D&D General First official D&D game product you owned?

What was the first official Dungeons & Dragons product you owned?

  • Original 1974 boxed set

    Votes: 6 3.4%
  • Original D&D supplement (Blackmoor)

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • D&D Basic set (1977/1981/1983)

    Votes: 79 45.1%
  • D&D BECMI set (Expert/Companion/Master/Immortals)

    Votes: 5 2.9%
  • D&D Rules Cyclopedia

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • D&D Basic/BECMI general supplement (Creature Catalogue)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D Basic/BECMI setting supplement (D&D Gazetteers)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D Basic/BECMI adventure (Keep on the Borderlands)

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • AD&D 1e core (MM/PHB/DMG)

    Votes: 24 13.7%
  • AD&D 1e general supplement (Deities & Demigods)

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • AD&D 1e setting-specific supplement (World of Greyhawk)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • AD&D 1e general adventure (Tomb of Horrors)

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • AD&D 1e setting-specific adventure (Dragonlance modules)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • AD&D 2e starter set (First Quest/Introduction to/Adventure Game)

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • AD&D 2e core (PHB/MM/DMG)

    Votes: 20 11.4%
  • AD&D 2e general supplement (Tome of Magic, Player's Option series)

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • AD&D 2e setting-specific supplement (Dark Sun Campaign Setting)

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • AD&D 2e general adventure (The Rod of Seven Parts)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • AD&D 2e setting-specific adventure (Ravenloft modules)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 3e starter set (Adventure Game/Basic Game)

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • D&D 3e core (PHB/MM/DMG, 3.0 or 3.5)

    Votes: 10 5.7%
  • D&D 3e general supplement (Book of Nine Swords)

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • D&D 3e setting-specific supplement (Magic of Faerun)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 3e general adventure (The Sunless Citadel)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 3e setting-specific adventure (Eberron modules)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e Starter Set (2008/2010)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e original core (PHB/MM/DMG)

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • D&D 4e expanded core (PHB 2/3, MM 2/3, DMG 2)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e Essentials core (Rules Compendium, Heroes of the Fallen Lands, DM's Kit, etc.)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e general supplement (Martial Power, Heroes of the Feywild)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e setting-specific supplement (Dark Sun Creature Catalog)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e general adventure (Keep on the Shadowfell)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 4e setting-specific adventure (Seekers of the Ashen Crown)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D Next general adventure (Dead in Thay)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 5e Starter Set (includes Essentials Kit, Stranger Things)

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • D&D 5e core rules (PHB/MM/DMG)

    Votes: 5 2.9%
  • D&D 5e general supplement (Tasha's Cauldron of Everything)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 5e setting-specific supplement (Eberron: Rising from the Last War)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D&D 5e adventure (Storm King's Thunder)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • I've never owned an official D&D product

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • (late add) D&D Basic set (1991/1994, New Easy-to-Master/Classic)

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • Poll closed .

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I voted 2E core but please note that at release, in 1989, when I got it, the 2E core was not PHB, DMG, MM, it was PHB, DMG, MC - Monstrous Compendium, which was a ring-binder rather than an actual book, in a deeply misguided attempt to keep all the monsters in one place (there were a number of misguided RPG and wargame products taking this approach in the late '80s). The actual 2E MM didn't get released until 1993. I was in the US with my family and we visited some old friends, turned out their kids were into RPGs too, and I was astonished when we went to the RPG store and there was this new MM - we also got Dragon Mountain (a campaign boxed set) and together both products were my first exposure to Tony DiTerlizzi's art, which completely blew me away.

#nerdfacts #akshully
Yeah, never seen the binder, but in certain ears it seems ahead of it's time, since that's sort of what digital tools allow now without the fuss.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Yeah, never seen the binder, but in certain ears it seems ahead of it's time, since that's sort of what digital tools allow now without the fuss.
Conceptually, on paper rather than in reality, it must have seemed like minor genius. As noted, there were other RPG and wargame products doing the same sort of thing at the same time. Because you could have a truly huge number of monsters and still have them in alphabetical order and so on.

In reality, it was hideously impractical. The binder was not high-quality, or I dunno, maybe it was for 1989, but it was rubbish compared to the ones we had in the office in say, 2008. Very often it closed ever-slightly off-centre (and once that happened once, it happened more), and when it did that, all the pages would catch, preventing you from going quickly to the right place, and sort of micro-damaging a lot of the holes punched in the pages (to fix this you had to carefully lay it out, re-open it, and very carefully re-close the mechanism, which was pretty annoying - I can still almost feel the tension of the mechanism in my hands). Because they wanted it to fit way more stuff than a book, and presumably for cost reasons, the pages themselves whilst not super-cheap or light, were not strong either. Even after just a couple of years of moderate-to-heavy usage, when the PHB and DMG were still in perfect condition (it look 8 years of heavy usage for the PHB to start to fall apart), a lot of the MC pages had got torn at the holes. We fixed them and strengthened the others with little round stickers made for that purpose, but that was painstaking and not a long-term fix. IIRC the idea of it having everything alphabetical fairly quickly fell apart too because the pages were double-sided, so instead (IIRC) you had to have sections anyway, really making the reason for its existence in the first place kind of questionable. And because it was a large, extremely heavy ring-binder (once you'd started adding stuff to it), it was far less practical to carry than a book, and it damaged the pages inherently just by carrying it around (as they exerted weight on the holes, rather than being attached by a spine more evenly and permanently).

