D&D: is it the gateway game for the rest of the hobby?

[TristramEvans]

Everything, games, movies, the world. Because it did.

Oh that.

Well, like sand through the hourglass of time, these are the grapes of our wrath...or something...

 

[ffilz]

It’s funny because I have a lot of nostalgia for the games I grew up with, and in some cases genuinely enjoy them, but I’m playing in more newer games than older ones.

Not counting conventions and one shots here are my regular games:

Running
Palladium Fantasy 1E (1983)
Playing
Cyberpunk 2020 (1990)
REAVER (coming out later this year)
ICRPG Vigilante City (last couple years)
AD&D 1E (late 70’s)
Pathfinder 1E (2009)
En Garde! ((1975)
Corporia (last few years)
ICRPG Warp Shell (last few years)
Getting ready to run
After the Bomb 2E (2001)
Top Secret S.I. (1987)
Getting ready to play
Jackals (last couple of years)

Hmm, my similar list for 2022:

Bushido FGU Edition (1981)
AD&D 1e (1979)
RuneQuest 1e (1978 - but since I use some bits from RQ2 and Cults of Prax, we'll call it RQ1.5 - 1979)
Cold Iron (1980s, though I corresponded with the designer in 2003 and got some updates notes, but really I'd call this a 1980s game)

I really have settled into playing games from the early days of RPGs...

 

[Mankcam]

I think I got into Lone Wolf books at just about the same time I got into RPGs. Had to be 1985 when everything collided together.

Sounds about right.

1983 to mid 1985 Brian Froud/Jim Henson's Dark Crystal and Labyrinth, Ralph Bakshi LOTR and Fire & Ice, they were in my mindscape.

(Alongside Star Wars and Dr Who, of course)

The Hobbit book and then Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks were my main thing.

Yep that was me.

Developed a fascination with the D&D B/X box sets in the shops (after realising this is what the kids were playing in the ET film).

Branched out into Conan movies and a whole heap of B-Grade Sword & Sorcery flicks I was probably too young to watch.

Continued to read every new Fighting Fantasy solo gamebooks that I could find. Grabbed a few Lone Wolf gamebooks around the same time.

Mid-1985 one of the Fighting Fantasy books was a group-play build-your-own scenarios (this is before AFF Dungeoneer was even published), and it was my first trpg of sorts as I made basic dungeon loot quests or forest bandit quests and ran my friends thru those.

By the end of that year I was wanting to get D&D Red Box (BECMI), but then got wowed by the AD&D book covers and the new shiny RM2 boxes , but ultimately my cousin got me to ask my parents for the RQ2 Box Set for Christmas 1985

That was me done. Forever into trpgs after that. The rest is history.

Although D&D was on my radar, it was actually Fighting Fantasy which was the gateway for me.

 

[TJS]

Mid 1985 one of the Fighting Fantasy books was a group-play build your own scenarios (this is before AFF Dungeoneer was even published), and it was my first trpg of sorts as I made basic dungeon loot quests or forest bandit quests and ran my friends thru those.

 

[Mankcam]

View attachment 53875

Wow, flasback!
I remember that book cover !!!

But I don't think that wasn't group-play, I think the Riddling Reaver book may have had several interconnected solo adventures

This was the first book for group play (an early forerunner for AFF Dungeoneer):

 

[TJS]

Ahh yes that's right. There was another book.

I'm pretty sure the Riddling Reaver was a follow up to that book though. From memory I think it needed a GM.

Edit: Yep.

 

[Mankcam]

Ahh yes that's right. There was another book.

I'm pretty sure the Riddling Reaver was a follow up to that book though. From memory I think it needed a GM.

Edit: Yep.

Ah yeah you're right

I never saw this title at my small town book shop, so I had to create my own scenarios to run with FF.

By the time I would have seen Riddling Reaver in the bigger bookshops elsewhere, I likely didn't buy it because I had already moved on to running an abridged version of RQ2.

Makes sense now

 

[Bunch]

Wow, flasback!
I remember that book cover !!!

But I don't think that wasn't group-play, I think the Riddling Reaver book may have had several interconnected solo adventures

This was the first book for group play (an early forerunner for AFF Dungeoneer):

View attachment 53876

I have that book!

