Because that's how the game was played by millions of people back in the 80s, and I don't buy any revisionist (and invariably self-serving) argument that all those millions of people "weren't really playing AD&D." Because the fact is, they were playing AD&D -- those were the books at the table and if you'd asked any of them them that's what they would have told you. And, specifically, they were not playing B/X, which most of them owned and had played, but had deliberately chosen not to play anymore because they preferred AD&D for its flavor, its style, its greater amount of "stuff" (classes, spells, equipment, monsters, magic items), and for the greater amount and quality of resources available for it (adventures, supplements, new content in Dragon magazine), and they didn't let the fact that it had a lot of extra rules they didn't use or even necessarily understand get in the way of their enjoyment. Because "the rules" is never what AD&D was about -- the style and the flavor and the "stuff" is. Hell, I never even bothered to read cover-to-cover through the AD&D rulebooks until c. 2002, and I was a hardcore super-geek fan.
I too have always gotten a very weird vibe from the B/X online-supporters when it comes to 1E AD&D and Gygax in general (like a short guy complex, there is a tendency to almost need to prove themselves). The vibe seems to be a distinctively negative one toward 1E, with subtle insinuations of B/X being better (cheerleaders fighting a one sided war, I've seen no 1Eers give a negative vibe toward B/X that I can remember). B/Xers post about how 1E is good but "its too complex", "its unclear", its too specific etc. thats fine, but why tell me at my 1E site...its a different game. Surely these same B/X guys remember how people liked the complexity of 1E back in the 80s (back then it was a badge of honor to master the DMG, it meant you were smarter then everyone else, and definitely better then the guys playing "kiddie D&D). Infact, 1E's complexity added to the patina of the hobby, and made the rule books seem like tombs themselves, never boring and uniquely Gygaxian...you could get insite into the feel and spirit of the game every time you delved into it.
So anyway, I can buy Foster's points listed above (I know I still complain about late 1E, which I see starting with UA), but I suspect there is more to this B/X vs 1E thing then that (after all the 80s was a long time ago). Was there some animosity between the creators that continued to a later date maybe? Was the differences in rules so great that B/X surrogates felt a need to let that be known at 1E sites? I find the whole thing kind of odd and annoying (mostly because I feel 1E continues to be the one being the pinata). Its like a turf war below the surface no one wants to talk about, and I suspect it has something to do with the retro-clones, each games more vocal advocators trying to jockey their horse to front runner position. I suppose I'm annoyed because of the revisionary tendency of some of the message getting out about 1E and what people thought of it (eluded to above in Fosters post) when I was there at the time (as were most of you) and know the truth about what people thought of the three core 1E books and the game in general. Anyhow, I'm curious to know what others think.
(thought maybe I was missing something that pissed them off) present company excluded of course.
to hear that they harbour such vehement sentiments. I love AD&D and Basic, and have nothing against OD&D (but have yet to play it). It's all good. 