Original D&D game

Stormson wrote:

> Hi. I am feeling nostalgic and remembering when my father bought myself
> and my brothers the original D&D game in the 1970's. If I remember
> correctly it was in a simple white box and consisted of three (?) manuals
> stapled in brown covers. There wasn't a lot of text and of course a few
> dice were included. It may have cost $3 or so. Anyone remember this
> edition and does anyone still have it? Crude by today's standards, of
> course (no computers to print them out, no word processors to write them,
> etc), but I remember hours of enjoyment making up adventures with pencil
> on graphing paper. <sigh> Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this
> a "holy grail" item? Thanks. (with apologies for any ignorance on the
> matter)

You can pick it up on eBay pretty easily. If you go that route, note that
the "white box" set is a late '70s reprint (the "Collector's Edition" that
TSR put out); the *real* original D&D sets had a brown fake-woodgrain box.
If you want a "mint condition" set, it'll run you a bit more than $100 on
eBay. If you're willing to get the books without a box, or pick up the
books individually, you can get it more cheaply.

--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efindel.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

Thanks for all your replies. What year was the "real original" set put out?

"Travis Casey" <efindel.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dgslub.t61.ln@lostthoughts.org...
> Stormson wrote:
>
> > Hi. I am feeling nostalgic and remembering when my father bought myself
> > and my brothers the original D&D game in the 1970's. If I remember
> > correctly it was in a simple white box and consisted of three (?)
manuals
> > stapled in brown covers. There wasn't a lot of text and of course a few
> > dice were included. It may have cost $3 or so. Anyone remember this
> > edition and does anyone still have it? Crude by today's standards, of
> > course (no computers to print them out, no word processors to write
them,
> > etc), but I remember hours of enjoyment making up adventures with pencil
> > on graphing paper. <sigh> Hey, would it be possible to get one or is
this
> > a "holy grail" item? Thanks. (with apologies for any ignorance on the
> > matter)
>
> You can pick it up on eBay pretty easily. If you go that route, note that
> the "white box" set is a late '70s reprint (the "Collector's Edition" that
> TSR put out); the *real* original D&D sets had a brown fake-woodgrain box.
> If you want a "mint condition" set, it'll run you a bit more than $100 on
> eBay. If you're willing to get the books without a box, or pick up the
> books individually, you can get it more cheaply.
>
> --
> ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efindel.TakeThisOut@earthlink.net>
> /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

Bill Seurer <Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:

> Stormson wrote:
>
>> Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
>> Thanks.
>
> There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.

Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

Bryan J. Maloney wrote:

> Bill Seurer <Bill.TakeThisOut@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
>
>>Stormson wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
>>>Thanks.
>>
>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
>
> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.

Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

Bill Seurer wrote:
<snip>
>> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about
the
>> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
>
> Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.

Not really. It's quite a bit different, though closer to the original
than AD&D is.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

Bill Seurer <Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
thusnews:bun9m912866@enews2.newsguy.com:

> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
>> Bill Seurer <Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
>> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
>>
>>>Stormson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
>>
>> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
>> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
>
> Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.

Either you have never seen one, the other, or both, to make such a
statement--or you are intentionally trolling by making such blatantly and
obviously false statements.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message news:<Xns9477DC6AEF8F0dogfaceinsightbbcom.DeleteThis@206.141.193.32>...
> Bill Seurer <Bill.DeleteThis@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> thusnews:bun9m912866@enews2.newsguy.com:
>
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Seurer <Bill.DeleteThis@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> >> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
> >>
> >>>Stormson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
> >>>>Thanks.
> >>>
> >>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
> >>
> >> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
> >> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
> >
> > Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.
>
> Either you have never seen one, the other, or both, to make such a
> statement--or you are intentionally trolling by making such blatantly and
> obviously false statements.

I was there. I played them all. Bill is right. There is no 'original
D&D' distinct from the 'Basic Set', at least not in the sense of any
different rules system. There were different packagings, and perhaps
some minor corrections. But they are the same game. The general
developments of the rules (in order) are:

"Chainmail". (Miniatures rules: you could call it 'original D&D' but
you would be technically incorrect.)

"Dungeons & Dragons". The first game proper. The same set that was
called the 'Basic Set'. The first rules that were truly independent of
miniatures, although miniatures were not forbidden.

"Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set". Same rules system. Extended features
like spells and character levels. You can't play the Expert Set
without the Basic Set. Pretty soon 'Basic + Expert' became the
standard way to play. There was also an Immortal Set but not a lot of
people used it as I recall, because Advanced had either already come
out or was about to.

"Advanced Dungeons & Dragons". A major revision of the rules. The
single most important change was the freedom to portray any profession
no matter what your race. Previously, you could only play a fighter if
you were dwarf, only play a magic-user if you were an elf, only a type
of thief if you were a halfling, et cetera. The rules increased an
order of magnitude in complexity and a lot of people refused to
switch, and so 'Advanced' co-existed with 'Basic + Expert' for a time
as two separate playing traditions.

"AD&D 2nd Edition". A LOT of rules changes. Not the same game as AD&D
1st Edition.

