My first D&D ever was that first Basic boxed set. My "friend" brought it over. I made a Thief. Went down into the dungeon, and opened the first door.

"You're dead!"


"What? How?!?"

"You're just dead," grabbing up his basketball, "I'm going to go play murder all now."

He left it there and never picked it back up. I absorbed it thoroughly and vowed to do better. I can only hope that in the years since I have.

I think I've started with Fighting Fantasy books, and then went into Basic/AD&D, and then GURPS. The D&D cartoon was an early influence on me too.

The thing I remember the most is how you could create your own character, then somebody told me you could create your own dungeons,  and then I've heard about someone creating an entire CITY, and then with GURPS you could create EVERYTHING... I was hooked.

I stopped playing D&D because I felt 3e was too complex and limited compared to GURPS, then I've tried innumerable different systems, and nowadays early D&D is my favorite kind of RPG, although I still like to keep many options open and dislike anything that limits what I can do with my character (i.e., I prefer a system with a few feats, skills, and flaws I can pick instead of just rolling and choosing one of half a dozen classes, although that is fun too).

AD&D 1 by default because it was what was being played at the Boy Scout campout when I was first introduced to gaming. I tool over playing one of the henchmen and was a 1st level fighter who when attacked (bitten) by a werewolf, bit the werewolf back, and then died of a rotting mouth disease weeks later in game. In my defense, I was 12 and had no idea what I was doing.

Since the game that has influenced me most has been Classic Traveller, I can't say that D&D influenced me a lot. Although, I do maintain that player character stupidity tends to kill the character every time, sooner or later.

BECMI for years, then probably 8 adventures in 1e, then a looooooooong ass haul through 2e, then about 5 years i guess of 3e, now i do only D6 system.

I always remind people, back then, you couldn't just hop on Amazon or DriveThru RPG and order whatever you wanted. Having incomplete collections was a common thing as was mixing with editions since sometimes you had to just take what you could get. So I didn't really start on any particular edition.

The first time I actually shifted to playing one pure edition and actually took the time to sit down and learn all the rules by the book was core 1E + WoG in the early 90's. And that's how I answered the poll since this is really what had the biggest impact on how I play and run the game.

Key take-aways I got from it.

1. Not every campaign needs to be the standard ragtag band of borderline psychopaths wandering the land getting caught up in wacky adventures. You certainly CAN do that. But you can also do exploration campaigns, military campaigns, naval campaigns, world-building campaigns, and so on.

2. 0th level humans. If they are the most common "minion" style adversary, then a 4th level fighter is incredibly badass. This helps keep a lid on stat inflation while at the same time feeling as though your characters are growing immensely powerful.

3. Rules are created to serve a specific purpose. They are not necessarily to be applied universally. Weapon vs Armor adjustments, for example, are a pain in the ass to apply with high level ragtag band of heroes, and the payoff is insignificant. With scores of similarly outfitted 0th level humans, Armor vs Weapon adjustments are fairly easy to apply and make a very substantial difference. The rule was meant to be used with the latter mode of play, not the former.

4. It's the little things. Details make it pop. Necklace of Strangulation doesn't just kill you to death. It cannot be removed until you're dry bones. Adding a few random sights, sounds, smells, and furnishings from the Appendix I goes a long way.

5. World-centric rather than character-centric. A billion options for customizing characters does not necessarily translate to fun in actual play. Most mechanics and statistics say something about the game world. STR's chance to force open doors says something about how difficult doors are to force open.

6. Fact-based rather than skill-based. Metal armor can be heard for up to 90', hard soles on a hard floor can be heard up to 60', soft soles up to 30'. Which means you don't need a special skill for stealth missions. Just stay at least 30' away and out of line of sight when sneaking around. Move Silently and Hide in Shadows do those very specific things and are enhancements above and beyond the baseline. Skills are just the icing. Facts are the cake.

7. Exception-based rather robust. A rule that tries to do everything becomes bloated. You can use a simple rule that suffices 80% of the time and just work out exceptions off of that. The prime example is the 1E initiative system which has a simple base of d6, highest goes first, that actually IS all it is 80% of the time. The enumerated exceptions in total are applicable about 20% of the time.

