Original Dungeons and Dragons Boxed Set

Today we come to the first true D&D product: the original Dungeons and Dragons boxed set, released in 1974.  The boxed set consisted of three books: "Men and Magic", "Monsters and Treasure", and "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures".  The first is the equivalent of the modern day player's handbook, the second is a combination of a monster manual and the treasure tables from a dungeon master's guide, and the third is basically the remainder of what would go into a DMG.  It was in 1st edition, released only three or four years after this, that the "holy trinity" of PHB, DMG, and MM was established, so I'm not surprised to already see this format in the first boxed set.

As with Chainmail, the thing that most strikes me is just how far back D&D concepts go.  As someone who started in 2nd edition, it's all extremely familiar, if expressed in a very primitive form - for example, some concepts like THAC0 had yet to be formalized, but the proto-concept and more or less equivalent math is there.  But races, classes, levels, hit points, alignment, saving throws - it's all here.  I'm just surprised how little development there actually was in the rules between this and 2nd edition, which was two editions and fifteen years later.  Really the most development seems to have been in expanding the rules (more classes, more spells, etc.) and cleaning up their presentation rather than a fundamental change of the core mechanics, which has been the hallmark of every new edition since 2nd (for better or worse).

That said, here are some of my observations as I read:

• The rules amusingly recommend that the ratio of players to referee (not yet called a dungeon master) not exceed 20:1.  If you've ever DM'd before, you probably just fainted at the thought of having 20 players in a session.
• The rules state that copies of both Chainmail and a game by Avalon Hill called Outdoor Survival are required.  Chainmail is needed because by default melee rules are expressed in terms of the "man to man" rules from the book, although an alternate hit system is also included (the proto-THAC0 system).  Outdoor Survival was actually a board game about - shockingly - outdoor survival.  The rules are referred to for managing overland movement by the party.
• Since the dawn of roleplaying, games have been fighting the linear warriors, quadratic wizards problem, so it's funny to see that the concept not only started here, but was actually baked into the rules on purpose: "Top level magic-users are perhaps the most powerful characters in the game, but it is a long, hard road to the top, and to begin with they are weak, so survival is often the question, unless fighters protect the low-level magical types until they have worked up."
• I see that the notion of clerics only using blunt weapons gets its start here.  For those who do not know, the idea originally started with an interpretation of the depiction of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux on the Bayeux Tapestry, which shows him wielding a club during the Battle of Hastings.  Some historians interpreted this as meaning that as a bishop he was forbidden from wielding a sword, but later analysis has cast doubt on this theory.  I find it fascinating that a detail as tiny as the choice of weapon by an individual in a battle from a thousand years ago has cemented our notions about a class in roleplaying games in the modern era.
• For as much as the rules here are a condensed and primitive form of the more familiar expanded and refined rules of later eras, it's remarkable the little tidbits thrown in here and there that seem so out of place by comparison.  For instance, at the end of the section describing races and classes, there's a brief paragraph stating that if a player wants to play a dragon, he totally can, as long as the referee comes up with an experience progression for it.  Similarly, in going over combat rules there is a section devoted specifically to rules for subduing a dragon, then selling it on the open market!  The crazy thing is, it's not even that hard to do!  I can just imagine going into a fight with a dragon with my old 2nd edition DM and telling him that I wanted to try to subdue it.  As he wipes away the tears of laughter streaming down his cheeks, he asks while gasping for air if I want to try arm wrestling Thor next.
• Alignment is here, but is still limited to Law, Neutrality, and Chaos.  Also introduced here is the concept of alignment languages.  Thankfully these were gone by 2nd edition, as they always seemed such a bizarre concept to me.  How does one learn an alignment language exactly?  Is little Jimmy taught the Law language by his Lawful parents growing up in addition to Common?  What if his father was Lawful but his mother was Neutral?  What happens when he becomes a teenager and in a fit of rebellion decides he wants to be Chaotic instead?  Maybe alignment is something you choose once you turn 18, like registering to vote as a Republican or a Democrat.  I'm not a fan of alignment if you can't tell.

Impressions aside, I would be remiss in my review if I failed to comment on one of the best parts of the book - the artwork.  Oh, the artwork!  Let's just say the fact that TSR was on a shoestring budget at the beginning is painfully obvious.  Behold these classic masterpieces of fantasy art!

I see they recruited someone's mildly talented 12 year old nephew for this piece.

This is apparently a goblin.  I thought it was a drunk gnome at first.

No, this dashing fellow isn't Zorro, but a Nazgul.  Someone should tell him that wearing a feather in his cap somewhat diminishes his menace.

My final comment on this fascinating relic of history is just on the philosophy of the game at this point.  Even though this is the very first roleplaying game, it's debatable whether it really is or not, because it will depend on your definition of "roleplaying".  If to you "roleplaying" means just controlling a character in a game and making decisions for them, then it is, but if you think "roleplaying" means taking on the persona of that character in order to act out a larger story, then it isn't.  There's no concept of that in these rules.  There's nothing about acting like your character or speaking in-character, and there's certainly nothing at all about being part of any story.  All the game encompasses at this point is just creating characters with different powers that delve into dungeons that exist for no particular reason to slay monsters and collect treasure in order to become more powerful and slay bigger monsters with better treasure.  That's it.  The only concept of a campaign is just the idea that these characters persist from one play session to another.  Once they exhaust one dungeon they just move on to another for no other reason than the experience progression already mentioned.  Now I'm not passing judgement on that at all, nor am I weighing in on what the definition of roleplaying should be (there is no more meaningless argument to me than debating what a word "should" mean.  I take a very Humpty Dumpty approach to language).  I'm just fascinated that, as much as the rules of later editions are here almost fully formed (if still nascent), the concept of adventures and roleplaying as acting had yet to evolve.

I've waited a long time to dive into this piece of history, and I hope you've enjoyed it.  Join me next time as we look at the first rules expansion: Supplement I: Greyhawk.