 

[Acmegamer]

Tell that to the person flicking through Netflix wondering why they can't find a single thing they want to watch.

I feel seen. Stop it.

 

[Mankcam]

I have that book!

Whenever I mention FF as an rpg, people always assume AFF Dungeoneer because it got a bit more profile a few years later

Knowing about the original version definately places you as a kid in the 1984 to 1985 niche, as the print run was limited and superceeded later by AFF Dungeoneer.

I'm impressed !!!

 

[Bunch]

Whenever I mention FF as an rpg, people always assume AFF Dungeoneer because it got a bit more profile a few years later

Knowing about the original version definately places you as a kid in the 1984 to 1985 niche, as the print run was limited and superceeded later by AFF Dungeoneer.

I'm impressed !!!

I have Dungeoneer as well. I actually got them later in life. I think I got lucky and found them for $4 + shipping a decade ago or so.

 

[David Johansen]

I had all three Dungeoneer books at one point but passed them on to someone who wanted them more. I'm afraid I never liked the system.

 

[sharps54]

I have Dungeoneer as well. I actually got them later in life. I think I got lucky and found them for $4 + shipping a decade ago or so.

Wow, that’s a steal, I never had them as a kid and picked up all the AFF books a few years ago for, well substantially more. I don’t regret though, even if I never play, and I may still, they are fun to read and page through.

 

[Mankcam]

I had all three Dungeoneer books at one point but passed them on to someone who wanted them more. I'm afraid I never liked the system.

Yeah too simple for my tastes as well.
Even though it was rules-lite, I still felt it needed at least one or two more characteristics

However I really love the Fighting Fantasy setting of the World of Titan, all that great b&w fantasy artwork with a Fable/Froudish feel to it.

I think Fighting Fantasy may have been a gateway to almost rival D&D back in the 1980s in the UK (and some places in AU), but I don't get that impression from folk in the USA

Fast forward to today, and FF gamebooks are still available, but in no way have the same presence they did back in the mid to late 1980s. They definately are not a current gateway for many today.

 

[raniE]

Sticking with your Art analogy, to me D&D is more like cave wall art and wax cylinder recordings; rather than a Stones album or 80's movie.

And the wax cylinder recordings may have had bad audio quality, but that wasn’t about the art itself. We still listen to music written in the 1800s today, only recorded with modern equipment, and you could listen to Taylor Swift recorded on wax cylinder (if someone cared to make such a production). The technology around games is similar, it let’s you produce nicer looking things easier, and it lets you distribute far more easily. But it has little impact on the rules themselves.

 

[Grognard GM]

And the wax cylinder recordings may have had bad audio quality, but that wasn’t about the art itself. We still listen to music written in the 1800s today, only recorded with modern equipment, and you could listen to Taylor Swift recorded on wax cylinder (if someone cared to make such a production). The technology around games is similar, it let’s you produce nicer looking things easier, and it lets you distribute far more easily. But it has little impact on the rules themselves.

But the game mechanics are the medium by which we experience and enjoy the art. If someone performs Beethoven's music to you via a series of farts and belches, it's unlikely you're going to return to his works. 1800's music is still popular today because it's presentation was via INSTRUMENTS, which produce a fine sound, and that we still use because of that.

To fully expand the analogy:
Beethoven's work is the game lore. It is fantastic, but it needs a way to leave the page and enter our ears.
The instruments and vocals (performed by professionals) are enjoyed live or on a high fidelity audio source (the game mechanics)

If his work is reproduced by farts, or screaming, or a horrid recording with hissing and loss of pitch, no-one wants to listen to it, no matter how good the source material is.

Listening to Beethoven via 7.1 surround sound, from a lossless FLAC recording of world renowned musicians performing, is demonstrably more enjoyable than listening to it on a Edison wax cylinder. Likewise, I would argue, RPG's that move away from endless tables, "you made one bad roll, your character is dead," and kicking doors in for treasures, are superior to systems with an older mindset about what an RPG| is..*

*Note that I say this as someone that holds no malice for D&D, has played a couple of different editions of D&D, and still plays some games from the 80's and 90's.

 

[Fenris-77]

Regardless of whether you think an old rules set (or any rules set) is Beethoven or someone burping the Star Spangled Banner there's still no room to tell other people what they should or should not enjoy. Personally, I might explain why I don't like a particular rules set, or try to convince someone to try something I do like and that I think is fantastic, but that's as far as it goes. This hobby doesn't need gatekeepers.

