@Beoric: Stirring the pot, eh? Too quiet for you? --- I've known about the ADDICT chart for a few years now. It's actually nice that someone went ahead and picked through all the AD&D sources to lay it out. That said...
I think Prata's outline and (even more-so) skidoo's flowchart were an attempt at performance art. They were honestly trying to emphasize complexity, and chose two hideous formats to satirized the system.
In the former's case, he delves into every outlier that could possibly modify the "normal" procedure (honestly---
sword of quickness?
crossbow of speed?
The Spectator? Really? ... Why didn't he cover every the magic items and every monster ever published in all modules that have special combat properties while he was at it?) The format is atrocious too: long winded examples are inserted to bloat the size, and pages are only 1/2 to 3/4 full to extend the page-count. This is NOT an attempt to succinctly convey the most relevant (and as EOTB points out, most commonly used) information...it's just plain satire.
The flowchart is even worse. Who on Earth makes a flowchart that long-winded, wiggles every which way, and again,
emphasizes every remote outlying case? To everyone (except Bryce) this forum
was originally a gathering of folks interested in good design principles, i.e. "
How to best present material in a manner that assisted with the expeditious absorption of info at-the-table?" or colloquially, "
How to write an adventure Bryce wouldn't think sucked." This flowchart is an epic-fail on all measures of organization. Useless as a tool.
The mystery to me is the motivation of the authors. Was it just a gag? ...or were they OD&D folks having a go at the AD&D windmill? A little of both I believe. Ironically, the ADDICT outline was actually embraced by the community.
When I first returned to DMing (2013?), I read ADDICT and was completely gobsmacked. I thought, "
No way am I going to remember all this." ... But, now, I read it and nod to myself thinking, "
Yup. No sweat." (Honestly, the ownership of knowledge, and gaining profficiency with repeated usage
is not too different from learning Orbital Mechanics and Attitude Dynamics to design and simulate space systems. What started out as "hard" becomes an easy habit...i.e. "Fun!"
)
Someday (soon) I hope to make myself a better flowchart and attached it to my DM's screen. I've said many times here, I'm an OD&D player from way-back and a S&W enthusiast since my return to the hobby as a DM (I LOVE having a single saving-throw). But again, EOTB is right. 1e has this powerful magnetic draw to it. WHEN YOU ARE READY (as a player and DM) it adds nuanced complexity to the game in a very workable way. It's a remarkably well-oiled machine, but only
if you use it correctly. Like a well balanced-blade in an expert's hand, it is formidable. Most importantly, it does flesh-out some of the skeleton of the Rules-Light OD&D in a satisfying way that doesn't overly cater to player's self-aggrandizing wishes. As I said in the
DMG thread: it's 1st-REVISION...a refining of OD&D almost a decade later---after a
massive amount of play testing associated with the hobby's explosion on into the main-stream (and it's associated use/abuse).
But (again, I am just a windbag-echo of EOTB here), it has a serious learning curve --- for the DM (not so much for the players...I think the PHB is the most accessible of the core rule-books, and as a result that led to character fetish-abuse in the later additions).
The 1e DMG and these crazy ADDICT rules, and all the other tidbits that get dropped by most practitioners, are some seriously wonderful hidden gems. And (if you put in the effort to dig them out) they WORK.
Huso's blog is dedicated to proving that point. My own personal experience with a long-running campaign---along with dozens of others---prove that the OD&D (+ AD&D) is rich and
sustainable in a balanced way that later editions get wrong. Like the Tower of Babel, the others build high and fast --- but topple (get boring) in the long-run. Mixing metaphors, later editions are sweets that give the casual players an easily digestible taste of the game that does not nourish. Your toddler would gobble down candy all day if they could --- it's up to the DM to be the responsible parent that says "no" to excess until the child/newbie has learned self-discipline (= a long-term view that goes beyond instant gratification).
AD&D is not the game for the casual player or the casual DM. There are plenty of rules-light alternatives out there that provide an quick-fix of entertainment in the RPG genre. They are easier, but not necessarily "better". It depends on what you are looking for in the game. For example, I love space-travel and simulations --- but I find Kerbal kind of limited (fun once, boring in the long-term). I guess I am, and will always be, a Nerd --- who's tastes don't align with the majority. Que sera sera.