TSR 5 Fun Facts about the 1991 D&D Black Boxed Set

[eyeheartawk]

I did enjoy this set alot.

Though I like the AD&D 2E starter box First Quest more because it came with plastic minis and a very cheesy audio cd.

 

[Mannahnin]

Interestingly, I did find a PDF of it, and while some of the box set bits (like the DM screen/card box and cardboard figures) are a bit funky to deal with, the cards themselves are fine if you go into 2 page mode and fiddle with the left/right alignment directly.

....

I found a copy of the set on ebay that looks like it's in great condition, and have spent money on this. It should arrive within a couple of weeks.

Nice!

Of specific note, the Rule Book portion is laid out really well. It's still DAC and gives the adjustments to the DM instead of the player, but the players to get to know their saving throws without referencing elsewhere in the book.

I think AD&D 1E is the only edition which didn't put the saving throw tables in the players' part of the rules.

2E separated it from the class descriptions but at least put it in the PH (in the Combat chapter) instead of the DMG .

 

[bmfrosty]

I think AD&D 1E is the only edition which didn't put the saving throw tables in the players' part of the rules.

2E separated it from the class descriptions but at least put it in the PH (in the Combat chapter) instead of the DMG .

It feels like every time I go to reference an old D&D book with class descriptions, it's quite a hunt for those saving throws. I once tried to convince the BFRPG guy to put them with the characters, and he said he liked them separated because that's the way the old books did it. Seemed like a non-starter after that. Labyrinth Lord is separated as well, but it looks like that's been fixed in the draft for the new version. I'm guessing that OSRIC 3 will be streamlined as well.

 

[Mannahnin]

It feels like every time I go to reference an old D&D book with class descriptions, it's quite a hunt for those saving throws. I once tried to convince the BFRPG guy to put them with the characters, and he said he liked them separated because that's the way the old books did it. Seemed like a non-starter after that. Labyrinth Lord is separated as well, but it looks like that's been fixed in the draft for the new version. I'm guessing that OSRIC 3 will be streamlined as well.

OD&D, 1977 Holmes, and 1981 B/X don't put them in the character descriptions, but they're only a few pages away or in the Combat section (and in the quick reference tables at the back of Holmes). 1983 BECMI and the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia had them in the character descriptions, like 3rd and later.

 

[Voadam]

OD&D, 1977 Holmes, and 1981 B/X don't put them in the character descriptions, but they're only a few pages away or in the Combat section (and in the quick reference tables at the back of Holmes). 1983 BECMI and the 1991 Rules Cyclopedia had them in the character descriptions, like 3rd and later.

B/X also had them on the sample character sheet from in the Moldvay Basic book. If you used that as a model in making your own sheet you had your saves at the ready during play and did not need to look them up in the book during the game. Unless you were the DM and doing a monster save.

 

[Mannahnin]

B/X also had them on the sample character sheet from in the Moldvay Basic book. If you used that as a model in making your own sheet you had your saves at the ready during play and did not need to look them up in the book during the game. Unless you were the DM and doing a monster save.

Well, yeah, I was just talking about where the info is provided. Not about character sheets.

While the very oldest, unpublished 1975/1976 TSR character sheet (the one which was recreated as a bonus in the The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons 1970-1977 book) was missing saving throws, by the time they actually published one in 1977 it included saves. As did the Wee Warriors "The Character Archaic" from 1975, I understand.

AD&D sheets always included saves too, for example the classic Armory "goldenrod" (so nicknamed for their color) sheets.

Only a now-very-small number of people ever played with sheets missing the saving throws, and I presumed bmfrosty was just talking about the annoyance of looking that info up in the AD&D books so you can fill in your sheet (or during play, for a DM running a monster or NPC).

 

[MGibster]

I do remember seeing the set in stores, but since I already owned several AD&D 2nd edition books, this was not a product that interested me or my group at all. I'm surprised to learn that it sold so well. If this was meant to bring new people into the game, did it work? If I'm used to the simple rules in the boxed set and jump to AD&D, will I be shocked and decide it isn't for me?

 

[Voadam]

Only a now-very-small number of people ever played with sheets missing the saving throws, and I presumed bmfrosty was just talking about the annoyance of looking that info up in the AD&D books so you can fill in your sheet (or during play, for a DM running a monster or NPC).

Learning D&D in the 1e era I normally just wrote down stats, AC, HP, and equipment on a sheet of paper for my characters. Usually with the damage for weapons in parentheses. Sometimes with languages or class and race abilities as well. No THAC0 or saves.

We would say we rolled a 17 and the DM would figure out if we hit or saved.

 

[Mannahnin]

Learning D&D in the 1e era I normally just wrote down stats, AC, HP, and equipment on a sheet of paper for my characters. Usually with the damage for weapons in parentheses. Sometimes with languages or class and race abilities as well. No THAC0 or saves.

We would say we rolled a 17 and the DM would figure out if we hit or saved.

Maybe it's related to me coming from BECMI, but when I picked up 1E I already expected to have my attack matrix and saves on my sheet. And the official 1E sheets I bought had them.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, I've never played or ran an AD&D game in which the characters didn't have their saves and their attacks (either THAC0 or attack table) on their sheets.