 

[raniE]

But the game mechanics are the medium by which we experience and enjoy the art. If someone performs Beethoven's music to you via a series of farts and belches, it's unlikely you're going to return to his works. 1800's music is still popular today because it's presentation was via INSTRUMENTS, which produce a fine sound, and that we still use because of that.

To fully expand the analogy:
Beethoven's work is the game lore. It is fantastic, but it needs a way to leave the page and enter our ears.
The instruments and vocals (performed by professionals) are enjoyed live or on a high fidelity audio source (the game mechanics)

If his work is reproduced by farts, or screaming, or a horrid recording with hissing and loss of pitch, no-one wants to listen to it, no matter how good the source material is.

Listening to Beethoven via 7.1 surround sound, from a lossless FLAC recording of world renowned musicians performing, is demonstrably more enjoyable than listening to it on a Edison wax cylinder. Likewise, I would argue, RPG's that move away from endless tables, "you made one bad roll, your character is dead," and kicking doors in for treasures, are superior to systems with an older mindset about what an RPG| is..*

*Note that I say this as someone that holds no malice for D&D, has played a couple of different editions of D&D, and still plays some games from the 80's and 90's.

No the game mechanics are the art. Preferring different mechanics means you like different art. It’s no different than whether or not you like certain artists or genres of music. The things you’re talking about are not differences in technology with one being more advanced than the other, they’re just different games that different people enjoy. Saying one is better is like saying Death Metal is better than Boom Bap, it’s just about what you like.

 

[Grognard GM]

Regardless of whether you think an old rules set (or any rules set) is Beethoven or someone burping the Star Spangled Banner there's still no room to tell other people what they should or should not enjoy. Personally, I might explain why I don't like a particular rules set, or try to convince someone to try something I do like and that I think is fantastic, but that's as far as it goes. This hobby doesn't need gatekeepers.

These seems more like you jumping at shadows than anything I actually said. I've used things like "in my opinion" and "*Note that I say this as someone that holds no malice for D&D, has played a couple of different editions of D&D, and still plays some games from the 80's and 90's"

I mentioned a personal opinion, once, that I find certain actions that could be construed as gatekeeping to have efficacy for certain reasons; and got dogpiled and mocked over it. I switched to just giving my opinions on D&D (in a thread full of people poo-pooing D&D btw), and despite all of my caveats, I am once again gatekeeping.

I'm unsure as to how bland and agreeable my posts need to be to not be eternally tarred with the gatekeeping brush.

 

[Grognard GM]

No the game mechanics are the art. Preferring different mechanics means you like different art. It’s no different than whether or not you like certain artists or genres of music. The things you’re talking about are not differences in technology with one being more advanced than the other, they’re just different games that different people enjoy. Saying one is better is like saying Death Metal is better than Boom Bap, it’s just about what you like.

I think you're wrong, and you're confusing liking styles of game and genre, with actual game mechanics. But that's me done giving my opinion on the subject.

I wish you a good day, and hold no personal grudge against you sir.

 

[Fenris-77]

These seems more like you jumping at shadows than anything I actually said. I've used things like "in my opinion" and "*Note that I say this as someone that holds no malice for D&D, has played a couple of different editions of D&D, and still plays some games from the 80's and 90's"

I mentioned a personal opinion, once, that I find certain actions that could be construed as gatekeeping to have efficacy for certain reasons; and got dogpiled and mocked over it. I switched to just giving my opinions on D&D (in a thread full of people poo-pooing D&D btw), and despite all of my caveats, I am once again gatekeeping.

I'm unsure as to how bland and agreeable my posts need to be to not be eternally tarred with the gatekeeping brush.

I wasn't actually trying to paint you with anything, just pointing out how some of your rhetoric looks to people reading it without the context of what you're thinking. What you like and don't like can be as specific and hotly contested as you'd like, of course, but I don't see a lot of value in trying to minimalize the RPG experiences of other people because you don't like the games they play or don't think they really grok the hobby (or because they own too many plush toys).

There is no need to be either bland nor agreeable here, but the gatekeeping thing is going to come up from time to time when anyone gets judgy about groups of people in the hobby. It depends on the group a bit mind you. For example, you can mock douchey 90's edgelords all you want and you probably won't get any pushback.

