We’re finally here, sort of. Some of you may remember my original article on TTRPG history, (behold) but you don’t really need to have read that one to follow this, but it’ll give some background context of course. There is one important and essential thing about that article, however; at the end, I said the next TTRPG article was going to be the system review of the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons, the holy one; the golden child, the saintly sword-swinging slayer of evil, the progenitor of the genre, swathed in shining finery and sitting on its throne built over decades of market domination, and-
Yeah, I was trying to stall a little bit there.
This isn’t going to be a system review, where I dive into the game's inner guts and workings like a bill-guisarme does to any unfortunate ghoul or bulette that gets in the way of your party's Fighting-Man. The reason? I don’t want to review a system without playing it and I’ve never played the very first edition of Dungeons and Dragons. I’ve played every other edition and while I’m sure I could easily explain the system without playing through it considering I know D&D like the back of my hand, that's not how I ‘roll’. Maybe the game will play differently than I think, you never know, and I don't want to take the easy way out. The biggest obstacle to actually playing TTRPG’s is time, and unfortunately it’s most likely going to be a little while before I have time to play the game to a satisfying enough level (I’m aiming for 2, maybe 3 sessions per game review I do). I am very fortunate to have a group of friends that meets once a week to play these games, so that’s going to take at least 3ish weeks right there; but, we’re also doing some other stuff around that, such as playtesting and working on our own games we're trying to make. So, the article is going to have to wait a little bit unfortunately.
But, I can’t stop myself from talking about TTRPG’s, damnit. It’s like a brainworm wriggling around in my mind that I just can’t get rid of, trying to make me randomly berate passersby with rants about ‘THAC0 calculations’ and repeatedly asking them ‘why is the flail identical to the morning star in fifth edition Dungeons and Dragons save for the fact that it weighs less? Why does it weigh less? Tell me!’. In order to satiate the brainworm for a little bit, and so I can hopefully be allowed back into my local Tim Horton’s again without security being called, I will do a little history article first on the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons to whet some whistles hopefully. This will also make it so I don’t have to spend time in the review article on this background stuff, and I need the most amount of characters for the review as I can get. Also there are a lot of things to say about it history wise it turns out, and it is such a massive cluster**** of revisions and releases that I’m expecting not a single person reading this to be able to follow. So, hopefully you enjoy this article that I’m trying my best to make entertaining considering it's very dry subject matter.
There’s How Many Versions of the First Edition?
The timeline from the holiest of arcane tomes, the Wikipedia article. This is what we’re dealing with; prepare yourself.
There are 4 different releases of Dungeons and Dragons first edition, and technically 3 different versions of one of those. It’s a little complicated, to say the least, so here we go;
OD&D; The OG
Behold, the patriarch.
The very first version of what was released as Dungeons and Dragons, this was the result of Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax colluding after first meeting in 1973ish. They co-founded the company Tactical Studies Rules (TSR) to publish the game, with the third founder and partial funder being Gygax’s childhood friend Don Kaye. Gygax felt that there was a need to publish the game as soon as they possibly could, as he felt there was competition quickly growing and they had to get it out as soon as possible. One issue; they couldn’t actually afford to release the game, with Arneson having particularly tight finances and being entirely unable to contribute financially to the game. After a bit of time, Gygax managed to secure funding for Dungeons and Dragons from someone he met at the Gen Con gaming convention in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin; Brian Blume, who would go on to have a pivotal role in TSR history. Did this risky move pay off? Well, obviously; we wouldn’t be here if it didn’t. The first printing, around 1000 copies which were hand assembled and stapled by Kaye and Gygax in his basement, sold out and pre-sales for a second printing hammered the three entrepreneurs. From there, the rest is history.
This goes to say that the game was very rushed and guerilla. They had a budget of $2000 from Brian Blume (which is nowadays about $14k); this included everything, from printing to art. Smartly deciding to put most of the money towards printing and other costs, this left only $200 for art. The art was done by a few people, who were paid $2 for a small doodle or $3 for a larger art piece. The artists included Gygax’s wife’s half-sister, Arneson himself, a few local friends and gamers, and one actual local artist named Cookie Corey. The result is an adorably charming assortment of now iconic doodles;
Love how nonchalant the wraith looks, like it’s just casually here to hang out and not eat your soul or something.
Absolutely adorable.
Oh good, that poor thing. What happened to you, OD&D’s Giant?
I mean, this kind of stuff was to be expected.
