Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TerraDave" data-source="post: 2233462" data-attributes="member: 22260">Yes it had problems, the various lists above are dead on.But, as Francisca implied, few people played by the book AD&D--not even Col Pladoh.  They played an O/B&E/AD&D hybrid that simplified things...though they might then use Dragon, or the various volumes of the Arduin Grimoire or their own house rules to recomplicate it (see Hackmaster).D&D overall succeeded becuase in spite of all these flaws, it worked (at least in a simplified form). If the DM had some clue, he could buy a module, make charecters, and begin a campaign that could last years and see significant charecter development (of a kind). And most rules could be used as written most of the time. This sounds basic, but I don't know that you can say that about a lot of RPGs that have released over the years. 1st edition AD&D also succeeded becuase it could be evocative with a great sense of style. And this is the big difference with later editions: 2nd edition did clean up some mechanics (though most of the deeper flaws remained), but was deathly boring in comparison. Some of the later campaign worlds made up for that, but only partially.</blockquote>