 

[sharps54]

As someone that plays and enjoys a fair amount of old games (En Garde! and Boot Hill are both from 1975!) I think often new and updated rule systems are just ways to be different and add unneeded complication. The more I run Boot Hill the more I appreciate the sleekness of it. The lack of a skill system has never hampered our games, it gives just enough structure to make things interesting and gets out of the way to let people roleplay the rest.

Of course other people’s opinions may vary and that is ok. But many of the old rules still work fine. B/X is another example, everyone lauds OSE which is just B/X reformatted but actually less useful as a teaching game as it lacks the excellent play examples.

 

[Grognard GM]

For example, you can mock douchey 90's edgelords all you want and you probably won't get any pushback.

Of course other people’s opinions may vary and that is ok. But many of the old rules still work fine. B/X is another example, everyone lauds OSE which is just B/X reformatted but actually less useful as a teaching game as it lacks the excellent play examples.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I think I got into Lone Wolf books at just about the same time I got into RPGs. Had to be 1985 when everything collided together.

I liked Way of the Tiger; ninjas mixed with D&D essentially.

Wow, flasback!
I remember that book cover !!!

But I don't think that wasn't group-play, I think the Riddling Reaver book may have had several interconnected solo adventures

This was the first book for group play (an early forerunner for AFF Dungeoneer):

View attachment 53876

This pair were pretty important in getting people to make the transfer, at least in my experience. (I owned both).


View attachment 53897

 

[sharps54]

A video I can see or a written response might be better as I am curious to see your thoughts.

 

[Fenris-77]

A video I can see or a written response might be better as I am curious to see your thoughts.

You realize this is the Pub, right?

 

[sharps54]

You realize this is the Pub, right?

I’m always hopeful

 

[Grognard GM]

A video I can see or a written response might be better as I am curious to see your thoughts.

I linked a song called "vive la différence" to encapsulate my feelings, as an olive branch.

It was an embedded Youtube link, so I wasn't expecting anyone to be incapable of seeing it.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

But the game mechanics are the medium by which we experience and enjoy the art. If someone performs Beethoven's music to you via a series of farts and belches, it's unlikely you're going to return to his works. 1800's music is still popular today because it's presentation was via INSTRUMENTS, which produce a fine sound, and that we still use because of that.

To fully expand the analogy:
Beethoven's work is the game lore. It is fantastic, but it needs a way to leave the page and enter our ears.
The instruments and vocals (performed by professionals) are enjoyed live or on a high fidelity audio source (the game mechanics)

If his work is reproduced by farts, or screaming, or a horrid recording with hissing and loss of pitch, no-one wants to listen to it, no matter how good the source material is.

I'd suggest the closer analogy would be publishing standards rather than mechanics. We're talking about the expression rather than the content. And yeah, on those, there has been a clear and noticable technological improvement. (And I say this as probably the only person on the board that owns a wax cylinder recording).

But mechanics are different because they're a core part of the work. They're closer to lyrics or notes.

Listening to Beethoven via 7.1 surround sound, from a lossless FLAC recording of world renowned musicians performing, is demonstrably more enjoyable than listening to it on a Edison wax cylinder. Likewise, I would argue, RPG's that move away from endless tables, "you made one bad roll, your character is dead," and kicking doors in for treasures, are superior to systems with an older mindset about what an RPG| is..*

*Note that I say this as someone that holds no malice for D&D, has played a couple of different editions of D&D, and still plays some games from the 80's and 90's.

I'd argue that's a matter of subjective preference rather than quality. What you describe has fallen out of fashion, rather than being a failure. We have to judge art on its own terms. We wouldn't condemn Beethoven for failing to incorporate poetry in his work.

As part of that, you have to compare like with like. So to critique an old school dungeon bash, we need to look at its modern equivalents. In the same way, it's more fruitful to compare Taylor Swift to the Spice Girls, then to try and match her up against Raised by Owls. And if you're playing games from the 80s and 90s (as do I) I'd assume you also see something worth returning to there? Perhaps some kind of approach that is worthwhile but unfashionable?

