From the archives of USENET circa 1982

AD&D Sucks

unc!tim    
20/10/1982

In a possibly vain attempt to get some discussion on this group, I will now come out of the closet publicly and say I think that Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a very poor excuse for a game.

Gary Gygax has no conception of how books are actually used in a play situation, and a very poor ability to understand hand-to-hand combat.Further, the magic system is totally counter- intuitive. Finally, the importance of magic items (as well as the ideas of class and level) depersonalizes characters, leading to a "rogue"-type environment. (Oh yes, the description of gods in terms of hit dice, etc., is totally useless to the DM, and the unarmed combat system is an atrocity; sorry to have forgotten these.) The only reason that AD&D is the most popular FRP game around is that it has a major lead on the others--unfortunately, TSR has not used this time to improve the rules, only to lengthen them.

The only game I know of that's worse than AD&D, aside from basic D&D, is Tunnels and Trolls. Both RuneQuest and The Fantasy Trip provide much better alternatives, and I am told that SPI's DragonQuest (now owned by TSR) is hard to learn but very smooth once one learns it. I strongly recommend that any AD&D player buy RuneQuest and play a few games before further glorifying their rather primitive game.

        I suppose I should be afraid to sign my name,
        Tim Maroney (unc!tim)

Damn, I thought it was going to be about how necromancy sucks in AD&D, and I agree with that sentiment regardless of D&D edition actually. This? Meh.

rabbit!jj    
20/10/1982


        Well, who do you think is going argue with you?  Not me, and I've only been using ad&d (yes, Gary, it's copyrighted) for about 4 years to administer a huge campaign.  The magic rules are ridiculous, the hand-hand combat makes less sense than using a quarterstaff (and a quarterstaff DOESN't help your AC , com on now, I use a staff, and see if I am as easy to hit when I have a staff as when I do not).
        The reason that I used ad&d was that it was the only well described system on the market when I started DM'ing.  
        Face it, d&d was the FIRST system generally out, and it was  certainly better than anything else (i.e. nothing).  Since it couldn't benefit from experience, it has lots of problems.

        Hopefully, a revision will come out someday that UPDATES ad&d to the current level of complexity and sophistication, and provide a system that is a bit more playable in the long run.

        As for the "organization" of the books, I couldn't agree more.  

        Take a look at DragonQuest (tm-BANTAM BOOKS!!!!!!) to see  something that is better organized.  DQ's rights, except for movie rights, are now owned by Bantam, who is distributing it with their normal line to lots of bookstores, which should increase the distribution of the game quite a bit.  For some strange reason, TSR still owns the movie rights, whatever they amount to. Apparantly SPI had already made a deal with Bantam before TSR called in their loan, and TSR had to stick with it, and

Ok,so AD&D sucks shit. But what makes the others so much better ? What are the prices of better frp systems ? are they totally different or what (ie. are there levels ? ac,hp,etc.?) ?

        I'm almost not afraid to sign my name,

        Ben Walls
 ...cbosgd!bsw

watmath!bstempleton    
21/10/1982


For all who say AD&D sucks, I will have to agree that Gygax is far from perfect.  The following should be remembered - D&D is just a game, and is not supposed to be realistic.  If it were realistic, you would get chopped in half and spill real blood.  Quite often you want to play a non-realistic scheme.  The combat system is one that can be understood by novices and this is good for the game.

Secondly, just about everybody plays d&d quite differently, so nobody really pays that much attention to the tsr rules.  They are a handy thing to base something on, and something that somebody from accross the continent can play with.  If anybody in my dungeon quotes gygax, I just say:  Oh, so that's how he plays it.  Interesting.

I have played with many many combat and magic systems, and find that many people, in their desire to do better, often do worse.

physics:els    
21/10/1982


        I learned my D&D before the other thing was around.  I like to think
that I play the way the game was meant to be played, by using a few tables anda copy of Greyhawk as a LOOSE guideline, arbitrarily remolding things to suitmy whims.  This puts the DM in a much more omnipotent role.  Combat is much more realistic if the DM randomly makes a character slip and fall under the swords of 15 berserkers, etc.  Magic may also be made less silly.  Besides, I enjoy the look of despair on the faces of AD&Ders when I throw them a curve!


                              els[Eric Strobel]
                              pur-ee!pur-phy!els

Quote from: Rincewind1;891701Damn, I thought it was going to be about how necromancy sucks in AD&D, and I agree with that sentiment regardless of D&D edition actually. This? Meh.

What's wrong with it?

Also these calls for more sophistication... hah.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;891708What's wrong with it?

Also these calls for more sophistication... hah.

Bland, poorly executed mechanically, poorer mechanically than many other options that are usually widely accepted in settings, and most importantly - why the hell Clerics can cast Animate Dead sooner than Magic Users?

I miss the days of Usenet pre-Eternal September.

Quote from: estar;891707physics:els    
21/10/1982


        I learned my D&D before the other thing was around.  I like to think
that I play the way the game was meant to be played, by using a few tables anda copy of Greyhawk as a LOOSE guideline, arbitrarily remolding things to suitmy whims.  This puts the DM in a much more omnipotent role.  Combat is much more realistic if the DM randomly makes a character slip and fall under the swords of 15 berserkers, etc.  Magic may also be made less silly.  Besides, I enjoy the look of despair on the faces of AD&Ders when I throw them a curve!


                              els[Eric Strobel]
                              pur-ee!pur-phy!els

Hah, the OSR in a nutshell, back in 1982.

What a find, Estar!

These arguments... it's been 34 years and NOTHING HAS ESSENTIALLY CHANGED. Same arguments, said the same way.

You could post these to TBP or any other board, and no one would tell they were Oh So Ancient.

Heh.

Dude was right on the unarmed combat system.  Yikers that is a mess.

Kind of funny seeing him suggest Runequest.  While I am a bit younger, my group tried exactly that in the late 80s for pretty much the same reasons dude complained about way back when.  Character creation took so long we got bored, then rolled up some ADnD characters real quick and did some adventuring.  

Heh... I had to go look and see if I was in the thread, because I participated in a few usenet RPG flamewars back in the day. But I think that's even before MY usenet days.

EDIT: On a related note, I used to know -- and argue with -- our own Justin Alexander on usenet back in the day.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;891788These arguments... it's been 24 years and NOTHING HAS ESSENTIALLY CHANGED. Same arguments, said the same way.

You could post these to TBP or any other board, and no one would tell they were Oh So Ancient.

Heh.

  Your math's off--34 years.

  Consider the audience and the environment: Anyone using Usenet in 1982 is likely to be in the hard sciences, and the hobby was pushing towards high-detail, high-realism games in those days, as I understand it. (I was three years old and most interested in stop signs and trains, IIRC. ) For that kind of audience, and before D&D has managed to generate its own nostalgic or subgenre appeal, AD&D is likely to look less impressive.