Why is the original red box so special

[Odhanan]

It does the job right. It has enormous replay value, manages to present its rules in crystal clear fashion, makes some rules modifications that actually simplify the game in interesting ways (races as classes come to mind) and does not rely on any token/miniatures gimmickery whatsoever but instead explains, on the actual cover, that "this game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination with dungeon adventures that includes monsters, treasures and magic" (i.e. NOT using a board was a feature, a selling point of the game, not a bug). It's the best introductory set to the game, IMO.

 

[The Shaman]

What was it about the product and the time it was released that made it worth recreating almost 30 years later?

Not a thing.

I'd been playing (A)D&D for six years already, and I was never a big fantasy fan as far as roleplaying games go, so the red box was just another version of a game I wasn't terribly excited about.

 

[Remathilis]

I guess I'm a bit neutral.

I began when my friend started running the Fifteenth edition (Aka the Horizontal "Dragon" box). Bargle and Silverleaf aren't all the famous, but Axel and Tanzar Tem are! I can tell you about Stonefast, and sadly I missed BOTH Elmore and Otis (I got Dykstra and Easley).

From there, we moved onto the Rules Cyclopedia (and thus BECMI) and then onto 2e.

So I'm totally for the nostalgic elements of the Red Box and its callback to "Basic" D&D, but having never played the red box, it doesn't do anything personally for me.

 

[Ourph]

I always thought the Mentzer "Red Box" version of BD&D was pretty lame. The earlier (1981) Moldvay "purple box" version had better artwork, was better organized and did a much better job of preparing the fledgling DM to create his own campaigns rather than training him to simply buy whatever modules TSR was putting out. In fact, I often find that people who claim to have started with and been inspired by the "Rex Box" are really talking about the Moldvay version and simply misremembering the color of the box (or happened to get a copy of the book without the box, secondhand). It doesn't help that the Moldvay book, while it came inside a purple box, was actually red.

 

[Agamon]

Heh, I'm pretty sure the "No board required" text was put there to differentiate it from the actual board games, like Monopoly and Sorry, that it sat beside in box stores back in the day. Of course, TSR may have forseen that the game would one day assume the use of miniatures, and therefore included the text to differentiate it from that, but I'm not so sure about that.

On topic, for me it's a very nostalgic thing. It was a great intro game. My 1e PHB was a bit confusing to my 11 year old mind, but the Moldvay B/E books made prefect sense. I still cherish my RC , a great game, even with miniatures!

 

[Reynard]

I always thought the Mentzer "Red Box" version of BD&D was pretty lame. The earlier (1981) Moldvay "purple box" version had better artwork, was better organized and did a much better job of preparing the fledgling DM to create his own campaigns rather than training him to simply buy whatever modules TSR was putting out. In fact, I often find that people who claim to have started with and been inspired by the "Rex Box" are really talking about the Moldvay version and simply misremembering the color of the box (or happened to get a copy of the book without the box, secondhand). It doesn't help that the Moldvay book, while it came inside a purple box, was actually red.

So since I remember how awesome my introduction to D&D was, I must necessarily be misremembering the set despite still owning it?

Wow.

 

[Rel]

It does the job right. It has enormous replay value, manages to present its rules in crystal clear fashion, makes some rules modifications that actually simplify the game in interesting ways (races as classes come to mind) and does not rely on any token/miniatures gimmickery whatsoever but instead explains, on the actual cover, that "this game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination with dungeon adventures that includes monsters, treasures and magic" (i.e. NOT using a board was a feature, a selling point of the game, not a bug).

I don't disagree with the notion that the game doesn't rely upon tactical maps and figures. But it certainly doesn't discourage them. Right on the back of the box they are pimping official TSR figures for both PC's and monsters.

 

[fjw70]

Even though I started with the Moldvay Basic Set and Cook Expert Set and had moved on the AD&D before the Mentzer "Red Box" was released, it is still iconic for me because it was on the shelf for years. Nearly every time I went to buy a new Dragonlance module or the latest Dragon Magzine the Red Box was staring me in the face.

 

[Odhanan]

I don't disagree with the notion that the game doesn't rely upon tactical maps and figures. But it certainly doesn't discourage them. Right on the back of the box they are pimping official TSR figures for both PC's and monsters.

I didn't say that either. It is however right there on the box that the game "does not require a gameboard" because "it takes place in your imagination", and it is seen as enough of a differenciating feature of the game to be pointed out right there on the box cover.

I mean. It's not rocket science, really.

 

[Rel]

I didn't say that either. It is however right there on the box that the game "does not require a gameboard" because "it takes place in your imagination", and it is seen as enough of a differenciating feature of the game to be pointed out right there on the box cover.

I mean. It's not rocket science, really.

Yeah I totally agree with that part. At the time the concept of a game without a game board was pretty novel. So definitely worth citing as a distinguishing feature.