No one has told you that your experience doesn't count. What we're (at least me) telling you is that how you're describing AD&D play was not only not the norm, but actually the antithesis to how it was designed to be played. Not just by my opinion, but by the people who actually wrote the game. And some of the claims you've made make no sense to anyone who is familiar with how the rulebooks and modules were actually written.Heh.
I love the irony of being told that my experience doesn't count, while at the same time people are claiming that their experience was universal. Or, being told that every table was different back in the day ( a point I definitely agree with) while at the same time telling me that my table didn't really exist (didn't have experience with the game).
Or that playing with Unearthed Arcana=Monty Haul gaming. ROTFLMAO. Hrmmm, judgmental much?
Not judgmental at all, but a fair statement. For a decade, AD&D was played largely with the same rules, and set of standards for how characters were created. Then, all of the sudden, UA came along and said "Hey! Let's add some powerful races to play. Then let's add some super powered classes as well. Hmm...that's not enough, let's make sure every PC has at least three 18s in their top three ability scores. And for a cherry on top, let's allow fighters to throw 6 darts every round for a ton of damage each!"
It would be like saying, "In 2e, there were 8 ability scores, and dwarven fighters could get an extra +1 to attack with axes, only suffered 1/2 damage from blunt attacks, got a d12 for hit points, got a 2% magic resistance per level, and had a +2 bonus to AC when not wearing armor." because Skills and Powers was an official 2e book.
Do you honestly think that 2e was generally played with those rules?
Apparently, according to some in this thread, you only ever got above 3rd level in AD&D by being a massive munchkin with a Monty Haul DM. Because, well, the game was SO lethal that it is inconceivable that you could possibly succeed at anything.
Who said this?
Objectively not true. As has been mentioned many times, in a module like ToEE, you were actively encouraged to pit the factions against each other. Not fight them all. KotBL mentions something very similar. Same with the Saltmarsh series (Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, Danger at Dunwater, and Final Enemy). Same with a ton of other published modules, like The Sentinel and the Gauntlet. Not only was the game mechanically designed to reward you for not taking the risk of combat, but it literally warns against players who fight only in the DMG. I don't know how much clearer that has to be. This has nothing to do with "your experience" or denying it. This is about looking at the actual rules and material from 1e at the time.Look, I'll agree that AD&D was very lethal due to the plethora of save or die effects. Totally agree with that. But, the other stuff? Not so much.
Then again, AD&D is incredibly schizophrenic. If you played mostly modules in AD&D, you had a VERY different experience with the game than those who did mostly home-brew. The modules, by and large, did not support this "avoid encounters" style of play because, well, in most modules, most encounters weren't avoidable. The maps were too linear, for one thing, to avoid encounters. And the modules were set up that you couldn't avoid stuff.