Quote:
Originally Posted by skisko
You have to admit "I play use the book all the time, for years" and "It's not worth anyone's money" is wonky.
|
So is "it's a great set of rules, if you ignore the rules you don't like".
Arrrgh ... why am I even replying? The "argument" is rapidly degenerating into conflicting assertions. For example:
"AD&D has been the dominant RPG since its inception, so it must be good." vs. "AD&D became market leader because it came first, and it had brand-name recognition."
"AD&D provided a basis for gaming groups to create their own experiences" vs. "AD&D rules are arbitrary and clunky, with nonsensical restrictions based on the author's biases only stated in another book."
"AD&D was the only game in stores; nothing else came close" vs. "RuneQuest, Traveller, and other games were gaining mindshare in the tiny niche that was the RPG industry, but suffered from poor financing and distribution."
And so forth.
(Watch as people take issue with my summaries ...)