[RPG]: AD&D Players Handbook, reviewed by Lev Lafayette (4/1)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12808.phtml

Lev Lafayette's Summary:

Despite nostalgia and the historical importance, an honest appraisal recognises many flaws in the seriously arbitrary race and class restriction and the total lack of a consistent internal system (\"every case is a special case\"). Spells are interesting in detail, and the book's organisation is fair and production quality very good.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Wood]

Good, fair review.

You're right about the binding. My old PH, that I've had since I was 11 (I have the edition with the Jeff Easley pic of Ringlerun the Wizard on the cover), is still, despite all sorts of abuse, solidly bound together.

[One Horse Town]

I really can't possibly see how you can give the Players Handbook a substance rating of 'I wasted my money', seeing as it holds everything that a player needs to play the game. As you have mentioned in your review, it contains everything you need to get going and stay going as a player. Even if you don't like some of the rules contained within the book, how can it be a waste of money? Without it (certainly back when it came out) you would have all kinds of problems playing.

I believe you stated some time ago that you were going to review things against their contempories, not compared against newer games etc. It's pretty apparent that you haven't here, as otherwise the substance rating would have to be much higher. You couldn't play without it!

Or are you saying you only bought this many years after its release and as such it was a waste of your money?

[Ron]

Well, no one who drives a classic car can complaint about the lack of an air bag. I guess that this should be taken in account when reviewing early games. However, to criticise a class/level game to be arbitrary about the character generation options is not understanding the design goals of the game. You are right about the lack of unified mechanics, though. I just think that, up to your last paragraph, your text was mildly critical so I was not expecting such a low overall score.

Tell me, didn't you liked any aspect of the rules at all? I thought you liked the spells, which, as you say, take about half of the book.

[odheirre]

Originally Posted by One Horse Town

I really can't possibly see how you can give the Players Handbook a substance rating of 'I wasted my money', seeing as it holds everything that a player needs to play the game. ... Without it (certainly back when it came out) you would have all kinds of problems playing.

Assuming you wanted to play AD&D. At that time, there were a lot of other games on the market, and you didn't need the Player's Manual to play, say, Mechwarrior or GURPS.

[Wood]

Originally Posted by One Horse Town

I really can't possibly see how you can give the Players Handbook a substance rating of 'I wasted my money', seeing as it holds everything that a player needs to play the game.

Except the combat rules. I remember, aged 12, using the combat rules from my old Basic D&D set for months and months until I could afford a DMG.

[One Horse Town]

Originally Posted by Wood

Except the combat rules. I remember, aged 12, using the combat rules from my old Basic D&D set for months and months until I could afford a DMG.

You'll notice i said player. Everything needed for you to build your character is there as well as copious detail on advancement, spells etc. That for me says that the substance is great for a players handbook. The rules worked and they were present. Dislike of them doesn't change that fact. Which is why i think a dislike for the system has coloured this review.

Having read the text of the review, can you really say that you expected a 1 for substance?

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=307416=2

See post 12. That goes for dislike of games as well Lev.

EDIT: I'm going to qualify my statements a bit here. I'm going on the understanding that the substance rating includes relevant information, usefulness and whether the product delivers what it promises to. In this case a handbook for players to create and improve characters. If the substance rating is purely based on the rules contained in a system, then i retract my comments, otherwise i stand by them.

[riprock]

"Almost every case is a special case."

You've summed up the essence of Gygax's refusal to systematize. Take a "pithily worded" point.

[The Grey Elf]

Originally Posted by odheirre

Assuming you wanted to play AD&D. At that time, there were a lot of other games on the market, and you didn't need the Player's Manual to play, say, Mechwarrior or GURPS.

In 1979, there were absolutely not a lot of other RPG's on the market.

[rickyh]

Mmm I don't really agree with this review wholeheartedly. The older editions certainly had more love placed into the game content and less clunky then todays versions of hundres of rules of centering around miniature combat.