and it's really, really hard to get rid of.
[*]The Planes of Existence and how your D&D game is on it's own prime material plane, until Spelljammer came out and it's just in it's own crystal sphere, until Darksun and Ravenloft came out and said they're definitely on their own plane, until Planescape came out and I forget what goes there. Anyway, 4e folded the Phlogiston into the Astral plane, so now it's the same deal, only all these planes on p132 maybe don't exist. Good luck for 5th edition, I suppose.


Appendix I: Treasure Tables

You get tens of thousands of coins for every shot you have at a chance of a magic item or two. Magic, by default, is very, very rare. Those people who didn't even see a solitary +1 dagger until 6th level were probably facing a DM who used these tables.

The classic/AD&D modules had more than that by a long way, but the 2nd edition ones tended to be pretty thin for magic. I saw way more than these tables can give anyway, back in the day.


Appendix II: Magical Item Tables

Which is a whole bunch of little tables, cumulative chances meaning things are quite often as rare as 1-in-2000 of all magic item drops, or 1-in-16000 for the Vorpal Sword and similar awesomeness. The odds of actually winding up with the Gauntlets of Ogre Power and the Girdle of Storm Giant Strength and the Hammer of Thunderbolts is impossibly low, despite the combo being mentioned several times as working exceptionally well together.

Most of the interesting stuff is quite rare too, and you'll mostly see +1 or +2 weapons and armour (as often weak types of both as the good few) with a bunch of potions and scrolls.

I'd say if you ever saw something you wanted, it was the DM ignoring these tables and just giving it to you. The amount of suitable magic my characters got certainly didn't come from here. Not just the amount of it, but the fact I could use it at all. There were also DMs who just flat out gave you the best shit for your class at 5th level, to keep the game "interesting".


Appendix III: Magical Item Descriptions

Where there are 40 pages of reasons for the GM to give your character things that the random tables don't, them being a fairly interesting assortment, if you can look past the random mishmash that is 2nd edition mechanics. You'll find them all in tidier form in your 3e and Pathfinder books, though the translation of mechanics broke some of them very badly for good or ill, and trading rather changes the dynamics of holding onto the Dust of Dryness and suchlike.



And an Index at the back, and that's that. Thank you all, it's a very dry and droll book in the latter half and I knida ran out of spirit there in trying anything to keep it interesting.

I wonder if it was written in order, because the first few chapters are really into that spirit of ignoring the rules and having the right kind of fun and wrestling giants and then later it's just REALISM INSISTS THERE BE LARGE PERCENTAGES FOR YOUR ABJECT FAILURE, BITCHES, like Zeb was getting a bit tired and grumpy with his deadlines.

[tussock]

To have the most fun playing the AD&D game. don't rely only on the rules. Like so much in a good role-playing adventure, combat is a drama, a staged play. The DM is both the playwright and the director, creating a theatrical combat. If a character wants to try wrestling a storm giant to the ground, let him; a character who tries leaping from a second floor window onto the back of a passing orc is adding to everyone's fun.

Like, that's a lovely sentiment and way ahead of it's time in many ways, but it's totally unsupported by the rules and is literally a request for DMs to change the rules on the fly if people try dramatically appropriate things. While noting ...

Just remember that there is a difference between trying and succeeding.

i get it now, you think D&D is a game about players telling each other bedtime stories, and EVERYTHING they try, must always succeed?

No, dude. The book is telling you to encourage players to try awesome things, then providing rules to ruthlessly crush anyone who does, and quickly noting that failure is totally what should happen.

I guess one might argue that the book really suggests the monsters use crappy tactics for huge penalties for the LOLs, and saying that if players want to do that too, you should also apply the same huge penalties to them. Only it complains that you shouldn't just hack and slash, even though that's really the only fucking option that works. Mechanically. It's just so confused between the advice and the mechanics that I find it amusing.

THIS IS LIKELY A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF EXACTLY WHAT DROVE PEOPLE FROM 2ND EDITION TOWARD OTHER "STORY-TELLING" GAMES IN THE 1990's. Including the game authors. The game telling you to be a generous story teller and let people do cool shit and then punishing them for it with the provided mechanics. It's bollocks.


SNIP: you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. Feel free to try again.

[shadzar]

Not that it matters for what's in the book

yeah it doesn't matter. the only thing people have now is the book, cause they have a hard time finding the Dragon issues that have him saying "if you aren't playing AD&D as it is written, then you aren't playing AD&D"

nor can they find the newer ones to see where he discussed it and what was in the book were all directed to tournament still play and people going to cons pestering him.

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

people MUST judge the edition on its books, NOT what someone said about how they fucked them up, cause the books ALWAYS outlive the person.

so the books are al that matters and IF anyone can get them... 1st was 1000% harsher from the DM perspective as it seems TGD consensus agrees, with the exception of your oddball self. go complain to your 2nd ed DM for not giving you a reach around when he fucked you up the ass, cause it isnt our fault or responsibility.

