Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
Yes, and thankfully D&D has evolved from those days. The 2E DMG taught DMs to be the players' adversary. The Stingy DM. The Killer DM. The Tyrant DM. They were accepted norms.
Yeah, I need a citation. I mean, there's a section in the 2e DMG talking about how important it is to make sure how important it is for everyone to have fun.

Therefore, one of the goals of the AD&D game is to have fun. Much of the pressure to provide this elusive quality rests on the DM's shoulders, but the players can also contribute. When they do, players should be rewarded with experience points since they are making the game a good experience for all. The DM who doles out awards for adding to the fun will find more players making the effort to contribute.
It specifically points out problems with being too stingy with XP

If the DM consistently gives too little experience to players, they become frustrated. Frustrated players don't have fun and, usually, quit the game. Even if they don't quit, players can develop an "It-doesn't-matter-what-I-do-so-why-bother" attitude. They stop trying to do their best, figuring they will only get a measly amount of experience whether they play their best or just coast along.
There's a section about how giving out too little treasure is a problem

For all his good intentions, sooner or later the DM is likely to err in the awarding of treasure. Either he will award too little or hand out too much. The first is just tight-fistedness; the second leads to high-powered, low-role-playing campaigns (sometimes called "Monty Haul'' dungeons).
Oh, and the killer DM?

When uncertain, use a small encounter. It is far better for a random encounter to be easily defeated by the player characters than it is for the monster to overwhelm them. An easy PC victory gives the DM information and experience (so he'll know to increase the difficulty of the next encounter) without harming the player characters and his campaign. A crushing PC defeat is almost impossible to correct without obvious manipulation once the encounter has begun.
Bear in mind, these are just excerpts; they're parts of sections saying how important it is to make sure your game is fun, and that your players enjoy it.

So show me where the 2e DMG taught DMs to be stingy, killing, tyrants?

Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
"There used to be a lot of PC deaths in D&D, so rules were added or changed to mitigate that."
"D&D isn't that lethal, excessive PC deaths are caused by bad play, bad DMs, or bad encounter design."
"Here are examples of how D&D used to be too lethal, and as further evidence, things that were added to changed to address that in newer editions."
"D&D is not too lethal, it has evolved since the editions when it was."

That's not quite what's being argued. Pex started by saying that high-lethality games were a priori bad, then ventured into "2e taught DMs to be jerks". I maintain that high lethality games are not necessarily bad... they're not necessarily good, but they're a style of play. One of the most popular settings of 2e was explicitly designed to be high-lethality (Dark Sun)... and it had mechanics in place to mitigate the impact of that lethality (the character tree). Another, Brithright, specifically had rules in place to reduce lethality (any regent automatically gained bonus HP), because lethality in that game was a bigger problem.

A DM running a game where characters often die is not necessarily running a bad game. It's certainly not a game everyone is going to enjoy, and, as the 2e DMG said, the DM should be running a game that is fun for everyone.