From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd
On Mon, 14 Sep 2026 04:30:43 -0400, Ubiquitous <
weberm@polaris.net>
said this thing:
Nearly 50 years after its release, people are still playing Advanced >Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition. But why?
In this video, I explore what keeps AD&D 1E alive in the 21st century
and why many players consider it the purest expression of Gary Gygax's >vision for Dungeons & Dragons. From its deadly combat and unforgiving >dungeon expeditions to its unique blend of rulings, world-building, and >player skill, AD&D remains unlike any edition that followed.
We also look at the game's cultural impact. This is the version of D&D
that sat at the centre of the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, complete with >demons, devils, occult imagery, and the dark fantasy elements that
would later be toned down or renamed in subsequent editions.
Beyond the controversy, AD&D 1E offers something many modern players
feel has been lost: a game focused on exploration, risk, and discovery >rather than character builds and rules mastery. While later editions >expanded and refined the system, they also introduced increasing
complexity and mechanical bloat. AD&D, for all its quirks, remains
leaner, stranger, and more demanding.
And then there's the legendary Dungeon Masters Guideua chaotic, often >bewildering book packed with decades worth of hard-earned advice from
Gary Gygax. Beneath the dense organisation lies one of the most
insightful collections of Dungeon Mastering wisdom ever published.
In this video:
o Why AD&D 1st Edition still has dedicated players
o Gary Gygax's original vision for D&D
o Deadly gameplay and meaningful risk
o Demons, devils, and the Satanic Panic
o Why some players prefer AD&D to modern editions
o The brilliance and madness of the 1E Dungeon Masters Guide
o Lessons modern Dungeon Masters can still learn from Gygax
Do you still play AD&D 1E? Is it the greatest version of Dungeons &
Dragons, or have later editions improved on the formula? Let me know
your thoughts in the comments.
#ADND #DnDHistory #OSR
https://youtu.be/sloij8DNm_U
I don't play 1st Ed, but instead have made no secret that I prefer 2nd
Ed... but honestly, that's pretty close. 2E was mostly a streamlining
of the original AD&D, with easier-to-parse rules (arguably with the
additional 'benefit' (to TSR, Inc.) of removing Gygax from the system
during their messy divorce). It's close enough that adventures,
campaign settings and --indeed-- some rules supplements (like
"Dungeoneers Survival Guide") can be used without difficulty.
[In other words, even though you asked about 1E and I
play 2E, I think I still am qualified to give an answer
;-) ;-) ;-)]
Why do I stick with these creaky old rules? Because, let's face it:
they are creaky. As much as I will defend "Armor Class starts with 10
and goes down" and THAC0, I'll also admit that those systems --and
many others native to 1E/2E-- are pretty awful. So why do I keep using
them?
Partly it's just inertia. I've been playing AD&D for more than four
decades. I know the system. I don't need to look up anything except
the weirdest exceptions the players' might dream up. Plus, I don't
need to reinvest in all new rulebooks for me and my players.
Partly it is because the crunchiness of the rules --the unrealistic class-system and restrictions on what PCs can and cannot do-- force
teamwork. Too, modern systems (in my opinion) tend to 'super-power'
players, giving them almost super-human abilities that don't fit with
my personal "players-against-the-world' style. I'm not a "killer-DM"
but if you play in my campaigns, you're going to /work/ for your
victories (and definitely will need to know when to cut your loses and
run). Modern versions of D&D trend towards more of a power-fantasy
game where success is the assumed result rather than the exception.
I'm not saying this is the wrong way to play (or that you can't use
the modern rules to play a rougher campaign) but the rules themselves
are much more player-friendly.
But mostly? The biggest reason I stick with 2E? It's because I have an
earnest and heartfelt belief that ultimately... the rules don't
fucking matter. There is no 'best' system; D&D 5E isn't really any
better overall than 1E, or than GURPS or OSR or whatever. It's how the
DM runs the game and how the players interact with the DM that make or
break a session. I stick with 2E because it works well enough without
me having to put in extra effort by learning a new system or tweaking
the player-powers downward, but I could probably get the same
experience with 3E or 5E rules. Maybe even Rolemaster!*
[Honestly, my general opinion is that the rules exist to
keep the players in balance; that the rules are there so
no one player dominates the experience. Similarly, the
dice rolls exists to keep the DM in check; they can't
entirely force their own vision upon the players because
the unpredictable chaos of the dice will prevent
railroading.]
The TL;DR of it all is that it's never the system or edition that will
make for a better game. It's the amount of work put into the game by
the DM and players that accomplishes that. If you put the effort into
it, you can have a great 5E adventure with diehard 1st Ed players, and vice-versa. Pick the one that you and your players are most
comfortable with.
You know, unless that system is Rolemaster.** ;-)
----
* just kidding. Nobody can have fun with Rolemaster. It's the
exception that proves the rule.**
** also just kidding. It's got its own quirks, but RM has its own
strengths and weaknesses like every other system. If it works for you,
then use Rolemaster. I just like picking on Rolemaster. ;-)
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2