PREFACE
What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from "on high" as respects your game. Dictums are given for the sake of the game only, for if ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is to survive and grow, it must have some degree of uniformity, a familiarity of method and procedure from campaign to campaign within the whole.
- Dungeon Master's Guide (1e), page 7
[Check the other parts of this series here]
Why I'm writing this
I have written extensively about why I love B/X. It is my favorite format of D&D, but mostly because it's very easy, simple, manageable, streamlined.
However, there is something about the original DMG that makes me feel it is the ultimate DM's book. While B/X is quick and effective, the DMG manages to be both wide and deep: it includes a wide range of relevant information while also maintaining a certain quality throughout. This is the work of people that have deep actual experience with D&D.
The writing is not particularly clear or elegant, and the art is not impressive, but there is a quality of truth to the whole thing that I can hardly find in other games.
This is all a bit vague and abstract, I know. So I have decided to read the DMG cover to cover (instead of looking up relevant bits as I usually do) to see if these impressions remain true. I tried reading the PHB, but it isn't as enticing for me; maybe I'll do that next.
Anyway, here are some concrete examples why, when comparing specific rules, I often favor using AD&D. For example, I prefer AD&D's:
- Attack progression (+1 per level for fighters).
- Powerful fighters (1 attack per level against HD lower than 1, multiple attacks as you level up, etc.).
- Magic-user nerf (chances of learning spells and I kinda like the idea of components. kinda).
- Turn undead rules (undead leaders make everyone harder to turn IIRC).
- Race separate from class.
OTOH I dislike:
- Messy attribute bonus instead of the neat -3/+3 of B/X.
- Bard and druid strange class progression.
- Weapon versus armor table (that contains arithmetic errors and not even Gygax used, apparently).
Notice I already implemented a few ideas from AD&D to Dark Fantasy Basic, my B/X homage. As I read, I'm sure I'll find more of to add to my Basic(ish) games.
In short, my reading will not be historical or literal, but utilitarian. Let's see what I can find in the DMG to use in my own games!
Let me know in the comments if this seems like a worthwhile exercise.
So, let's do this!
Foreword, Contents and Preface (pages 1-8)
The book begins with a small foreword by Mike Carr, discussing dungeon mastering as both "art" and "science". On one hand, it is a matter of taste, flair, style; on the other, it requires experimentation, preparation, etc. It is fun, but requires effort. It is "above all, a labor of love".
This book focuses on the "science" part, I'd say - but you have to provide the imagination.
After that, we get a table of contents that I won't discuss now, but in the next post, as the organization of this book is explaining on page 9.
After the table of the contents, we get a preface by Gygax. It follows the reasoning of the foreword: you, as the referee, have ultimate authority, and you must create your own worlds, adventures, etc. However, the book advises you do not go too "wild", or you won't be playing AD&D anymore. So, keep most of the rules, races, monsters, as written, so you can have a shared experience with other AD&D players all over the world.
This feels a little more limiting than most advice you read nowadays, saying simply you can do "anything you want" with your game. This freedom is what brought me into RPGs in the first place, and I still think it is the best approach. However, I can see the value of keeping some uniformity so we can still use D&D as lingua franca.
Still, the preface lays a lot of responsibility in the hands of the referee.
The preface is followed by Credits and Acknowledgments, and then the actual introduction.
Introduction (and a note on organization) - page 9
The introduction talks about the organization of the book. The first part is commenting on The Player's Handbook. The second ADDS STUFF to the PHB, which includes... everything else. Besides the actual rules, we will get designer notes explaining why the rules are created this way.
About the organization... There is no clear separation between these two sections in the table of contents. The sections/chapters aren't numbered or clearly separated in any order except the one mentioned above. The next section (The Game, which we will cover in the next post) starts in the same page and column, and the section title is almost identical to the subsection title.
So, this book is a bit hard to navigate.
Anyway. Gygax say there was too much to add, so " the criterion was usefulness. First came material which was absolutely vital to play, then came the inclusion of what would be most helpful to you, and finally interesting items of broad I appeal to you which tends to improve the flavor of a campaign". Nice! Exactly what we are looking for.
Action and fun are more important than realism and "long and drawn out operations by the referee". Agreed!
The penultimate paragraph of the section tells the you can cut portions of the book to " maintain excitement" - including random encounters! It mentions you should skip them if the PCs are tired and out of resources, or use them when the PCs "deserve" it.
This seems like strange advice for me (especially coming from an old school perspective), as if the referee is not being completely honest, or playing softball with the players. But it is interesting to notice. And I can agree random encounters can feel anti-climatic at certain times.
Fair enough. But I'm not convinced. I think random encounters when the PCs are weak could be useful to emphasize the danger of the surroundings, the "truthfulness" of the setting, and to force PCs to consider talking, escaping, etc., instead of fighting every time. But it is something to consider.
