New D&D article

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jack,

My thought at the moment is that all references to any color or "book" or "box" are obfuscatory. We should stick with author, title, and year of publication, and with any luck, over time, people will acquire a better understanding of which book is what.

Good call on the ampersand; we should fix that.

Best,
Ron

[jrients]

Actually the Moldvay 2nd ed Basic Set is "red book" Not "red box" mostly because that particular box is not red. The box front is taken up completely by the cover picture and the side are a pinkish-purple. "Red box" refers to the 3rd edition Basic set with the Larry Elmore illustration on the cover.

Just to nitpick the nitpicker for a sec, all the 2nd edition 1981 Tom Moldvay Basic D&D rulebooks that I've seen have been pretty orange.  (Including the 3 copies I own with intact covers.  My original copy has nearly been destroyed through usage.)  The 3rd edition 1983 Frank Mentzer Basic D&D booklets and box are both quite red.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

We should stick with author, title, and year of publication, and with any luck, over time, people will acquire a better understanding of which book is what

Agreed. I doubt we'll get everyone to understand it, though. going by author, or editor in this case, edition number, year of publication and such is a difficult prospect for some they simply ask what's on the cover. And that's about as much as most people will care about.

I'm not sure what I mean when by that except that it will take a lot of luck.

Good call on the ampersand; we should fix that.

Actually, didn't the black cover revision of AD&D 2nd Ed say "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?" In either case it is an admitted nitpick and true for the editions discussed in the article.

[Cadriel]

Actually, didn't the black cover revision of AD&D 2nd Ed say "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?" In either case it is an admitted nitpick and true for the editions discussed in the article.

Afraid not.  The word "Advanced" was up above "Dungeons" in considerably smaller text; the ampersand was quite prominent in the logo.  It came after the final iteration of "original" D&D, which basically cut it off as a functional line.  Before that, there had been some modules and some boxed sets supporting plain D&D as its own, albeit still introductory, product line.  The last two "versions" had quite a nifty solo adventure that introduced novice DMs to the rules and led into a group adventure called "Escape from Zanzer's Dungeon."  I fondly recall that the modules of that line were also playable solo.

-Wayne

[rafial]

It looks like the link to Dave Arneson's website contained in the article actually points to a golf course.  Using Google revealed a www.castleblackmoor.com which doesn't resolve, and http://www.jovianclouds.com/blackmoor/ which actually seems to go somewhere.

[efindel]

The Moldvay (red-box) Basic Set was released in '81, along with Dave Cook's Expert (blue-box) Set.

This should be 1980 -- I received them as a Christmas present in 1980.  In addition to my own memory, Heroic Worlds says they were published in 1980.

preceded in '77 by J. Eric Holmes' original Basic (blue-book) D&D.

This one tends to get argued about a bit.  The book and boxed set both simply said "Dungeons & Dragons" -- however, TSR's catalog referred to them as "Basic Dungeons & Dragons" in at least some versions.  The copy I have is the reproduction of the '78 printing which was released as part of the "Silver Anniversary" a few years back.  The back cover copy listing products available lists "Basic Dungeons & Dragons", and describes this set.

--Travis

[Jack Spencer Jr]

This one tends to get argued about a bit.  The book and boxed set both simply said "Dungeons & Dragons" -- however, TSR's catalog referred to them as "Basic Dungeons & Dragons" in at least some versions.

The box had a yellow banner in the upper left corner that read "Basic Set Wit Introductory Module." But this is quite a dead horse.