[shadzar]

what drove people from 2nd edition to other things was too few stores had room to carry all the shit and the rampant surge of Goths from Anne Rice novels like interview with a Vampire turned them to more what would be now, emo-shit.

LOL@ the game authors.. the left cause Blumes+LW fired them, or they quit. i think you need to take your meds then a history lesson.

[tussock]

people MUST judge the edition on its books

People right here were basically quoting a single (notorious) early-80's dragon editorial in order to judge 1st edition, while ignoring the published fixes and hacks that improve it in those very same dragon mags (because they don't care, and nor do I, rightly so, it's fucking 1st edition), and so I noted some later clarifications made on the issue of author intent because it's right there in my head waiting to get out every time that happens.

But thank you for agreeing so strongly with my disclaimer.

[shadzar]

except i am judging the bonks from experience with them, NOT the dragon "Letter to the Editor" section where Gary made that comment. it wasn't until i got the DMA that i even saw that other than bandied around on DF. the 1st edition DMG is VERY heavy handed against players doing MANY things. Also it is AGAINST the DM trying to do things for themselves when you look at the tables.

a flaw in Gary's order of priority. Game first, campaign next, players last. because frankly the jumbled mess of shit and lack of organization made and makes it VERY hard for people to play the game that is 1st edition. Nobody has yet to find the steak tidbit under all the fries.

so the later bits where he recants not only the dragon article but fucking up, means NOTHING to people either.

Based on the BOOKS, 1st edition was heavy-handed, because DMs HAD to try to make that jumbled pile of shit work. thee is a good game in there when you can find it, but finding it is a lifelong chore. 2nd edition is EASY to let the players play within the confines of the game. Yes the game has confines, the CORE of it. Minimal required components OF THE GAME. the least THE GAME needs to be playable. 2nd gave more freedom because it gave more ability to understand the game to ALL, not just DMs. that wasnt because it was watered down in prose, but because it had organization.

Tell me honestly the way i type on forums, my flow of thought; isnt EXACTLY like the 1st edition books read?

if i were writing something formally i wouldnt be using a crappy little textarea that HTML allows for but a full screen program where i could see ALL that i am typing at once and then go back and edit it more than just spellchecking. i dont have that time for EVERY fucking post i make. like Gary didn't have time to properly edit and organize 1st edition. but they did have time for it with 2nd edition and they took their time, because they had a product to sell. they had a mess to clean up. they had to find the game hidden in 1st and reign in the chaos and give it some order.

i get a lot of shit was going on when he wrote the books, but his intent w ALL know after-the-fact was to standardize the rules. in doing so and being a first ever thing, he went too far IN THE BOOK to force a certain way of play for those reasons listed above.

2nd DMG is as lenient as it gets. if you look for the bad you can surely find it, as can anyone. to borrow from Pollyanna, try looking for the "glad texts".

you see Wish as being a douche DM most of the time, while i se it as common sense. Wish cant be used to "win the game", as there is no "win" to the whole of D&D. 2nd pretty much tells DMs all throughout to use your best judgement on what will work for your group without destroying the game. bend 2nd as far as it will go to be your own. this is counter to 1st edition as Gary put it, but follows that same priority: game first, campaign next, players last.

the game must ALWAYS work, so if it doesnt work, you have nothing to play. that doesnt mean 1st edition method of follow these rules as close as possible is right. then the campaign is arguable. if playing a one-shot, the tear shit up! tear up the whole world! if you want the world to be there the next game to use, the DM must make sure it isnt destroyed. THEN and only then do player wishes come into play. this even means they decide IF the campaign means anything or they are going to tear shit up for just a one-shot.

1st says: MY from Garys POV
2nd says: OURS from the individual tables of players POV, not Zeb's, not Steve's

1st says the DM is judge, thus the term rules-lawyer (barracks room lawyer), as such was with the wargames
2nd says the DM is referee, only coming into play to solve disputes, not running the whole show.

thus the more looser types of playstyles in 2nd than 1st, and the greatest per-capita increase in players based on population. DM felt free to have table discussions over rules and RAW v RAI occurred, while others still were able to play it with the DM as final arbiter and players dont interupt the game, but either deal with it as under 1st, or ask rules questions AFTER the game, so the game can continue.

in short, NO i wasnt agreeing with you.

[tussock]

I can see I'll have to do the 1st edition DMG too. There's clearly a lot of bullshit preconceptions about it out there that simply are not true (among the all terrible things which totally are, and it would be nice to clear some of that up for my own understanding).

Tell me honestly the way i type on forums, my flow of thought; isnt EXACTLY like the 1st edition books read?

It's very different to the way the first edition books read. EGG understood punctuation quite well, favouring elucidation via grandiose verbiage, and left no shortage of exemplary tables.

Code: Select all

Tables in 1st edition : Tables in 2nd edition.
         lots         :      not so many

You may be referring to the patchwork nature of the books, which comes from them being a composite from scores of originally separate and self-contained articles, without the budget for a staff of editors during the re-write. 1st edition being written and published before D&D sold a whole lot of books.