8. Appendix A teaches a great deal about pacing and that if you present sufficient mystery, mere exploration becomes interesting without ever needing to even reference the characters' skills or abilities. If you can run a base that is interesting without any reference to mechanics, with mechanics and widgets as enhancements to that baseline play, you will never be left wanting for more rules to make the game more interesting.

9. Proto-Crowd Sourcing. Gary's simultaneously calling for some degree of uniformity among campaigns while encouraging creativity and making it clear the DM is the ultimate authority for their own campaign can be resolved if you understand his aim as a sort of proto-crowd sourcing. We need uniqueness and creativity so a multitude of fresh ideas emerge out from the masses. But in order for those ideas to interface with each other, there needs to be sufficient uniformity so that they are compatible. Finding the right balance maximizes how much creativity is channeled and unlocked by the game.

10. Gary's Holy Trinity in the Afterward. Specifically, this sentence, " BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE."

Some take this to mean that the rules should come first. The DM is free to build their campaign so long as it fits within those parameters. And down at the bottom of the heap, only then do we care what makes the players happy.

I think of it more like this. Let's first state without qualification, the DM is free to run the game any way he or she sees fit. Even if this weren't the message of the rulebook, no game police are going to come by to stop you. So now that we've established total freedom for the DM, the next question is, okay, tough guy. So what are you going to do with it? How are you going to run your game such that it doesn't degenerate, that it has players coming back week after week, that DM doesn't get burnt out, that everyone is having as much fun as possible?

Someone once asked me advice about how to adjudicate the creation of magic items. I said, first, you want to make sure the item is not so weak as to make it a pointless pursuit. But it shouldn't be so strong that it breaks the game. Between those two extremes, you have a range that works. From there, consider what is most thematically appropriate. If that still leaves you with several options, let there be multiple grades or variations of the item, each with their own formula, and allow the player to decide which to pursue.

Fairly common sense once articulated. I then realized that this fits the holy trinity. First, consider what works within the framework of the game. Then considers what suits the campaign. Finally, let the players decide. And so rather than this being how you SHOULD play, this is really just a description of how a capable DM decides such things. It's just what is, spelled out here for those who haven't figured it out yet.

BECMI. We had a campaign that ran through to 36th level I think; at least I remember we had all five boxes between us. I had Immortals, but the feeling among the group was that it sounded rubbish because where is the fun if you can't die? We were OSR way before it was a thing!

I remember getting an AD&D2e monster manual in the ring binder, but around that time the group dispersed into adolescence.

3.0, I'm late to the party. I was the only 12 year old I knew with a "steady gig" (lawnmowing) so I was the only one who could afford the books and it made me the forever gm. 3.0 and 3.5 and 3.75 all made it very difficult for me to understand the concept of rulings over rules and it wasn't until about 15 years later that I was first introduced to the idea that there didn't have to be a written out rule for every single thing in the game.

JeffB and I are nearly alike. Just a year off. My OD&D starts in 1976. I only play OSR now if it is to be D&D.

I started with the Moldvay Red Box in 1981.  My mom bought it for me - a decision she still regrets to this day

I ended up landing with 2nd edition.  None of the WOTC editions did anything for me. 3.x was just too rules heavy and we spent more time looking up rules than playing.  4th I never bothered to try.  I dipped my toe with 5th when it first came out (before I knew anything about the wokeness infesting the company) and found that the adventuring day mechanic was impossible to get around.

2nd has a good balance of 1st edition feel and the air of mystery the game had back in the pre internet/file sharing days.  It also has a ton of support, and the thousands of spells and magic items allow me to easily add things to the game and keep it fresh all the time.

Eric

Greetings!

I chose AD&D. I think I started with OD&D, but AD&D came out and we were all into playing AD&D. I think we also blended the rules nd such often, and no one cared. I had some kind of beginner's set, which had a softcover book. It was white and turquoise blue, with a dragon on the cover. I recall the rules only went up to like, 3rd level. Anyhow, when the Monster Manual arrived, yeah, everyone wanted to get with the new rules. Most campaign styles were a mix of historical stuff and Swords & Sorcery, with lots of Gonzo elements thrown into the mix as well.

AD&D was the main game going from the late 1970's onwards.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on September 07, 2021, 12:19:37 AM
I had some kind of beginner's set, which had a softcover book. It was white and turquoise blue, with a dragon on the cover. I recall the rules only went up to like, 3rd level.

