You're still playing Holmes edition D&D? Then, yeah, I guess for you it works just fine. Congrats.
You did give "handholding" a bit of a negative twist in the line I quoted. Even though the Holmes edition was explicitly produced to handhold newbies into the game. It's essentially saying, "This introductory edition is bad as an introduction because we didn't need an introductory edition to introduce players."
It reminds me of: If a project isn't worth doing at all, it isn't worth doing well.
I think the concept that Holmes was wanting to produce -- a basic introductory edition of the game -- is a great idea. It just boggles my mind at how bad the product turned out.
Bullgrit
I've never read or played the pre-AD&D rules. While I'm sure there were some actual rules differences between Holmes and Moldvay (I wouldn't know), I don't think that's relevant here to what Bullgrit is saying.
There is a way to explain how to play D&D that is hard to understand, and a way that is easy to understand. A reasonably minded reader can spot the difference.
It sounds like Bullgrit is asserting that the Moldvay does a better job of explaining it in his edition, than Holmes does in his.
Honestly, that has nothing to do with rules. it's all about writing skill. At best, if Moldvay's was newer, he had the advantage of seeing what needed to be improved in Holmes version.
In any event, the technology behind D&D in that era was not so grossly different that the analogy of comparing Model Ts to Ford Fusions is not applicable.
The simple fact of the matter is that RPG rules text back then was poorly worded and organized by today's standards where professional writers are employed to make Monte Cook's every idea be clear.
That is not a judgement against the RULES that JeffB so loves. The problem lies in the writing skills, not the designing skills of the people involved back then.
The expected point of a Basic set is to introduce the game to people who never heard of an RPG. If given to people of the listed target age and they can't figure it out, then the text fails. D&D was notorious for being the game you had to learn from an existing group. Meaning the game was taught by word of mouth and NOT by the books. At best, the books are then reduced to reference material by people who already know how to play because people taught them, not the books.
That then is a failing of the objective of a Basic set of rules.
The simple test is to hand the Holmes rules to a real writer who can rewrite the text into something comprehensible, without changing any of the rules. Then you hand both versions of the game to people who've never played an RPG, and see which set of rules they figure out how to play.
Anybody who insists the original Holmes text would win is just being obstinate. There are very few works that cannot be improved with better writing and organization.