"D&D 3rd Edition". At least as big a revision as from Basic to
Advanced, which was in itself huge. Also in the direction of freedom:
you are now no longer restricted only to certain types of skills just
because you are a member of a certain profession. i.e. You can be a
wizard who knows how to pick pockets if you so desire, which was
impossible in all previous incarnations. And ironically, these are the
rules most intertwined with miniatures since Chainmail! They are less
complex than AD&D mostly due to the standardisation of the use of dice
and the compression of the explosion of tables that made Advanced so
cumbersome. The title 'Advanced' was dropped because the 'Basic +
Expert' tradition was officially killed, I believe (though I am not as
well-versed in recent developments).

DB.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

"Dogger the Filmgoblin" <dogger_blue.DeleteThis@yahoo.ca> wrote

> I was there. I played them all. Bill is right. There is no 'original
> D&D' distinct from the 'Basic Set', at least not in the sense of any
> different rules system. There were different packagings, and perhaps
> some minor corrections. But they are the same game. The general
> developments of the rules (in order) are:
>
> "Chainmail". (Miniatures rules: you could call it 'original D&D' but
> you would be technically incorrect.)
>
> "Dungeons & Dragons". The first game proper. The same set that was
> called the 'Basic Set'. The first rules that were truly independent of
> miniatures, although miniatures were not forbidden.
>
> "Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set". Same rules system. Extended features
> like spells and character levels. You can't play the Expert Set
> without the Basic Set. Pretty soon 'Basic + Expert' became the
> standard way to play. There was also an Immortal Set but not a lot of
> people used it as I recall, because Advanced had either already come
> out or was about to.

Sorry, but either you weren't there from the beginning and you didn't
play them *all*, or else your concentration on the fun of the game (or
the liquid refreshments) has impaired your memory.

The "Basic", "Expert", "Master", "Companion", and "Immortal" scheme you
describe was a 1980's revision which came between versions of AD&D,
*NOT* something that was added onto the original, 1970's D&D game before
the first release of the AD&D system. AD&D had been out for three or
four years before Expert ever came out. (I believe the AD&D Player
Handbook came out in 77 or 78 and the Expert set around 81 or 82; the
rest of the revised D&D set followed through the Immortal rules in 86.)

Basic was not the same as the original set; it was always intended to be
an introductory set with additional rules needed to continue with
character progression, while the original set was, while almost as
bare-bones, intended to stand alone and be supplemented only by the
imagination of the dungeon-master. It did not contain an arbitrary "see
the next set of rules" cutoff point the way Basic did, because when it
was designed there *was* no "next set of rules" envisioned.

The "standard way to play the game" was the original set alone in the
mid 70's, then either that OR Advanced in the late 70's, and with Basic
out many new gamers learned on that but switched to either original or
AD&D; then finally Basic + Expert only *after* 1981-82 or so (years
after both Basic and AD&D first appeared) for people who made the switch
from AD&D, which many people never did. (And then the 2nd edition of
AD&D came out some years after that. TSR were nothing if not consummate
whores.)

--
Bruce Tucker
disintegration.DeleteThis@mindspring.com
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:41:42 -0600, Bill Seurer
<Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> wrote:

>Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
>> Bill Seurer <Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
>> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
>>
>>>Stormson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
>>
>> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
>> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
>
>Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.

Not even. OD&D did _not_ have races as classes or a few other
characteristics of Basic and it's kin.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:33:48 -0600, "Jeremy Reaban"
<jer.DeleteThis@connectria.com> wrote:

>Bill Seurer wrote:
><snip>
>>> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about
>the
>>> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
>>
>> Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.
>
>Not really. It's quite a bit different, though closer to the original
>than AD&D is.

Actually, I'd have to argue the inverse; as soon as you have things
like "elf" as a class, it's swung much farther away from OD&D than
AD&D did.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

On 22 Jan 2004 08:41:22 -0800, dogger_blue.DeleteThis@yahoo.ca (Dogger the
Filmgoblin) wrote:

>"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message news:<Xns9477DC6AEF8F0dogfaceinsightbbcom.DeleteThis@206.141.193.32>...
>> Bill Seurer <Bill.DeleteThis@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
>> thusnews:bun9m912866@enews2.newsguy.com:
>>
>> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>> >
>> >> Bill Seurer <Bill.DeleteThis@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
>> >> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
>> >>
>> >>>Stormson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
>> >>>>Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
>> >> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
>> >
>> > Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.
>>
>> Either you have never seen one, the other, or both, to make such a
>> statement--or you are intentionally trolling by making such blatantly and
>> obviously false statements.
>
>I was there. I played them all. Bill is right. There is no 'original
>D&D' distinct from the 'Basic Set', at least not in the sense of any
>different rules system. There were different packagings, and perhaps
>some minor corrections. But they are the same game. The general
>developments of the rules (in order) are:
>
>"Chainmail". (Miniatures rules: you could call it 'original D&D' but
>you would be technically incorrect.)
>
>"Dungeons & Dragons". The first game proper. The same set that was
>called the 'Basic Set'. The first rules that were truly independent of
>miniatures, although miniatures were not forbidden.
>

