AD&D 1E Edition Experience: Did/Do you Play 1E AD&D? How Was/Is It?

[Ralif Redhammer]

I've learned never to make absolute statements about particular rules in AD&D. Whatever the specific rule is, you will always find some person, somewhere, who used it.

That said, I am confident that no one has ever played with all the rules, simply because it's ... impossible. I don't just mean ... like, really hard in the "turn every single combat into Campaign for North Africa" way. I mean ... impossible in the sense that there are actual conflicts in the RAW that preclude playing with every single rule turned "on."

At a minimum, house rules need to be effectuated in order to allow certain rules to interact with each other.

Anyway, whenever I've met someone who says that they played with "all the rules," I've quickly learned that they didn't actually mean "all the rules." In fairness, most people haven't played for forty years, and memory is a helluva thing.*


*A lot of people, for example, conflate 1e and 2e, or don't remember how insane some of the RAW in the DMG were.

And yet, those conflicts, the shambolic, occultic nature of AD&D is a huge part of its appeal. There was a sense of mystery and lore about it. You had to delve, divine, and customize the game to run it. Because, as you said, you could not run it completely as written.

I remember trying out the Chance of Contracting Disease and Chance of Contracting Parasitic Infection rules. I think those lasted precisely one session before everyone at the table said "NO!"

 

[Sacrosanct]

While I'm sure that there were tables that did use all the rules of 1e out there, I've never met one. My table certainly didn't.

I've learned never to make absolute statements about particular rules in AD&D. Whatever the specific rule is, you will always find some person, somewhere, who used it.

The current 1e group I'm in right now is playing RAW. The DM really wants it that way. I even created a thread about it a while ago about how much of a hassle it is. I've been playing 1e since 1981 pretty much continuous and this is the first time I've ever played or seen 1e played RAW fully.

That said, I am confident that no one has ever played with all the rules, simply because it's ... impossible. I don't just mean ... like, really hard in the "turn every single combat into Campaign for North Africa" way. I mean ... impossible in the sense that there are actual conflicts in the RAW that preclude playing with every single rule turned "on."

At a minimum, house rules need to be effectuated in order to allow certain rules to interact with each other.

Granted, I'm not the DM so maybe there's a conflict I haven't seen, but I don't recall any example coming up in play where one rule completely contradicted another. Based on the past 6 months or so of playing in this RAW game, it's possible. Just a clunky mess and things like weapon vs armor and initiative segment counting (especially spells) slows things down a ton. Too many times needing to reference tables.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The current 1e group I'm in right now is playing RAW. The DM really wants it that way. I even created a thread about it a while ago about how much of a hassle it is. I've been playing 1e since 1981 pretty much continuous and this is the first time I've ever played or seen 1e played RAW fully.

Granted, I'm not the DM so maybe there's a conflict I haven't seen, but I don't recall any example coming up in play where one rule completely contradicted another. Based on the past 6 months or so of playing in this RAW game, it's possible. Just a clunky mess and things like weapon vs armor and initiative segment counting (especially spells) slows things down a ton. Too many times needing to reference tables.

I trust you as much as I trust anyone Sacrosanct, but color me a little skeptical that you're using all the rules. However, I just created a thread on the topic!

AD&D 1E Thread 'Snarf's Challenge: Was it Possible to Play 1e RAW? SHARE YOUR STORIES!'

Oct 2, 2025

A recent discussion had me thinking about a few truisms that I often discuss when I do my deep dives into D&D history.

If you ask four grognards how they played 1e, you'll get seven different stories.
1e was a modular and DIY system- rules varied from "rules almost everyone played with" (fighters get d10 hit points) to "rules very few people played with" (Weapon v. AC, Item Saving Throws) to "things that weren't rules, but were common misunderstandings that people used" (didn't die until -10) to "you're on your own, pretty much" (initiative).

And finally...
No one played 1e RAW...

• Snarf Zagyg
• Replies: 55
• Forum: D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants

• 

Please go into detail about the campaign and how it is working there. Again, even assuming you are using all the combat RAW (which ... wow ....) I would be gobsmacked if you were using all the fiddly little bits scattered about.

But if you are, or even if you aren't doing absolutely everything but are approaching that point ... tell us more in the other thread. I am incredibly impressed by anyone who is even attempting to come close to what I believe is an unrealistic goal.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I trust you as much as I trust anyone Sacrosanct,

Well, you should. It's in the name.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well, you should. It's in the name.

If it's a blast for you, it's a blasphemy too!

 

[Mannahnin]

And then he put in the rule book it was all up to the DM what to use and what not to use. He also over the years contradicted himself many times.

Of course. That doesn't contradict my point, though. Even when saying that the DM can change things, Gary had firm opinions on how the DM had best understand the rules before changing them, and what rationale should be used for changes.

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 & 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 & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

And there were other people that wrote those rules and weighed in. Home was just one of the voices, in spite of the internet mythology that says otherwise.

But putting his name on it as author meant he took responsibility for it. Though he did acknowledge and credit quite a few collaborators (despite excluding Dave Arneson).

I picture Gary furiously scribbling his thoughts for some of the sections in the older books on napkins and the backs of envelopes in his car after playing sessions with his friends and colleagues, late at night in his Ford Pinto parked under a lone streetlight, just angrily writing with a stubby, teeth-marked #2 pencil, "YOU CAN NOT HAVE A MEANINGFUL CAMPAIGN IF STRICT TIME RECORDS ARE NOT KEPT."

