So, just to put a stake in the stupid 'Using THAC0 proves you didn't play 1e' claims, I now have cites for material written by people who played 1e and published by TSR for 1e play that used the term. Module UK4 "When a Star Falls" copyright 1984 explained exactly the way I used it here on page 3 under Abbreviations and used in each monster's stat block. (Also note that AFAIR "Stat Block" was not a term used in the 1e era, but I'm using it to refer to a 1e module because I'm capable of applying new terms to old material). Module UK7 "Dark Clouds Gather" copyright 1985 also has it explained the same way on it's page 3 and uses it in subsequent stat blocks. They use the literal abbreviation THACO instead of THAC0, but it's clear that the thing pronounced "Thacko" and written as THAC(circular character) on a character sheet was in documented, widespread use before 1989, contrary to Sacrosanct and Lowkey's claims. And that said usage is in a module that I still have, which makes their accusations of lying ring rather hollow. I have no idea whether I actually used the 0 or O on the end when I used the concept three decades ago, but I'll leave it to the reader to decide if that's a difference worth even noticing.
I usually stick to facts and logic, but I'm going to engage in a bit of retalitory ad hominem here: I actually don't think either Lowkey or Sacrosanct actually played 1e back in the day. Their arguments smack of people online who idolize the old version game as 'glory days' and make up or repeat 'uphill both ways' stories about how hard people had it back then. The fact that they seize upon the false 'fact' that THAC0 was a 2e invention as proof that I didn't play 1e is really telling; real 1e games in my experience (and from reading retellings from the early players in Greyhawk and Blackmoor) used a lot of house rules and casually pulled in terminology from other games, or adopted newer terminology for older things. I can't imagine actual players of 1e sharing the belief that grabbing terms or rules from another game when the 1e DMG had rules for crossing characters between other TSR game systems. Also, the fact that they have to declare that rules that were in universal use in home campaigns in my experience, like weapon specialization from Unearthed Arcana, don't even count as 1e for bizarre and arbitrary reasons says a lot. Being ignorant of a significant boost to the abilities of players makes perfect sense for someone who didn't play 1e back in the day but who idolizes it on the basis of online legend.
As far as the anemic level of the magic items they think is standard, it's highly at odds with my experience and with published materials - the DMG treats magic items as much more common than they do, and was (in my experience) generally considered stingy about handing out magic items. For example, if an upper level character built a stronghold and attracted followers, by the chart on p16 they would be led by a fighter of 5th to 7th level, equipped with plate, shield and +2 battle axe or plate, +1 shield, +1 spear and +1 dagger, +1 plate and shield, +1 spear and +1 dagger plus lietenant with crossbow of distance, or +1 plate, +1 shield, +2 sword, horseshoes of speed. If you generate a 5th level fighter and use the DMG starting equipment recommendations on P226, he has a 50% chance of magic shield, 50% chance of magic chain (could go for plate or banded with lower chances), 50% chance of magic dagger, 50% chance of magic sword (could go for other weapons with lower chances) and a 5% chance of magic bow. With a 5% (1% per level) chance of each item being higher than +1. The fact that the DMG gives magic weapons and armor as standard to a 5th level follower, and makes it very likely that a 5th level character will have multiple protective and offensive items does not back their claim of magic items being extremely rare.
Note also that by their standards, Lord of the Rings, one of the inspirations for a lot of people who got into the game, is a Monty Haul campaign - starting characters went out and got handed magic weapons by a demigod on their first adventure, then got handed a set of elven chain for completing the journey, then got elven cloak and boots handed to them after running one brief dungeon. My experience is that real campaigns were based much more on that kind of background than the 'uphill, both ways' stuff you often hear online about 1e, and the item frequency endorsed by the DMG.
That's probably the last I'll respond to Sacrosanct, and Lowkey has me ignored so I won't see him any more, which makes replying a bit difficult, but I do hope that anyone thinking they are providing an accurate picture of what 1e is like will have a better understanding after this.
