If you started playing D&D with the Basic D&D rules, which edition was it?

[AFGNCAAP]

Mentzer, most assuredly. Heck, Bargle and Aleena still pop up in my games from time to time.

And when I first got the Red Box, I thought the fighter on the cover was Warduke. . . .

 

[ssampier]

A youngin'

I started with the basic black box (1991). I still have it around here somewhere. It was great fun at the time. Strangely enough, D&D wasn't my first RPG. I played ICE MERP first.

I hear the 'starting box' for D&D 3.0 sold quite well, however, although it has a certain 'lameness' factor to it (rescue unicorn from goblins). Give me a Hero Quest board game anyday.

 

[rogueattorney]

With regard to the evolution of the rules of Basic D&D:

<snip... much useful info>

Just to follow up on some of what Merric said. There are some rules differences between the Moldvay and Mentzer Basic sets. We delve into them with glee on Dragonfoot's Classic D&D board. However, these rule differences are so few and far in between, and often times quite subtle, that most won't really notice unless they are paying rapt attention, and even then these rarely effect game play.

The big rule differences come between the Cook (1981 Otus cover) and Mentzer (1983 Elmore cover) Expert boxes. Each of the human classes was toned down in terms of spells received, saving throws, and other abilities. This is due to the fact that with the 1981 set, 14th level was about the end of the road for the characters, while the 1983 set intended for the characters to be able to go up to 36th level.

The Rules Cyclopedia is a compilation of the 4 Mentzer boxes (Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master with the Immortals box being updated in the Wrath of the Immortals box set) plus some additional rules that were added in the Gazetteer series. Overall, the RC is a very nice sourcebook. However, there are some pretty bad errors, especially in the combat section, which sometimes borders on incomprehensibility. There are two unofficial erratas on the Internet: http://www.dnd.starflung.com/rcerrata.html and http://www.flxtek.net/~aaron/RCerrata/

The 1991 Black box and the 1994 and 1996 boxes had almost identical content, with some different art and different box sizes. They are very nice rulebooks, with painstaking, step-by-step "how to's" for the youngest players. However, there are some horrible rule problems, the most infamous being the "5' rule".

R.A.

 

[Desdichado]

This one: a later printing of the Moldvay, I believe.

First one I ever owned, however, was the Mentzer with the Elmore cover.

 

[mikedidthis]

Started playing back in 1980 with my cousin's copy of the Holmes blue box set. Over the years I owned a copy at one point or another of every set from Moldvay to the Rules Cyclopedia. I think they're all still on my bookshelf upstairs along with all my other RPG stuff. Not played enough, but still love looking through 'em.

 

[T. Foster]

I started sorta halfway between Moldvay-Cook and Mentzer. I had the Mentzer Basic set and Cook Expert rulebook; my best friend (and main gaming partner) at the time had the exact opposite -- Moldvay Basic rulebook and Mentzer Expert set. We realized the art was different (obviously) but I think it was a couple years before we (or at least before I) realized that there were differences in the content too. I still have my original Mentzer Basic set (including crushed-and-taped box and really ratty dice) stored in a box in my mom's basement for nostalgia reasons, but it's the Moldvay-Cook books that are in my "active D&D reference library" alongside OD&D, Holmes, and 1E AD&D.

 

[eryndel]

It was Christmas of '81 and my dad got a copy of the Moldvay Basic Set and the accompaning Expert Set (with the Otus artwork of the Wizard looking at the scene from the Basic Set). I quickly absconded with his books and made them my own. I ran my first game running "The Haunted Keep" from the Basic Set for my parents. I was seven.

The game has claimed me ever since.

 

[RFisher]

I know the Mentzer set had two booklets (close to a hundred pages or so total I believe), but how did the rules compare to earlier versions?

Yeah. In hindsight, I think the two booklets might have been a mistake. It seems a lot of the DM booklets from this set ended up lost and separated from the player booklet.

As far as I know, the rules between the Moldvay & Mentzer Basic Sets are almost identical. The big difference is the way Mentzer tried to explain the game in such a simple & verbose way that anybody could learn it.

(The problem being, IMHO, that anybody who is going to stick with the game is going to be able to learn it from Moldvay & doesn't need Mentzer's drawn out version. Indeed, the couple of times I've tried to do anything with the Mentzer book, I just get frustrated.)

Now, the Mentzer Expert set diverged from the Cook Expert set in order to "make room" for levels 16-36 in the later sets.

Was the Cyclopedia based on the '83 ruleset?

The RC was a compilation of the meat of the Mentzer sets (BECM & a little I) plus some other stuff from Gazatteers and other sources. I don't think it introduced anything new.

It was really intended as a reference. There was a "Classic D&D" basic book of sorts that covered level 1-5. (Never seen this myself.) That would introduce you to the game. Then you'd get the RC as an all-the-rules reference. Then you'd get the Wrath of the Immortals later on.

 

[Old Fart]

I voted for the Holmes set, but I noticed there was no option for the original three-book, manilla cover set circa 1977 or 1978.

 

[Uller]

I started with Holmes (we called it the "blue book") back in 1980.

ditto.