David Howery
Hero
from what I read about OD&D, the main problem with it was that it was hard to learn unless you're taught by someone who already learned the game. IIRC, the Holmes boxed set was designed to fix that.
from what I read about OD&D, the main problem with it was that it was hard to learn unless you're taught by someone who already learned the game. IIRC, the Holmes boxed set was designed to fix that.
heh. I can remember it being mentioned in the Game Wizards book (I think) about how one of Dave Arneson's 'poke in the eye to TSR' projects after leaving them was an index/guide to all the OD&D books (at the time), which was published, but due to the Holme's set and AD&D, soon became useless, and sales were poor. Probably be a collectors' item nowadays if you have one.Layout was terrible, organization did not exist.
I never saw that. It needed a safari guide.heh. I can remember it being mentioned in the Game Wizards book (I think) about how one of Dave Arneson's 'poke in the eye to TSR' projects after leaving them was an index/guide to all the OD&D books (at the time), which was published, but due to the Holme's set and AD&D, soon became useless, and sales were poor. Probably be a collectors' item nowadays if you have one.
I would argue that Holmes didn't even fix that either. Holmes was still a very difficult to learn game from someone not already familiar with the game. I would argue that it didn't really become more newbie friendly until Moldvay/Cook/Marsh version, and then Frank's version really made it truly newbie accessible.from what I read about OD&D, the main problem with it was that it was hard to learn unless you're taught by someone who already learned the game. IIRC, the Holmes boxed set was designed to fix that.
I started with the Holmes set and we muddled through well enough, though one player had experienced the game before. And having seen the original books, I do think Holmes truly was a major step in making the game understandable. Maybe not as far as the Moldvay then Mentzer editions, but still a huge stride forward.I would argue that Holmes didn't even fix that either. Holmes was still a very difficult to learn game from someone not already familiar with the game. I would argue that it didn't really become more newbie friendly until Moldvay/Cook/Marsh version, and then Frank's version really made it truly newbie accessible.
Holmes was 100x better, don't get me wrong. Just saying that for a brand new player, it was still formatted and presented in a fairly complex way. Not a dig at Holmes--everything was still really new at the time. Just like how AD&D 1e was written with a lot of hard to follow stuff (does anyone really understand how initiative worksI started with the Holmes set and we muddled through well enough, though one player had experienced the game before. And having seen the original books, I do think Holmes truly was a major step in making the game understandable. Maybe not as far as the Moldvay then Mentzer editions, but still a huge stride forward.
heh. I can remember it being mentioned in the Game Wizards book (I think) about how one of Dave Arneson's 'poke in the eye to TSR' projects after leaving them was an index/guide to all the OD&D books (at the time), which was published, but due to the Holme's set and AD&D, soon became useless, and sales were poor. Probably be a collectors' item nowadays if you have one.
It is indeed. Pictures and fun details here:I never saw that. It needed a safari guide.
waynesbooks.games
It is indeed. Pictures and fun details here:
![]()
Dungeonmaster’s Index (1977): Original D&D Really Needed an Index; Dave Arneson Made His Own
Original Dungeons & Dragons of the 1970s was found in nine booklets, plus supplementary material. Rules, Character Classes, Spells, and Treasure were scattered throughout. Given that OD&D w…waynesbooks.games
Sure, absolutely.I did see that, that cover is noteworthy. I was likely too broke to buy it. The main thing miss about 1977 is my youth.
What 0e nurtured was the very Old School method of rulings not rules. You had to make it up as you went because there was no there there, Gygax was trying to rein that in with his very specific rules for everything from spells to bathroom breaks. If you tried to play everything by the rules it was a bookkeeping nightmare that made wizards unplayable. I've always favored a more loosey goosey DMing style that favored fun and narrative over rules. Want to swing from the chandelier into the Evil Duke's banquet? We do not need to measure the exact distance, the length of the rope etc.. One roll. Garry's Rules of DMing