I missed it by a few days, but my first edition Swords & Wizardry White Box print is dated January 22, 2009. Hard to believe it’s 10 years old already! It’s been one of my favorite, go-to RPGs since I got it and started playing with my kids that same year.
So what made it so special? At the time it was the only legal way to get an OD&D-like experience if you did not own the original 1974 booklets (Labyrinth Lord OEC came out about a year later, in early 2010). It differed in a few ways from the original rules – use of the base hit bonus (BHB), the single saving throw, and universal attribute bonuses. And unlike later editions, this first edition did not try to appeal to everyone by de-emphasizing the BHB or providing alternate saving throw tables or descending AC charts. With the benefit of hindsight and now having seen and played all of the subsequent editions, I can say it was a much more honest creative work. There were lots of house rule suggestions, and some rule omissions (most notably the material from OD&D vol. III) – but clearly you were meant to make the game your own and in this way it was just like the original. Marv “Finarvyn” Breig said this in his editor’s comments to the first edition:
These rules are designed to maintain the spirit and philosophy of the oldest gaming models, back in the days where the rules weren’t supposed to be ‘complete’ because half of the fun was making up your own rules to cover new situations.
For me, a quintessential “lapsed gamer”, it was just what I needed to re-ignite my passion for old-school RPGs after many years away. I appreciated it as a rules framework, and became comfortable making rulings, rather than relying on rules for every situation.
That first edition has a great legacy. It has spawned many supplements, derivatives, house-ruled versions and offshoots. So while it’s a shame that Matt Finch and team stopped supporting it, it certainly lives on and is still actively played in many forms. And White Box FMAG has taken over the mantle of a supported edition quite nicely. Here’s to another 10 years, thanks Matt and Marv!
Smoldering Wizard 
Happy anniversary, White Box!
I looked back at one of my first blog postings and noted that on 11-22-09 my son and I played our first microlite 20 game. It marked my return to old school gaming. I also purchased a copy of the white box. The Mullen cover is so classic. Huzzah!
Wow, we got back into gaming at just about the same time – do you still have those old blog posts online anywhere?
Yes, I do. I will send you a link sometime.
Wow. Hard to believe that it’s been 10 years! :-O Well, I guess 10 1/2 by the time I saw the post. 🙂
Thanks for keeping my WB rules alive and well! FMAG is a worthy successor to my WB.
Hey thanks for the comment Marv, and thanks for WB! (p.s. I deleted your dup. comment).
Thanks for the delete. I posted and then it wanted me to log in again, but then the first post didn’t show up. Since I was logged in anyway, I figured I’d post. That’s how we got two. :-P
Hi Doug and Marv,
Apologies on the thread necromancy, but I have a quick question: I’ve been looking for a hardcover copy of 1st edition, but of course it’s quite hard to find. I don’t suppose either of you happen to know if there’s a secret stash anywhere that’s available for purchase? I suspect the answer is probably “no,” but I thought I’d ask anyway.
Thanks!
No problem! I don’t know of anywhere you can still buy the first edition sadly, unless Marv has a stockpile :). What you could do is create a private project at lulu and see if the PDF can be printed that way. I’ve done that for other books I have. Typically the hardest part about that is getting the cover image in the right size/resolution, so a image editor like Gimp might be needed.
Thanks, Doug! I’ve actually considered this; I’m a graphic artist (comics!) with loads of experience with book production, so it wouldn’t be that difficult (though I have concerns that the wonderful Pete Mullen cover might be too low-rez). But it’s definitely my fallback if push comes to show. :)
Ah! Well then you will be able to handle that for sure :). Question – I think we played D&D together a few weeks ago in Cowansville…was that you or am I crazy?
Kinda crazy! :) I’m based in Ottawa and I haven’t been out in Quebec any time recently. Sorry!
I kind of figured I was crazy :). By the way I found that last year I had already created a test Lulu project to reprint the 1st edition, and yes the interior images are of rather low quality in the PDF. So it won’t look great but it would be serviceable for play. You may find someone willing to sell a copy by posting on the Dragonsfoot or ODD74 boards.
Hi Doug,
Sorry to cast a “raise the dead” spell here, but I noticed over on the ODD74 forum you noted the following: “I don’t think a WB 1st print hardcover was ever officially available.”
Wait. Ack! What?! Is this true? Is my quest to find a 1st print of WHITEBOX stillborn? Oh no! Say it ain’t so!
Yes, I wasn’t sure, but I think someone commented after me in that thread and confirmed that there never was a hardcover. I did end up doing a Lulu print of the 1st edition PDF, in hardcover. The images are not that bad, they look to me the same as in the original 1st print softcover.
I wish I had a stockpile, but sadly I only have one copy of the first printing book and it was a real challenge to get that. If you are really into the WB rules you might look at the FMAG version of the game. Charlie did a great job of layout and you can get one printed in hardback. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/190631/White-Box–Fantastic-Medieval-Adventure-Game
Thanks for the reply, Marv. That’s the version I point people to nowadays, also. But the Mullen cover on the 1st print is amazing.
