TSR Why would anyone want to play 1e?

[David Howery]

from what I read about OD&D, the main problem with it was that it was hard to learn unless you're taught by someone who already learned the game. IIRC, the Holmes boxed set was designed to fix that.

 

[Tesral]

from what I read about OD&D, the main problem with it was that it was hard to learn unless you're taught by someone who already learned the game. IIRC, the Holmes boxed set was designed to fix that.

This is true. Which is one reason you had a different version for every gaming group. You had to invent your own game from the cluttered mess of the little books. The three books were unplayable without the Greyhawke supplement. Layout was terrible, organization did not exist. They might have invented a game, but they had zero experience documenting it. 0e shows it.

 

[David Howery]

Layout was terrible, organization did not exist.

heh. I can remember it being mentioned in the Game Wizards book (I think) about how one of Dave Arneson's 'poke in the eye to TSR' projects after leaving them was an index/guide to all the OD&D books (at the time), which was published, but due to the Holme's set and AD&D, soon became useless, and sales were poor. Probably be a collectors' item nowadays if you have one.

 

[Tesral]

heh. I can remember it being mentioned in the Game Wizards book (I think) about how one of Dave Arneson's 'poke in the eye to TSR' projects after leaving them was an index/guide to all the OD&D books (at the time), which was published, but due to the Holme's set and AD&D, soon became useless, and sales were poor. Probably be a collectors' item nowadays if you have one.

I never saw that. It needed a safari guide.

 

[Sacrosanct]

from what I read about OD&D, the main problem with it was that it was hard to learn unless you're taught by someone who already learned the game. IIRC, the Holmes boxed set was designed to fix that.

I would argue that Holmes didn't even fix that either. Holmes was still a very difficult to learn game from someone not already familiar with the game. I would argue that it didn't really become more newbie friendly until Moldvay/Cook/Marsh version, and then Frank's version really made it truly newbie accessible.

 

[billd91]

I would argue that Holmes didn't even fix that either. Holmes was still a very difficult to learn game from someone not already familiar with the game. I would argue that it didn't really become more newbie friendly until Moldvay/Cook/Marsh version, and then Frank's version really made it truly newbie accessible.

I started with the Holmes set and we muddled through well enough, though one player had experienced the game before. And having seen the original books, I do think Holmes truly was a major step in making the game understandable. Maybe not as far as the Moldvay then Mentzer editions, but still a huge stride forward.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I started with the Holmes set and we muddled through well enough, though one player had experienced the game before. And having seen the original books, I do think Holmes truly was a major step in making the game understandable. Maybe not as far as the Moldvay then Mentzer editions, but still a huge stride forward.

Holmes was 100x better, don't get me wrong. Just saying that for a brand new player, it was still formatted and presented in a fairly complex way. Not a dig at Holmes--everything was still really new at the time. Just like how AD&D 1e was written with a lot of hard to follow stuff (does anyone really understand how initiative works ). But at the time, it was pure genius.

 

[Mannahnin]

heh. I can remember it being mentioned in the Game Wizards book (I think) about how one of Dave Arneson's 'poke in the eye to TSR' projects after leaving them was an index/guide to all the OD&D books (at the time), which was published, but due to the Holme's set and AD&D, soon became useless, and sales were poor. Probably be a collectors' item nowadays if you have one.

I never saw that. It needed a safari guide.

It is indeed. Pictures and fun details here:

Dungeonmaster’s Index (1977): Original D&D Really Needed an Index; Dave Arneson Made His Own

Original Dungeons & Dragons of the 1970s was found in nine booklets, plus supplementary material. Rules, Character Classes, Spells, and Treasure were scattered throughout. Given that OD&D w…

waynesbooks.games

 

[Tesral]

It is indeed. Pictures and fun details here:

Dungeonmaster’s Index (1977): Original D&D Really Needed an Index; Dave Arneson Made His Own

Original Dungeons & Dragons of the 1970s was found in nine booklets, plus supplementary material. Rules, Character Classes, Spells, and Treasure were scattered throughout. Given that OD&D w…

waynesbooks.games

I did see that, that cover is noteworthy. I was likely too broke to buy it. The main thing miss about 1977 is my youth.

What 0e nurtured was the very Old School method of rulings not rules. You had to make it up as you went because there was no there there, Gygax was trying to rein that in with his very specific rules for everything from spells to bathroom breaks. If you tried to play everything by the rules it was a bookkeeping nightmare that made wizards unplayable. I've always favored a more loosey goosey DMing style that favored fun and narrative over rules. Want to swing from the chandelier into the Evil Duke's banquet? We do not need to measure the exact distance, the length of the rope etc.. One roll. Garry's Rules of DMing

 

[Mannahnin]

I did see that, that cover is noteworthy. I was likely too broke to buy it. The main thing miss about 1977 is my youth.

What 0e nurtured was the very Old School method of rulings not rules. You had to make it up as you went because there was no there there, Gygax was trying to rein that in with his very specific rules for everything from spells to bathroom breaks. If you tried to play everything by the rules it was a bookkeeping nightmare that made wizards unplayable. I've always favored a more loosey goosey DMing style that favored fun and narrative over rules. Want to swing from the chandelier into the Evil Duke's banquet? We do not need to measure the exact distance, the length of the rope etc.. One roll. Garry's Rules of DMing

Sure, absolutely.

Gary's fool's errand of trying to define everything makes some sense in the context of how at the time he was writing AD&D TSR was making a bunch of cash from tournament play and they wanted to standardize tournament refereeing more. And how he got continual calls and requests for rules clarifications. He could have stuck by his original guns and told people they needed to define it for themselves, but likely tournament play was a factor which decided him in favor of defining things more clearly.

Of course, once he decided to try to cut Dave out of royalties, writing a bunch more rules became a way to try to differentiate AD&D as a different game from the one Dave's contract gave him royalties for.