Regardless of whether you think an old rules set (or any rules set) is Beethoven or someone burping the Star Spangled Banner there's still no room to tell other people what they should or should not enjoy. Personally, I might explain why I don't like a particular rules set, or try to convince someone to try something I do like and that I think is fantastic, but that's as far as it goes. This hobby doesn't need gatekeepers.

Nah. There is no functional difference between "criticising a game" and "telling people what they should and shouldn't enjoy". That's only gatekeeping if either you a) try and enforce that (and I'm not sure how you could) or b) people are heavily identifying with their favourite consumer product (and people need to fucking quit that shit because down that road leads temper tantrums because a video game only got 8/10).

It's the death of criticism, the replacement of it with the anodyne "well, we all like different things so I can't say whether it's good or bad". I don't want people to be bland about their tastes in art. I want them to love and hate passionately.

The universe would be so much better if we could just assume that everybody has a "IMO" attached to their opinions without needing it spelt out every time.

 

[Fenris-77]

There's a huge difference between criticizing the game and criticizing the gamer though, which is more what I'm indexing. I'm all for honest and untrammeled criticism generally, and especially of RPGs.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

There's a huge difference between criticizing the game and criticizing the gamer though, which is more what I'm indexing. I'm all for honest and untrammeled criticism generally, and especially of RPGs.

I think in this case, you're conflating two separate arguments then?

 

[Fenris-77]

I think in this case, you're conflating two separate arguments then?

I don't believe so, no. See below, specifically the bolded part and following. Subsequent posts were more nuanced.

It used to be, up until about 4E. It was the game that drew most players in, although even then, a good percentage fossilised in to only ever playing D&D.

But for many people it was a gateway to the larger hobby. I grew up in Britain, and although people played D&D, it wasn't the gateway game it is in the states. WFRP 1st edition was what drew me in personally. I know in Japan Call Of Cthulhu is the gateway game.

Unfortunately the people 5E "brings in to the hobby" are not gamers, they're just 5E players. A lot of them can't build a character without software help, never GM, don't even know the rules well. Of course there are people still entering the hobby from 5E, but I'd call them a minority.

My yardstick is "would you have become a gamer when the way in was a middle aged guy with a dusty boxed set, and a strange funk?" If the answer is no, if you'd never play a game that wasn't on CriticalRole, if you own more D&D plushies than you do D&D books, then you're just riding a fad; and when the bubble bursts, 5E books will be swamping Ebay for pennies.

TLDR: D&D 5E is currently a great gateway to D&D 5E, and that's it. The tide raises no other ships.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I don't believe so, no. See below, specifically the bolded part and following. Subsequent posts were more nuanced.

Ah, yeah, cross communications. As I said at the time, I disagree with that. Not all of it. I disagree that gatekeeping is either necessary or desireable in this specific case. I'm not 100% anti gatekeeping in all circumstances. (I can expand on that if people want but it essentially boils down to the fact we should have gatekeeped the indie charts from the major labels because they fucking destroyed them when allowed to have a foothold). But I agree that D&D is mostly only a gateway to more D&D and I'm not convinced CR are a great entry point, partly because people who come via that route seem much more prone to getting upset it's not like they expected.

I just see that as a totally separate argument than "old games have been outevolved and are not as good" even if I strongly disagree with that.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

And it'd be a pratfall if we tried. Even dismissing Fidelio as poetastry and the Missa Solemnis on the a claim that the text of the Latin mass doesn't count as poetry, the choral parts of the fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a ode by Schiller.

Stop making me look uncultured Agemogos.

 

[Grognard GM]

And if you're playing games from the 80s and 90s (as do I) I'd assume you also see something worth returning to there? Perhaps some kind of approach that is worthwhile but unfashionable?

That's a very complex question, as there's a lot of nostalgia mixed up in the equation, and separating that from legitimate quality is difficult. I'm sure some of the games are largely just 'grandfathered in,' by appealing to me before my tastes shifted somewhat.

When I play Deadlands, I want OG Deadlands. I actually use Savage Worlds for another game, but the SW version of Deadlands does not appeal to me. Partly this is because I found the old system very...lively? Evocative? Gonzo at times even. It seems to have a depth and robustness the SW version lacks. There's also more written material, and (and this is a big one) they didn't scrub the continuation of the American Civil War as a Cold War from the setting yet. Man that change stinks.

