🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan10.223147.9119@trl.oz.au> s.mathers@trl.oz.au writes:
>In article <43160@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, bkoike@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Bryce Koike) writes:
>|> In article <C0GFq8.C97@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> alyon@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (arthur alexander lyon) writes:
>|> 	I disagree.  A bad set of rules will make a game quite
>|> unplayable.  (de-emphasis of such rules helps, but then why bother?)
>
>I find it hard to see any redeamable features about AD&D mechanics,
>but it's awfully popular.  Sort of reminds me of IBM PC's in a way.

	I disagree on both accounts.  AD&D mechanics are simple,
leave the generation of the character's personality up to the
player, have a very simple combat mechanic, a wide variety of spells
available...blah blah blah.  It works.  It works strangely, but it
works.  (No, I don't like AD&D, but if I want to game on weekends I
often don't have much of a choice...)

	So far as IBM PCs, that's just an opinion and really doesn't
say anything about the actual machine itself which works quite
nicely, to tell the truth.