Thanks, Marv and Doug! I actually do have a paperback copy of FMAG and yup, I do think Charlie Mason did a great job with it.
But (and you knew there was a “but” coming) it’s NOT the edition that speaks to me. The 1st edition really does. And I don’t mean any disrespect to Charlie’s edition or the 2nd and 3rd editions, either.
As Doug noted, the amazing Mullen cover is part of the appeal for me. I should add that the 8½” by 11″ format also is part of it. Aside from that, the 1st edition has a certain “something” for me that I find difficult to put into words. Ah, well.
I should add, while I’ve got you: Doug, I’ve been a fan of your site for awhile now and regularly follow both it and the forums through RSS. Thank you for it!
And Marv, I tend to lurk around places you post (so the ODD74 forums and the like) and I’ve got quite a bit of respect for both your work on S&W as well as your enthusiasm for OD&D. I’m a late adapter to OD&D and I’ve learned a lot from folks like you. Thank you for that, too.
Thank you, I’m glad you like the blog and forum!
I confess that I have a soft spot in my heart for the Mullen cover. It was such a stroke of luck to land that artwork and I agree that it’s a really neat version of the rules. Actually, I’ve been lucky that so many folks have wanted to make my WB look so spectacular. John at Brave Halfling made the thing into an incredible white box, and there is something cool about the White Box rules being in an actual white box. The nice thing is that there are several versions out there so that if one particular one speaks to you more than others, go for it! :-D
Hey Doug, What are your thoughts on S&W core and complete from Frog God Games especially in comparison to Whitebox and B/X?
There is a lot to unpack there. Core and Complete are basically the same game, with complete having the added classes. They are both based on OD&D plus the first supplement, Greyhawk, plus the other supplements in the case of complete. So that said, they are closer to B/X than WB, in all but race-as-class. They have the variable hit dice, monster damage, and weapon damage. WB is all d6-based for those, so simpler. One thing I like with core/complete as compared to B/X is that the former has lower ability bonuses (capped at +1), in all but STR. But those STR bonuses are for fighters only, which is really nice, since they apply to missile weapons as well as melee. So the S&W Complete fighter is a deadly archer with the two shots per round bows get in S&W, given that the fighter will usually have a 13+ STR. They also get the parry ability from the Greyhawk supplement, and the multiple attacks per round. So they are a much stronger class as compared to the B/X fighter (not comparing to halflings or dwarves, which of course in B/X have their own special abilities). One nice thing is that if you are playing core/complete, since you have broken out of the d6-for-everything of WB, you get access to loads of adventures made for B/X, BFRPG, OSE, Iron Falcon or Labyrinth Lord. They are all interchangeable with minor tweaks.
Yea I’m currently running a 4 man party through the Crypts of Kardak solo trying S&W complete as I’ve only ever played WB. As you pointed out its a bit more fleshed out than WB but otherwise its the same game. As you stated I love how S&W treats the Fighter. Sooooo much than BX. It really makes the class stand out which I very much appreciate. I tell ya Doug, as a long time BX fan, I’m starting to really enjoy S&W. Are there any Frog God adventure modules that you would recommend? The main one I’ve heard quite a few good things about is Stoneheart Valley. Thinking of checking that one out.
I have heard good things about their settings as well, but I have never used them. I ran a PbP using Grimmsgate a few years ago, I set it in Blackmarsh – if you are interested the game is archived here: https://snw.smolderingwizard.com/viewforum.php?f=22. Other than that, it has been mainly homebrew stuff I have run.
Hey Doug, how would you calculate a backstab from a dagger? Is it 2d6-1, or 1d6 x 2-1, or 1d6-1 x 2 or does it even matter…lol.
Either is fine, but are quite different as far as the odds of doing damage. If you have them roll weapon damage twice and add up the result (as per FMAG rules for example), that is different than rolling d6-1 once and doubling. The former gives worse odds for doing, say 10 damage since it requires rolling a 6 twice.
Yea i definitely prefer the multiplier for the reason you stated. But I’m confused on when I would subtract the -1. So would it be roll once; double, then subtract 1 or roll once; subtract 1, and then double? Seems the former is better maxing at 11 damage. While the latter the max is 10 damage. So I guess I answered my own question. Honestly I might just drop the -1 damage when it comes to backstabs entirely. Last question: in your version of the thief, you increased the backstab damage to x3 at level 4 and x4 at level 8. Is that progression better you think than the standard:
Levels 1-4 x2
Levels 5-8 x3
Levels 9-10 x4
When I wrote it I was thinking how rare it is to see PCs of higher levels. Level 4 seems ok for that first bump, at least in my opinion.
I was just thinking again about when you would subtract the -1. If you are using say a +1 weapon you would add that to the damage prior to multiplying it. So a +1 dagger in B/X would be 1d4+1. You would roll the d4 and add 1 before multiplying the damage by 2. So in this case I guess you would have to roll the damage, subtract 1, and then double it. So a +1 dagger in white box would do 1d6 damage.
I add magical bonuses only after doubling. I don’t remember in what game I read that rule, but it seems sensible.