Is it weird that the Ford Pinto part immediately leapt out at me as wrong because Gary didn't drive?

I've read that the DMG was written in a 'steam of consciousness' mode because Gygax was under a lot of pressure to get it out. Editing was minimal.

Also, we know that Gygax believed, wrongly, that if he rewrote D&D with enough changes and add-ons, he could exclude Dave Arneson from IP royalties. Gygax lost in court.

True, though that's not necessarily a definitive argument for the merits. A judge also ruled that he was entitled to royalties on the Monster Manual 2, a book Dave contributed zero to, on the mistaken basis that it was a revision of the Monster Manual.

 

[Mannahnin]

Or, as Gygax might put it, "As ultimate arbiter of the world, the rules, and, perforce, all that is wholesome and benefitting the weal of society, you might on occasion encounter players who will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than playing it, thus ruining the fun for the rest of the participants. Such a consummation of foolish desire is to be prevented. The more intelligent players who are prone to pout or to use use the books as a defense when you rule against them should be excluded from the campaign with extreme prejudice. The less intelligent players who disrupt the campaign regardless of the obvious consequences you inflict upon them will soon remove themselves from play in any event, for their own ineptness will serve to have players or monsters or traps finish them off."

I will be less creative and quote to confirm.

HANDLING TROUBLESOME PLAYERS

Some players will find more enjoyment in spoiling a game than in playing it, and this ruins the fun for the rest of the participants, so it must be prevented. Those who enjoy being loud and argumentative, those who pout or act in a childish manner when things go against them, those who use the books as a defense when you rule them out of line should be excluded from the campaign. Simply put, ask them to leave, or do not invite them to participate again.

Peer pressure is another means which can be used to control players who are not totally obnoxious and who you deem worth saving. These types typically attempt to give orders and instructions even when their characters are not present, tell other characters what to do even though the character role they have has nothing to do with that of the one being instructed, or continually attempt actions or activities their characters would have no knowledge of. When any such proposals or suggestions or orders are made, simply inform the group that that is no longer possible under any circumstances because of the player in question. The group will then act to silence him or her and control undesirable outbursts. The other players will most certainly let such individuals know about undesirable activity when it begins to affect their characters and their enjoyment of the game.

Strong steps short of expulsion can be an extra random monster die,obviously rolled, the attack of an ethereal mummy (which always strike sby surprise, naturally), points of damage from "blue bolts from the heavens" striking the offender's head, or the permanent loss of a point of charisma (appropriately) from the character belonging to the offender. If these have to be enacted regularly, then they are not effective and stronger measures must be taken. Again, the ultimate answer to such a problem is simply to exclude the disruptive person from further gatherings.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I will be less creative and quote to confirm.

Four score and seven comments ago our Snarf brought forth, upon this Enworld, a new creativity, conceived in the blood of vanquished bards, and dedicated to the proposition of, "Bruh, don't rain on my parade with accuracy."
-Abraham Lincoln

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Also, we know that Gygax believed, wrongly, that if he rewrote D&D with enough changes and add-ons, he could exclude Dave Arneson from IP royalties. Gygax lost in court.

Most people do not understand the Arneson/Gygax litigation.

D&D General Thread 'Arneson, Gygax, and Lawsuits, Oh My! An Actual History of the OG D&D Litigation'

May 14, 2025

As I wrote in the preface to my last essay on D&D history ... no matter how many times I post about history or point people to resources or remind them not to play bards, I have to occasionally repeat what I have said before (or say it a different way) because, like Sisyphus, I think that this time I'll get the rock over that hill.

....But this time it will be different, right? RIGHT?

sigh... no, no it won't.

But as they say, futility is the mother of apathy all internet conversations, so why not? I realized the other day that I often refer to...

• Snarf Zagyg
• Replies: 18
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

 

[Willie the Duck]

Anyway, whenever I've met someone who says that they played with "all the rules," I've quickly learned that they didn't actually mean "all the rules." In fairness, most people haven't played for forty years, and memory is a helluva thing.*

Please go into detail about the campaign and how it is working there. Again, even assuming you are using all the combat RAW (which ... wow ....) I would be gobsmacked if you were using all the fiddly little bits scattered about.

But if you are, or even if you aren't doing absolutely everything but are approaching that point ... tell us more in the other thread. I am incredibly impressed by anyone who is even attempting to come close to what I believe is an unrealistic goal.

I generally approach it as 'they genuinely remember playing by the rules in the book.' Firstly, as you say, memory. But even then, my interpretation is then that they tried to play by the rules (that they were aware of) when they showed up.

No one noticed the rules for checking for exception hearing hidden on page XX? It didn't occur to anyone that fireballs would force item saves on the treasure pile? Well you were still playing by the rules because you weren't deliberately ignoring any or implementing specific house rules.

Certainly I know people who 'used by-the-book initiative' that must have gotten it wrong from our modern hyper-parsed version of the thing that will insist they played by the rules.

Are they undoubtedly wrong (even neglecting actual contradictions)? Certainly. It that still a functional distinct playstyle from the 1e/B/BX/BECM/houserule hybrid I actually started with bitd? Also certainly.