The last paragraph repeats what we've read before: learn the rules carefully, create your own stuff, do the work, and be a great DM. It will take effort (which the players won't always recognize) but it will be fun.
What have we learned today?
Not much for now. Just an introduction, a few reminders (DMing should be enjoyable, occasionally ignore rules in favor of fun, be creative while keeping some familiar elements to have a shared D&D experience with other people), and the impression that the book could be more clearly organized. There is much more to come!
Contains affiliate links. By purchasing stuff through affiliate links you're helping to support this blog.
I have consulted that book sometimes to make puntual consultations and its so fucking dense. I consider it unpracticable. You cant memorize it, and cannot use it as a side help because its not organized at all. Even if its the best game ever i dont have the INT to handle it.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the lack of streamlining usually has a good reason (but not always lol). I'd rather have something that works than something that looks nice
Agreed! That is part of the reason why I'm writing this. Trying to find the diamonds in this huge, beautiful mess... They are certainly there!
DeleteOh perfect! Finally getting my hands on a copy of the DMG, I'll try to read along!
ReplyDeleteNeat! Let me know what you think of it, I'd be nice to compare notes.
DeleteReading the DMG alone is a bit trickier. 1e books are arranged so that the PHB and DMG are in lockstep. Sort of like reading a section as an essay, but you're missing the first several paragraphs. If you expand this to do the PHB, jump to the section in the DMG, then back to the PHB for the next section, it might make more sense in terms of organization.
ReplyDeleteYeah, this makes sense. I might tackle the PHB next (with deeper knowledge of the DMG); doing both at once is too much for me.
DeleteFirst couple thoughts:
ReplyDeleteThe notes about tuning the campaign to be challenging but not too challenging are great. It's easy to offload too much of that responsibility for "balance" onto the system itself without regard for the results. I think the modern d&d "RAW" culture can fall prey to this by relying too heavily on the rules, while the more lightweight OSR games seem like any sufficiently long campaign would be subject to player exploitation in some form.
The bit about penalizing players for reading the DMG made me laugh - seems a bit short-sighted to assume there wouldn't be overlap between players and DMs. Pretty tongue in cheek though so I dunno how serious its supposed to be taken.
I think the idea of a long, nigh-permanent campaign is a worthy pursuit and I'm glad to see it highlighted in the intro. I think *most* TTRPGs lack some component required to facilitate a truly long and interesting campaign.
I'm curious to see how well Gary's words about playability over realism hold up. I suppose it depends on your frame of reference. I do know that there are certain systems like weapons vs armor and grappling that strange considered the most playable.
Looking forward to getting into the meat of the book.
*that aren't considered the most playable
DeleteYeah, lots of good stuff in there, the campaign parts are some of my favorites.
Delete"I'm curious to see how well Gary's words about playability over realism hold up."
Well, we will be discussing chances of ear infection in the next post! ;)
‘This feels a little more limiting than most advice you read nowadays, saying simply you can do "anything you want" with your game.’
ReplyDeleteIt’s a big change from the attitude expressed in the original booklets (and Gary’s letter to A&E), and in contemporary works such as T&T and RQ.
To my mind that was the first division of a “new school” versus an “old school.” It took more accretions over decades for the snowball to reach critical mass and yield a conscious reaction explicitly denoted in such terms, but AD&D Gary versus OD&D Gary is where it started.
This is a good point - AD&D certainly has some "rules, not rulings" advice.
DeleteI'm just finishing up Playing at the World by Jon Peterson, and it seems like AD&D might have been (in part) a reaction to all the house rules proliferation through fanzines like A&E as well as the competition from other fantasy RPGs. If I'm understanding the history right, TSR essentially feigned sympathy for fandom rulesets in letters to the fanzines, but turned around and made claims to the effect that The Dragon and The Strategic Review were the only legitimate places to publish new D&D rules (and that people who were deviating too far from the TSR canon "weren't playing D&D").
DeleteIt's especially interesting in light of recent events with WoTC trying to renege on the OGL: history is effectively repeating itself. OD&D was "open source" only until TSR felt threatened and wanted to clamp down their "product identity," and published Holmes Basic and AD&D partly to define those borders. This seems to be at odds with the narrative that the OSR occasionally spins that the TSR-era was one of great fan-led creativity. (Not that there wasn't fan-led creativity, but it wasn't necessarily sanctioned or desired from the TSR perspective.)
Good point, makes sense. AD&D does look like a collection of house rules at times.
DeleteThis is a good series. I do agree with you that B/X is the superior D&D, but the DMG is the better DM's book. I also by and large agree with your assessments of D&D B/X vs AD&D on their various merits.
ReplyDeleteThank you, glad you like it!
Delete