Very interesting with 30+ years hindsight. This is Arnold Hendrick's review of the original D&D game:

Quote[T]he other discouraging factor is price. These booklets are roughly comparable to "The Courier" in physical quality, but at $3.50 each are priced rather high. Worse, all three are necessary.

Gee, that all sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I have the original books. The comments about the graphic presentation are very funny. I don't understand why "play in person is usually impossible". It seems to be based on the players not being allowed to see the maps. I guess this is evidence for dating the invention of cardboard screens.

Very interesting. Thanks Benoist.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;336752I have the original books. The comments about the graphic presentation are very funny. I don't understand why "play in person is usually impossible". It seems to be based on the players not being allowed to see the maps. I guess this is evidence for dating the invention of cardboard screens.

I think he's imagining a table with the whole dungeon or wilderness set up, and the characters moving through it.

Quote from: Age of Fable;336753I think he's imagining a table with the whole dungeon or wilderness set up, and the characters moving through it.

Funny that was how I first tried D&D when I was ten. With no idea how to play I drew an entire dungeon out on sheets of 2cm square graph paper and we played on that the next time I did one I used blank paper to cover up the bits the players hadn't seen yet. Was a bit awkward

Oh, wow. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Change a few of the names, drop the complaints related specifically to terrain, and IMO it could be talking about any edition up to 3.5! "Interesting, but needs some tightening up" is about how I'd put it. Insert random comments about multiclassing, grappling rules, how crappy the fighter class is, and how they could all be improved, etc. here.

I recall this when it came out.

The reviewer clearly did not grasp the concept of FtF play; he was a wargamer trying to grasp RPGs (as a wargamer who added RPGs as a hobby, I understandthe initial confusion).

Remember that when this was written LotR was a obscure set of books; the core idea of RPGs (a group of PCs of incompatable backgrounds operateing together towards a vague or implausible goal for reasons which are seldom explained) was not widely understood outside the hobby.

His comments about rules is very understandable-in war games, all rules are set in stone, and there is no interpetation; scenarios are likewise. RPG rules, especially back then, but still true today, and exceedingly vague, and the GM power to alter rules is completely unprecedented in wargaming terms.

Have to agree with everything in the review except the 4th paragraph and last sentence.  

OD&D was immensely confusing on first read and the constant reference to Chainmail, a book I could not find anywhere where I grew up, made it maddening.  It was only after playing a game and being shown the "alternative" combat procedure did it make sense.
I first found the lack of tight rules chaotic and amateurish, just compare a chit & hex wargame of the same period, then I groked that the rules were simply guidelines to guide those fantasy adventures read about in books, you negotiated with the DM about the chance of success of whatever hairbrained idea you came up with, and it was a beautiful thing.

I agree that for its day the art and layout were not bad, certainly not as bad as the 'zines (the mimeographed ones) of the day.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336766Remember that when this was written LotR was a obscure set of books;

You might not have heard of it at the time, but The Lord of the Rings was far from obscure at the time the above review was written. It was first published in 1954 and 1955. It received the International Fantasy Award in 1957. It sold well in hardback, and got good to excellent reviews in The Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times, and the New York Herald. The reviewers at the New York Times and The New Republic didn't like it, with The New Republic writing it was anemic and lacking in fibre. Ace produced an unauthorized paperback edition in the early 60s with authorized editions following soon after. The book became a campus sensation in the 60s and early 70s, well before the above review of OD&D was written. The second edition was published in 1966 and reached the No. 1 spot on the New York Times paperback best seller list.

Wikipedia on the book.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;336776You might not have heard of it at the time, but The Lord of the Rings was far from obscure at the time the above review was written. It was first published in 1954 and 1955. It received the International Fantasy Award in 1957. It sold well in hardback, and got good to excellent reviews in The Sunday Telegraph, the Sunday Times, and the New York Herald. The reviewers at the New York Times and The New Republic didn't like it, with The New Republic writing it was anemic and lacking in fibre. Ace produced an unauthorized paperback edition in the early 60s with authorized editions following soon after. The book became a campus sensation in the 60s and early 70s, well before the above review of OD&D was written. The second edition was published in 1966 and reached the No. 1 spot on the New York Times paperback best seller list.

Wikipedia on the book.

Yes, I read it long before I encountered RPGs.

However, #1 in 1966 meant not a lot in the late '70s. In both high school and college, despite being part of a nation-wide literary society, I encountered very few people who had actually read it. It received very little interest in any of the wargamer clubs I belonged to.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336780Yes, I read it long before I encountered RPGs.

However, #1 in 1966 meant not a lot in the late '70s. In both high school and college, despite being part of a nation-wide literary society, I encountered very few people who had actually read it. It received very little interest in any of the wargamer clubs I belonged to.

FRODO LIVES! Man.  Don't you remeber the graffitti?   LOTR was pretty big in the hippy crowd I recall, Led Zepplin's references to it certainly made it better known amongst the same.

Quote from: Xanther;336783FRODO LIVES! Man.  Don't you remeber the graffitti?   LOTR was pretty big in the hippy crowd I recall, Led Zepplin's references to it certainly made it better known amongst the same.

Yeah. I'm guessing it depends on the sort of circles one would have frequented at the time.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;336780However, #1 in 1966 meant not a lot in the late '70s. In both high school and college, despite being part of a nation-wide literary society, I encountered very few people who had actually read it. It received very little interest in any of the wargamer clubs I belonged to.

Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:
Printings in 1965, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978, 1979 (25th Anniversary Collection), 1984, 1985
Lord of the Rings calendars for 1973 to 1979
Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings (1975)
The Hobbit TV animated film (1977)
A scathing communist review from 1977
Understanding Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings (1977)
1978 Ralph Bakshi film
1979 National Public Radio adaptation
1980 Rankin/Bass film
1981 BBC Radio adaptation

Not bad for an obscure book your friends hadn't read.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788Possibly, however your personal experiences also mean not a lot. You want something closer to the late 70s? A random sample:...The Hobbit TV animated film (1977)

Excellent google-fu; that's what got me to read the book.  I remember seeing that. Liking it, reading the Hobbit then LOTR, all in the same year I got introduced to D&D.  Then finally understanding what Led Zepplin was singing about.

Quote from: Xanther;336791Excellent google-fu; that's what got me to read the book.  I remember seeing that. Liking it, reading the Hobbit then LOTR, all in the same year I got introduced to D&D.  Then finally understanding what Led Zepplin was singing about.

Wow. Can you explain it to me? What Led Zepplin was singing about.

I was listening to Yes: Relayer the other day. I think i was just a pretentious poser when i claimed to understand it as a teen.

Quote from: Gordon Horne;336788A scathing communist review from 1977

Jesus. This made me laugh!