TSR must have realized this fairly quickly, even the MM came out less than four years after the MC did. I can't remember if monster-related products switched over to a book format before that, if not it was immediately after it.
 

GuyBoy

Hero
Without question, I’ve done or experienced many things that matter much more....my wife, daughter, grandkids, career, helping young people succeed, travel etc.......but in terms of an actual physical “thing”, that Original boxed set is the most important “thing” I have ever received.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Conceptually, on paper rather than in reality, it must have seemed like minor genius. As noted, there were other RPG and wargame products doing the same sort of thing at the same time. Because you could have a truly huge number of monsters and still have them in alphabetical order and so on.

In reality, it was hideously impractical. The binder was not high-quality, or I dunno, maybe it was for 1989, but it was rubbish compared to the ones we had in the office in say, 2008. Very often it closed ever-slightly off-centre (and once that happened once, it happened more), and when it did that, all the pages would catch, preventing you from going quickly to the right place, and sort of micro-damaging a lot of the holes punched in the pages (to fix this you had to carefully lay it out, re-open it, and very carefully re-close the mechanism, which was pretty annoying - I can still almost feel the tension of the mechanism in my hands). Because they wanted it to fit way more stuff than a book, and presumably for cost reasons, the pages themselves whilst not super-cheap or light, were not strong either. Even after just a couple of years of moderate-to-heavy usage, when the PHB and DMG were still in perfect condition (it look 8 years of heavy usage for the PHB to start to fall apart), a lot of the MC pages had got torn at the holes. We fixed them and strengthened the others with little round stickers made for that purpose, but that was painstaking and not a long-term fix. IIRC the idea of it having everything alphabetical fairly quickly fell apart too because the pages were double-sided, so instead (IIRC) you had to have sections anyway, really making the reason for its existence in the first place kind of questionable. And because it was a large, extremely heavy ring-binder (once you'd started adding stuff to it), it was far less practical to carry than a book, and it damaged the pages inherently just by carrying it around (as they exerted weight on the holes, rather than being attached by a spine more evenly and permanently).

TSR must have realized this fairly quickly, even the MM came out less than four years after the MC did. I can't remember if monster-related products switched over to a book format before that, if not it was immediately after it.
Yeah, concept versus reality can be a real problem in design.
 



IIRC the idea of it having everything alphabetical fairly quickly fell apart too because the pages were double-sided, so instead (IIRC) you had to have sections anyway, really making the reason for its existence in the first place kind of questionable.
ironically, with the march of modern technology, you could do that now. All of the loose leaf MC books are available from DTRPG (I think), and if you really wanted to, you could download them all, print them all out to one monster per page (some would be two sided, most wouldn't, depending on if the monster originally took up two pages or not), and with about 5-6 big binders, you could do it all. It would be an enormous expense in download fees, paper, and ink, but you could do it....
 



Riley

Hero
I answered (BX) Basic Set, but I now recall that I acquired the BX Expert Set a few weeks prior to the BX Basic Set... because Basic was sold out.

It was really hard to play Isle of Dread without, for example, the details of the Basic spells, but we did what we could.
 




Greg K

Legend
I chose other. I had the Holmes Basic book which could be purchased separately, but not the actual set. I remember being disappointed, because I had asked for the Advanced Player's Handbook and my aunt and uncle got me the wrong book. Later, I came to really like the cover and the example adventure with the pirate cave and was disappointed when the book was stolen along with other gaming stuff and my truck.
 



pukunui

Legend
I put 2e core rules. I was introduced to D&D by some school friends, and I expect I would have purchased the 2e PHB first and then the MM and DMG later.
 

GreyLord

Legend
Well, looking at the responses...I draw one conclusion from the ones I see thus far...(only 5 voting for anything after 3e as their start)...

We are a bunch of OLD foggy players. When you're wee ones started 15-20 years ago...you know it's starting to be an old group.

(Let's not start with mine...I started with OD&D...but I didn't own the books at the time. My first official rules was the Basic set that came out...though there is an interesting story about that one as it seems to be different than the Basic sets that were released to the public).
 

Stormonu

Legend
79' Holmes basic set for Christmas - which I promptly lost the rulebook, leaving me just with Keep on the Borderlands.

And a few days later, a set of dice that included a D20 that was numbered 0-9 twice, along with two boxes of Grenadier miniatures (one for heroes, one of monsters).
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top