Here's the thing with OD&D; it started the big old thing, but the first version of the game is atrocious. The default combat rules are literally just saying “play Chainmail”; by the default rules, the game is just Chainmail. Reference to another game, Avalon Hill’s Outdoor Survival, is referred to when rules for, well, outdoor survival are mentioned; the game literally points you towards another game's rules.
“Want to fight things and wander around in some woods? Just play another game!”
Many elements that are now synonymous with the game series aren't even in OD&D. There's only three classes of Fighting-Man, Magic-user, and Cleric. The combat system is still using Chainmail so it's all handled with d6’s and the occasional percentile roll; there is not a single mention of the legendary d20 die, except for one small section near the end of the book. Optional rules were included if you didn’t have access to Chainmail, including using a d20 to resolve attacks. That’s right; the entire recognizable system of D&D wasn't even in the original release. That's how rushed and primordial the game was.
There was one significant change in later printings; the omission of certain literary references. The game was a combination of every fantasy trope more or less at the time, seeing pulls from mythology and contemporary early fantasy novels. A very large, significant influence was something that should be no surprise; J.R.R Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. This influence was very apparent, given that it literally pulled names and titles from the book series. Player’s could be literally hobbits, and fight what were literally called ents and nazgul’s.
I think you can figure out that this wasn't legally kosher. Also, is the nazgul Zorro? What’s with the hat?
They got away with it for a good 3 or so years, but were eventually hit with a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate. The first printing to remove this was the sixth run in 1977 which replaced hobbits with the now common stand-ins of halflings, which are literally the exact same thing but evidently just a name change was enough to consider them legally distinct; IP court battles are funny.
OD&D started the whole thing, but ultimately it’s a very poor game release. The rules are vague and scattered, it’s literally just Chainmail, there’s typos and mistakes throughout the book, and overall is a very rushed and slapped together game. That’s testament to its power, however, as despite those pretty glaring faults the game spawned the dynasty to follow.
AD&D; For the Distinguished Gamer
AD&D has easily one of the most iconic covers of the whole series.
The years went by, and OD&D was still selling out in stores. Something had happened, however; there was a falling out within TSR. Dave Arneson had left TSR at the end of ‘76, for reasons that are hard to get a clear answer on. It may have been creative differences between him and Gygax, or his dissatisfaction with how the game had evolved. Whatever happened, Arneson left TSR. He had a secured and agreed upon term of him receiving royalties for future D&D sales, which is of course commonplace in situations like this. The reason this is important is because it had an influence on the next version of OD&D; Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.
Gygax started compiling all the later supplemental rules and books in the OD&D line into one book, which started the design work of AD&D which was released in 1977. He made it substantially more intricate, and started adding in rules here and there until it is instantly recognizable as a different game. How complicated could it get? Well, here’s the weapon table;
Eldritch incantations and runes from the darkest reaches of Gary Gygax’s imagination.
Where did the name come from? Well, it came from some company politics. By calling it Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, it was a move to avoid paying Arneson his royalties on any products sold under its line. It wasn’t the same game in name mostly, and especially rules; so it wasn’t the same as Dungeons and Dragons, which is what Arneson had legal claim on royalties for. The identity of the instigator for this decision is nebulous and there is a lot of back and forth, ‘he said, she said’ type deal; what’s important is that the game was different. Oh, and eventually Arneson brought TSR to court and got a 2.5% royalty agreement for all AD&D products which bagged him a reported six figure income for the next couple of decades.
Much discussion in the community has taken place over the many decades over who was what in the history of D&D, with some being Team Gygax or Team Arneson. I don’t see the point of arguing about it as no one will ever really know other than the two people involved who have unfortunately both passed on since. That said, you cannot deny that the move TSR took there was a low blow and Dave Arneson rightfully got his bag out of it, man.
The game was more intricate, and deep, more grounded in specific ruling and a good amount of math. It had much of the immediately recognizable D&D staples included in the book this time around. TSR had a little bit of cashflow at this point, so they were no longer beholden to a budget quite as low as $200 for art. That being said, they kept the doodle spirit alive with some even more classic ones;
This image is burned into my memory, particularly the face of the half-orc. Octopus lore; I originally wanted to make the half-orcs' goofy grin as my profile picture here on the site, but could never quite get it to display correctly. So it goes.
The next version is when the real confusion starts taking form, so get ready;
Basic Set; Why Is It Like This?
Just look at that goofy little dragon, he’s adorable. I also love the era of fantasy art when wizards almost always had star patterns on their robes and hats; look at that sweet fashion on the bottom left.