Shark,

That's Holmes.

Here's a great site which explains the difference between Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/what-are-the-differences-between-holmes-moldvay-and-mentzer-dd

My "first" D&D, or RPG, or RPG-adjacent game was a board game where you'd like.. travel to a portal on the board, and then then fold the board out, I forget the name, but you had stats and would draw monster cards and kill them, sometimes get treasure, etc.

First actual D&D was some version of AD&D like.. maybe the same year 3.0 came out.  Didn't get to play it much, but I read the PHB a lot, and then got to play D&D with more people when 3.0 and 3.5 came out.

I guess it's shaped my views in that I don't really care about character background, and I'm used to making new characters,  I'm used to rolling for stats instead of choosing from a pre-determined array.  But I'm also used to arranging stats how I'd like. I'm also kinda used to adapting to new systems/rules changes.

Also I tend to be very impatient with people who like... care too much about their character in session 1,   sure if you've had your character for a couple months I could see starting to care, but session 1? that's way too soon to care if your character dies.

Quote from: Aglondir on September 07, 2021, 01:45:09 AM

Quote from: SHARK on September 07, 2021, 12:19:37 AM
I had some kind of beginner's set, which had a softcover book. It was white and turquoise blue, with a dragon on the cover. I recall the rules only went up to like, 3rd level.

Shark,

That's Holmes.

Here's a great site which explains the difference between Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/2089/what-are-the-differences-between-holmes-moldvay-and-mentzer-dd

Greetings!

Aglondir! Thank you. It was Holmes then! Well, yeah. See? I was 8 or 10 years old. I remember my mother taking me into our local game store--"Games People Play"--and bought the game for me. She also bought me a box of miniatures to go with it, an some extra dice. I loved that Holmes game! As a kid though, I never paid attention to the author. It was just D&D. Not too long later, the AD&D books came out. Everyone switched over to AD&D, but it was also a blending. The white and blue Holmes book was still useful, and remained a favourite of mine!

HOLMES! OOH RAH!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Complete aside, but the number of people who are saying they started with OD&D/1e/Holmes and were already 10+ at the time while I started with the Mentzer Red Box c. 1984 has done a lot to make me feel not quite so old. 

Seriously though, I do think there's something to be said for there being a degree of age/generational differences in gaming preferences that explain why, even though I technically started in the 1e era, I have no nostalgia for the OSR-era play even before you account for the asshole DM who caused me to abandon D&D entirely before 2e was even a thing.

In point of fact, the only part of 1e/Basic I have ever had any nostalgia for are the original Dragonlance modules (and the Dragonlance Adventures hardcover) that formed the foundation of what I consider to be my preferred campaign/adventure style (including PCs starting at well above AD&D's level 1/3d6 in order power level, dragonmen, minotaurs, schizotech, a smith whose arm was replaced with magical artiface and a playable dragon PC in one of the modules).

Worth noting too is that prior to the explosion of PDF's and the availability of broadband to make downloading them practical a lot of the older material just wasn't available if you didn't pick up a physical copy at the time of release. OD&D, Holmes, Moldvay and 1e without the orange spine just didn't exist as something for purchase by the time I was starting D&D and I never did own a physical copy of DL-11 because the local hobby shop never carried it (or sold out between the once per month visits my mom would make to take me to the hobby shop).

It's hard to get into a style of play from books you barely knew existed and had never read.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 07, 2021, 12:08:05 PM
Worth noting too is that prior to the explosion of PDF's and the availability of broadband to make downloading them practical a lot of the older material just wasn't available if you didn't pick up a physical copy at the time of release. OD&D, Holmes, Moldvay and 1e without the orange spine just didn't exist as something for purchase by the time I was starting D&D and I never did own a physical copy of DL-11 because the local hobby shop never carried it (or sold out between the once per month visits my mom would make to take me to the hobby shop).

No kidding.  I remember quite clearly being in a book store around Christmas that had the Dragon Quest 2nd edition rules on a small rack for "game gifts".  I was so tempted.  It would have taken every penny of my "fun" balance and dipped slightly into savings.  I bought 3 sci/fi thick sci/fi paperbacks instead, with a little left over.  One of the worst budget decisions of my young teen years.  Two of the novels sucked.  Went back 3 months later and the whole rack was gone.  They still had copies of the crappy paperbacks.