I run CoC 5th ed largely because I've run it for 30 years, I can easily slip back in to it like a pair of comfortable slippers, and it does everything I need it to regarding delivering Lovecraftian horror. 'Nuff said.

But even some very vintage games still have nuggets of wisdom, and I'm often surprised to find the DNA of very modern gaming ideas in dusty old tomes. The James Bond 007 rpg is a good example in that while it (IMO) has that 80's baggage and clunk, has some very cool mechanical rule ideas that found barren ground, but maybe inspired later game designers. And that's a game I owned, but never actually read through till recently, so no nostalgia there.

There's a reassuring crunch to older games. While the new way of thinking is something like 'easy to pick up, loosey-goosey rule suggestions, just fudge it/everything from one table with your differences being cosmetic (obviously this varies, plenty of newer games have medium to large crunch),' the older mentality was more like 'this is difficult to learn, but once you do we have you covered with charts and rules for anything that may crop up. We've got you, bro." Champions is ROUGH to learn, but once it clicks you can model anything with that sucker.

 

[Grognard GM]

I don't believe so, no. See below, specifically the bolded part and following. Subsequent posts were more nuanced.

Add the caveat of IMO, and I stand by that bolded part. I'd rather drop it, as it's a messy subject, the popular vote is against me, and I really don't care enough to ruin otherwise interesting and pleasant discourse, but I neither retract nor deny my opinion.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

That's a very complex question, as there's a lot of nostalgia mixed up in the equation, and separating that from legitimate quality is difficult. I'm sure some of the games are largely just 'grandfathered in,' by appealing to me before my tastes shifted somewhat.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. Especially with WFRP 1e. For any Brit geek of a certain generation, it was the first game that was felt like it was written for us. Before that, it was a lot of US games that were great, but just didn't have that same feel.

But even some very vintage games still have nuggets of wisdom, and I'm often surprised to find the DNA of very modern gaming ideas in dusty old tomes. The James Bond 007 rpg is a good example in that while it (IMO) has that 80's baggage and clunk, has some very cool mechanical rule ideas that found barren ground, but maybe inspired later game designers. And that's a game I owned, but never actually read through till recently, so no nostalgia there.

You also get games from then which haven't really had any challengers. I absolutely love En Garde! (despite some serious structural flaws that I only noticed when I ran a three year campaign) and there's simply been no other game like it then on since.

There's a reassuring crunch to older games. While the new way of thinking is something like 'easy to pick up, loosey-goosey rule suggestions, just fudge it/everything from one table with your differences being cosmetic (obviously this varies, plenty of newer games have medium to large crunch),' the older mentality was more like 'this is difficult to learn, but once you do we have you covered with charts and rules for anything that may crop up. We've got you, bro." Champions is ROUGH to learn, but once it clicks you can model anything with that sucker.

I don't know about you, but as I rapidly approach 50 I find I don't have the crunch tolerance I had as a teen. I can still do it, but the days where I could digest a heavy crunch rulebook in a couple of hours are sadly long behind me. It's one of the reasons I don't do 5e; I'm sure I could pick it up but the effort it would take to do so isn't worth it for me when I can stick with a combination of games I already know and newer lighter games.

And the really heavy crunch stuff is something I'm not that sad has gone out of fashion. I don't know if you're a wargamer, but if you are you probably remember SPI's monster wargames. Those were complex to the point of being uplayable. The most notorious is Campaign for North Africa; 10 players and 1200 hours to play the full game! I'm fine with those games being confined to the dustbin of history, I just think writing off all old games because of that is an overstretch.

 

[Fenris-77]

Add the caveat of IMO, and I stand by that bolded part. I'd rather drop it, as it's a messy subject, the popular vote is against me, and I really don't care enough to ruin otherwise interesting and pleasant discourse, but I neither retract nor deny my opinion.

I'm not here to change opinions. I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

 

[Endless Flight]

I'm not here to change opinions. I'm here to kick ass and chew bubblegum.

 

[Vile Traveller]

This pair were pretty important in getting people to make the transfer, at least in my experience. (I owned both).

I got What Is Dungeons And Dragons before my Moldvay boxed set arrived, and to this day I feel my "D&D mindset" owes more to Butterfield et al. than it does to any official publication (including Holmes, it was his writing outside the Blue Book that got me excited about D&D again).