Basic Set was what the name describes; a beginner friendly version of the game system. The book only covered levels 1-3, and it only covered aspects related to dungeon crawling with very little else in the way of outdoor exploration or map travel. Basic Set is sometimes also called the Holmes Basic after its developer, John Eric Holmes; he actually had a PhD in neuroscience, and often used TTRPGs to teach concepts in his classes. This Basic Set was very similar to OD&D, and is considered the truest ‘successor’ to the original release’s vibe and rule style. AD&D was for the big brained nerds, Holmes Basic was for the people looking for a more casual and open experience. Both games existed alongside one another, and both saw regular module and supplemental releases. They also fed into one another in a sense; AD&D is frequently mentioned in Holmes Basic and the intention would be that you’d play Holmes until level 3, then if you wanted more could go onto AD&D. It is also referred to as the ‘blue box’ after the box it came in.
Alright, confusion time;
There was another different revision of Basic released by Tom Moldvay in 1981. Moldvay would go on to make a huge amount of adventure modules for the various versions of D&D. This is called the Moldvay Basic, or the magenta box, and is pictured below;
While the dragon isn’t as memorable as the Holmes’ version, I really like the soft and ‘squiggly’ style art.
This was a substantial rewriting of the Holmes Basic, which had much in common with OD&D including its terrible book organization and rule clarity issues. Moldvay Basic was still in the more casual style of OD&D, but made substantial improvements on the game mechanics to the point where they can not even be considered the same game anymore. When someone talks about Basic D&D, they are usually referring to Moldvay Basic; it’s considered by many to be the greatest version and the default.
While Holmes Basic was designed to be a gateway into AD&D, Moldvay Basic was created to separate the two versions of the game entirely. Many liked Holmes Basic so much that they didn’t want to switch to the arcane and dense AD&D system and wanted to keep playing the streamlined ruleset of Basic; so, Moldvay Basic separated the two, and launched alongside the Expert Set book which covered levels 4-14 in the same style rules as Moldvay Basic. This way, you could play a full character without switching over to AD&D. This is pictured below, and usually referred to as Cook Expert after it’s designer David Cook who worked alongside Moldvay on Basic;
Confused yet? Try having to dig through all this to write an article.
Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert together are usually referred to as Basic/Expert, or B/E, and are a very beloved edition of the game. If you’re looking at another TTRPG 'inspired’ by old-school D&D, it’s a 50/50 if it’s taken inspiration from B/E or AD&D.
Have I kept you so far, the one person still reading this article? Okay, let's get into some really confusing ****. Here’s where we get into the third goddamn version of Basic and another goddamn version of Expert with BECMI;
BECMI; the Third Basic Set, and Actually What The ****?
Seriously, why is it like this? What the **** TSR?
BECMI, like I explained in the little synopsis, is the acronym for the series of books starting in 1983 that you'd progress through as you level your characters; Basic (but not that Basic Set, or the other Basic; is levels 1-3), Expert (but not that last Expert book, levels 4-14), Companions (levels 15-25), Master (levels 26-36), and Immortals (when you've transcended levels, dude). The series concluded in ‘86 with Immortals, and the whole thing was put together by Frank Mentzer, winner of the 1980 Gen Con’s ‘DM Invitational’ to choose the best game master. People were really into Dungeons and Dragons, man, and there were legitimate TSR hosted tournaments and scored D&D games throughout the 80s. I don't know how you score a game of D&D, or why you would ever want to. Anyone who calls themselves a ‘professional’ D&D player I immediately discredit the opinion of, except for Mentzer; he seems alright. He created and published many iconic adventure modules of this era, including the absolute D&D classic adventure Temple of Elemental Evil.
This version of Basic is referred to as the red box for it’s, well, box it came in or sometimes Mentzer Basic. This version was also the first one to be officially translated and released in foreign markets by TSR themselves, with this red box having great sales success in Japan (I touch a little bit on this in my Capcom D&D game article; behold!)
He eventually found himself working under Gygax, and was tasked to once again put out another goddamn version of Basic, and extend the idea from B/E to carry it across multiple level ranges and most importantly, books; did you hit level 14 in the BECMI series? Well, I guess you’ll have to buy the next book, Companions, to keep playing your character. The financial motivation is a little obvious.
Can’t deny they have some rad art, though.