Uh, no. I'm sorry, but there's just serious difference there.
They've been pointed out in detail by another poster, so I shan't
bother to repeat them.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

Wayne Shaw <shaw DeleteThis @caprica.com> wrote in message news:<ea7db382dc31ef026d2857552dd41f54 DeleteThis @news.nntpserver.com>...
> On 22 Jan 2004 08:41:22 -0800, dogger_blue DeleteThis @yahoo.ca (Dogger the
> Filmgoblin) wrote:
>
> >"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione DeleteThis @sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message news:<Xns9477DC6AEF8F0dogfaceinsightbbcom DeleteThis @206.141.193.32>...
> >> Bill Seurer <Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> >> thusnews:bun9m912866@enews2.newsguy.com:
> >>
> >> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Bill Seurer <Bill DeleteThis @seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> >> >> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Stormson wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
> >> >>>>Thanks.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
> >> >> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
> >> >
> >> > Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.
> >>
> >> Either you have never seen one, the other, or both, to make such a
> >> statement--or you are intentionally trolling by making such blatantly and
> >> obviously false statements.
> >
> >I was there. I played them all. Bill is right. There is no 'original
> >D&D' distinct from the 'Basic Set', at least not in the sense of any
> >different rules system. There were different packagings, and perhaps
> >some minor corrections. But they are the same game. The general
> >developments of the rules (in order) are:
> >
> >"Chainmail". (Miniatures rules: you could call it 'original D&D' but
> >you would be technically incorrect.)
> >
> >"Dungeons & Dragons". The first game proper. The same set that was
> >called the 'Basic Set'. The first rules that were truly independent of
> >miniatures, although miniatures were not forbidden.
> >
>
> Uh, no. I'm sorry, but there's just serious difference there.
> They've been pointed out in detail by another poster, so I shan't
> bother to repeat them.

If that is so then it must be an extremely rare anomaly set, because I
was all over the gaming shelves in those days, and I never saw
anything titled 'Dungeons & Dragons' that didn't have races as
classes, as you mentioned in another post.

DB.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game 

dogger_blue.RemoveThis@yahoo.ca (Dogger the Filmgoblin) wrote in message news:<eed9768b.0401221537.45243c5c.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
> Wayne Shaw <shaw.RemoveThis@caprica.com> wrote in message news:<ea7db382dc31ef026d2857552dd41f54.RemoveThis@news.nntpserver.com>...
> > On 22 Jan 2004 08:41:22 -0800, dogger_blue.RemoveThis@yahoo.ca (Dogger the
> > Filmgoblin) wrote:
> >
> > >"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavaggione.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.nmungemungt> wrote in message news:<Xns9477DC6AEF8F0dogfaceinsightbbcom.RemoveThis@206.141.193.32>...
> > >> Bill Seurer <Bill.RemoveThis@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> > >> thusnews:bun9m912866@enews2.newsguy.com:
> > >>
> > >> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Bill Seurer <Bill.RemoveThis@seurer.netNOSPAM> nattered on
> > >> >> thusnews:bulqnj42ut4@enews1.newsguy.com:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Stormson wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>Hey, would it be possible to get one or is this a "holy grail" item?
> > >> >>>>Thanks.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>There were scores of editions of Basic D&D.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Wrong answer, thank you for your ignorance. He was talking about the
> > >> >> original game, not the "Basic" game. Two different things.
> > >> >
> > >> > Basic is what OD&D was re-packed as when AD&D came out.
> > >>
> > >> Either you have never seen one, the other, or both, to make such a
> > >> statement--or you are intentionally trolling by making such blatantly and
> > >> obviously false statements.
> > >
> > >I was there. I played them all. Bill is right. There is no 'original
> > >D&D' distinct from the 'Basic Set', at least not in the sense of any
> > >different rules system. There were different packagings, and perhaps
> > >some minor corrections. But they are the same game. The general
> > >developments of the rules (in order) are:
> > >
> > >"Chainmail". (Miniatures rules: you could call it 'original D&D' but
> > >you would be technically incorrect.)
> > >
> > >"Dungeons & Dragons". The first game proper. The same set that was
> > >called the 'Basic Set'. The first rules that were truly independent of
> > >miniatures, although miniatures were not forbidden.
> > >
> >
> > Uh, no. I'm sorry, but there's just serious difference there.
> > They've been pointed out in detail by another poster, so I shan't
> > bother to repeat them.
>
> If that is so then it must be an extremely rare anomaly set, because I
> was all over the gaming shelves in those days, and I never saw
> anything titled 'Dungeons & Dragons' that didn't have races as
> classes, as you mentioned in another post.

I checked into the history. Apparently this 'original D&D' set was
around for a number of years in the late '70s, during which I had
Chainmail (it was a gift). And only when the Basic & Expert Sets came
out in my neighbourhood store, and shortly after the Advanced stuff.
Apparently, this was not the order of publication at all, and the
Original set -- they totally missed the boat on that one in my area.
It appears the result is that I have had a twisted concept of the
order of these events for decades.

Bryan and Wayne right. Me wrong. Sorry.

DB.
 >> Stay informed about: Original D&D game