The reasons for this third reprinting of Basic have never been clear, particularly considering both the BECMI versions of Basic and Expert are very close to being identical to the Moldvay versions, save for some small changes here and there. Thieves can no longer use any melee weapon for example, and now can only use one-handed ones. Before in the Holmes Basic and Moldvay Basic, they could use a two-handed sword if they wanted to, which is a hell of an aesthetic. One stated reason by Menzter himself was that Gygax wanted a system removed from AD&D which was still getting content releases even in ‘83. This is greatly confusing, however, since Moldvay Basic already did that.
The biggest draw and changes in BECMI is the expanded range of character levels. The furthest a prior version of the game had reached character level wise was 14 with AD&D and Cook Expert, while in BECMI you could go into the lands of gods and fundamental forces of the universe.
So to summarize this mess, we have three versions of a book all called Basic D&D, which are the spiritual successors to OD&D. The first Holmes Basic was designed as a beginner box set to lead into AD&D. The second Moldvay Basic was made to separate it from AD&D and extend its rules to up to 14th character level. The third and final Basic was created to launch a series of 5 books for unclear reasons (likely business reasons), and is called the BECMI system.
At this point, TSR were raking in cash hand-over-fist, and could actually get some professional quality art for the BECMI books. Each book probably has the most amount of art work of any release up until that point.
To further summarize; why was it like this, TSR? Who hurt you?
In Conclusion; What The **** TSR?
That ends the legendary mess that is the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons release history. 4 distinct versions, and that's not even counting the whole Holmes Basic and Moldvay Basic in there. Now, does any of this really matter? How different are the versions of the game? Why was it like this?Ultimately, to me at least, there are two different vibes of OG Dungeons and Dragons; Basic as the successor to OD&D, and AD&D. Within that, there isn't so much difference between Moldvay Basic or BECMI Basic that your average player is going to notice, unless they like to categorize and obsess over history and trivial information like I do. But Holmes Basic and Moldvay Basic are entirely different games; so there is some importance to these details.
Alright Octopus, Enough; What Version Are You Playing For The Review?
I crunched the pros and cons, and really mulled it over before coming to a decision on which of these perplexingly different versions I wanted to do the review on. What is the most identifiable version of first edition Dungeons and Dragons, the most iconic? I thought about doing the OG grandaddy of them all with the original ‘74 release, but honestly it kind of straight up sucks as a game. I also do not feel like just playing Chainmail as that’s essentially what OD&D is, so that was struck out very quickly. As I explained above, it really comes down to what I want to play between a version of Basic or AD&D as the two distinct vibes and essences of the first D&D edition. I ended up settling on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. A part of this decision came down to future article planning, I will admit; there’s one particular game that I really want to cover later which is heavily inspired by B/E, and I felt it could be a little redundant to play both the inspiration and this mystery game itself.
But the biggest reason why I decided to play AD&D for the review is childhood nostalgia. I have never played AD&D, but they were the first TTRPG books I ever encountered when I was maybe like 8 or 9, being copies my dad had in the bottom of his closet. I poured over them, hardly able to understand the rules but absorbing it all as a jumbled mess. I asked my dad if we could play, but he rightfully knew I wouldn’t enjoy it at the time as I was too young. It’s what started my whole obsession with the genre, reading the Players Handbook front to back repeatedly just for fun and entertainment despite not understanding any of the game mechanics, or ever getting to play it. Eventually I obviously started playing D&D, but my first time was years later with 3rd edition; it’s only a matter of a lot of time until I get there. So, since I’m now playing a version of a first edition release of Dungeons and Dragons, I had to begin at the one that started it all.
So, prepare yourselves for…some amount of time in the future when we delve into the arcane intricacies of THAC0 calculations and magic casting for the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons review. Will it be as rant-y as the article? Probably.
Two quick things before you click away from this mess of an article;
I got deep into research for these versions of Basic, so deep that I made a reference file for cataloguing the differences of each of the three versions. Trying to find concrete information and what was changed rules-wise for the three releases was a nightmare of conflicting information and anecdotal stories spread across forum posts, so I made my own. I’ve decided to include it in the comment section of this article for anyone interested, as it doesn’t make sense to be its own article and is too big to fit into this one.
And lastly; I want to convey once final piece of TSR cluster**** to you. In 1995, TSR finally retired the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons entirely and released what is the second edition of the game, bringing in new elements and rule changes as per the usual convention. What was this second full edition of D&D called? Why, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons of course, but not the first Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which was a version of the original Dungeons and Dragons as we’ve covered here; this was the second edition of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and therefore not the first edition of Dungeons and Dragons which had the version referred to previously as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.
What the absolute ****, TSR.
Last edited:
