TSR A New Taxonomy for TSR-Era D&D

[Plaguescarred]

I started with BECMI then AD&D 1st and 2nd edition after that and i remember we ended up using a mismash melting pot of bagel everything! 2E races, 1E Barbarian, OA, THAC0, RC, Proficiencies, Kits, high mastery rules from 2.5 etc . At the end we were ready for a more unified ruleset and finally moved to 3E in 2000!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm always confused by the terminology of pre-WoTC editions. In my mind there is classic D&D where elves dwarves and halflings are classes and AD&D where they aren't but there still is THAC0.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm always confused by the terminology of pre-WoTC editions. In my mind there is classic D&D where elves dwarves and halflings are classes and AD&D where they aren't but there still is THAC0.

So, that's the weird distinction.

OD&D did not have race as class. That was entirely Moldvay (and the Basic line).

It gets confusing because OD&D had such severe restrictions for classes for demi-humans, that people often conflated that with the later "race as class."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, that's the weird distinction.

OD&D did not have race as class. That was entirely Moldvay (and the Basic line).

It gets confusing because OD&D had such severe restrictions for classes for demi-humans, that people often conflated that with the later "race as class."

Yeah, I think my confusion comes from never being exposed to OD&D.

 

[Demetrios1453]

So, that's the weird distinction.

OD&D did not have race as class. That was entirely Moldvay (and the Basic line).

It gets confusing because OD&D had such severe restrictions for classes for demi-humans, that people often conflated that with the later "race as class."

It's funny how that has changed. In OD&D, if you wanted to play even mid-level, you almost by necessity had to be a human (unless you were playing a thief, or, as was often the case, playing with modified or ignored level limit rules). Whole parties would be nothing but humans. These days, there might not be a single human in a party!

 

[Jack Daniel]

Big picture, if we take the text at face value and treat D&D and AD&D as two separate games, each can be broadly divided into two eras: AD&D obviously has its 1st Edition (or as the text of 2nd Edition was wont to call it instead, "Original Edition") and its 2nd Edition. While D&D has its own Original Edition (the LBBs, the supplements, the Holmes Basic Set), and its "2nd Edition," what's commonly called Classic D&D (the Moldvay/Cook, Mentzer, and Denning/Allston revisions).

I personally see no problem with treating D&D and AD&D as separate games, while at the same time recognizing that AD&D is little more than a clarification and reorganization of original (LBB + Supplements) D&D.

But it does highlight another way to look at the "eras" of the game, not as discrete blocks, but as overlapping trends on a grand (and, for a time, branching and reconverging) continuum. When we set aside editions and revisions as a marker of delineation, we can still see some general developments that cut across edition lines. I've argued in the past that there's an era devoted to challenge-based play (1974~1984), an era that sees the rise of focus on character and setting (1985~1994), an era that codifies character customization (1995~2003), an era that focuses on tactics and balance (2004~2010), and a modern era (since 2011, and mostly marked by D&D flailing about to find its identity again).

The half-editions and midpoint course-corrections, in other words, can often tell us something interesting about the culture of play at the time (while also demonstrating how new editions and revisions of the mainline, Advanced and Advanced-descended D&D game have always gone about overcorrecting for perceived mistakes of the past).

Modlvay is not based off of Holmes (race as class, etc.).

Which is exactly why Holmes Basic hobbits have six-sided hit dice and Moldvay Basic describes the first three experience levels of play.

I'd say the current connections of D&D are closer to the BX and BECMI versions than AD&D. Many feel that D&D 3e was the next version of AD&D, but in my opinion, it heralded a LOT MORE from BECMI and BX.

Saying that 3rd edition is an evolution of RC rather than AD&D second edition is weird. All the races, classes, and spells have continuity between 2nd edition and 3rd.

3rd edition shares some actual verbatim text with 2nd edition.

 

[Rabulias]

I'd say the current connections of D&D are closer to the BX and BECMI versions than AD&D. Many feel that D&D 3e was the next version of AD&D, but in my opinion, it heralded a LOT MORE from BECMI and BX.

Strong disagreement here. Exhibit A: When D&D 3e was released, Wizards released a free conversion booklet to convert characters from AD&D 2e to D&D 3e. They did not release a similar book for BECMI or BX.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Which is exactly why Holmes Basic hobbits have six-sided hit dice and Moldvay Basic describes the first three experience levels of play.

Just stop. You are using a singly similarity despite the manifest differences. This is the worst type of post.

Moldvay is "race as class."

Holmes (and OD&D) is not race as class.

Holmes does include specific rules about halflings as fighting men- they get d6 (instead of d8) hit points, and they can't use "regular" human sized weapons and armor. The reason for this (and the elf rules as well) is because Holmes was creating a compendium and simplification of the OD&D rules.

Importantly, these rules were considered a bridge between OD&D and AD&D - this is why Holmes had inserts put into that specifically say that rules for advancing beyond 3rd level are to be found in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons; that was the entire point of the split nomenclature. It also had the more advanced proto-AD&D system (the seven-point system).

Then there are the contemporaneous references:
"Organizational work was in progress when correspondence with J. Eric Holmes, professor, author and incidentally a respected neurologist, disclosed that the Good Doctor was interested in undertaking the first stage of the project — the rewriting and editing necessary to extract a beginner’s set of D&D from the basic set and its supplements. The result of his labors is the “Basic Set” of D&D." -Gygax, May 1978 (written earlier)

"As we realized that “Original” D&D (the first three booklets and the supplements) wasn’t anywhere near adequate for the needs of the readership it was attracting, it was decided that a simplified, clarified, introductory piece was needed. Shortly after this was decided, as if by divine inspiration, J. Eric Holmes got in touch with us and actually volunteered his services for just such an undertaking. All of you know the result, of course.”

"By the time the final manuscript from Eric was in our hands, the rough of the Monster Manual was also finished, rough outlines of Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide were typed up, and several portions of both works were likewise in manuscript form. We had two choices to consider with the new Basic Set: As it took players only through three experience levels, they could thereafter be directed to the “original” works, or we could refer them to AD&D ... Faced with a choice between chaos and a clean slate, we opted for the latter.

"Pieces and parts of the various components of AD&D were grafted into the Basic Set rules manuscript so that D&D would be more compatible with the Advanced game. Readers were directed to AD&D throughout the Basic Set ... our production people had no idea then just how well it would all work out in the end, because much of the AD&D system was still on rough notes or in my head at the time. It turned out to be relatively acceptable as an interim measure, too." Gygax, March 1980 (written earlier)


It's pretty simple- Holmes Basic is OD&D. More specifically, I will quote @zenopus (probably one of the best people to ask about Holmes Basic) who said this on a different forum:
Personally I love the simplicity of the Original D&D rules for running games, and consider Holmes Basic to be his take on OD&D.

So if you agree with what is the most uncontroversial point of all time, that Holmes Basic is a reiteration of OD&D, then you have to ask yourself-
Is AD&D, which is essentially an expansion of OD&D by including the many supplements and rules that Gygax had come up with, the inheritor of the OD&D line, or is Moldvay Basic (and BECMI, RC).

Given that AD&D and the AD&D PHB (and the other books, Deities and Demigods, the DMG, etc.) explicitly include the materials from the supplements (!!!!) and the Dragon Magazine articles, while Moldvay is a simplified and re-imagined system (which is excellent, but different than where OD&D ended up going), then it's pretty obvious that AD&D, from race-as-class to everything else is the OD&D line.

But whatever, man. If it's super important for you to reiterate your points, why don't you create your own thread where you can say, yet again, that Holmes's halfling fighters only had d6 hit points? Thanks!

 

[Sacrosanct]

In the immortal words of me, "Never use 100 words when a 10,000 word post with multiple digressions and nonsensical quotes would suffice."

Man, you weren't kidding

Just stop. You are using a singly similarity despite the manifest differences. This is the worst type of post.

Moldvay is "race as class."

Holmes (and OD&D) is not race as class.

Holmes does include specific rules about halflings as fighting men- they get d6 (instead of d8) hit points, and they can't use "regular" human sized weapons and armor. The reason for this (and the elf rules as well) is because Holmes was creating a compendium and simplification of the OD&D rules.

Importantly, these rules were considered a bridge between OD&D and AD&D - this is why Holmes had inserts put into that specifically say that rules for advancing beyond 3rd level are to be found in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons; that was the entire point of the split nomenclature. It also had the more advanced proto-AD&D system (the seven-point system).

Then there are the contemporaneous references:
"Organizational work was in progress when correspondence with J. Eric Holmes, professor, author and incidentally a respected neurologist, disclosed that the Good Doctor was interested in undertaking the first stage of the project — the rewriting and editing necessary to extract a beginner’s set of D&D from the basic set and its supplements. The result of his labors is the “Basic Set” of D&D." -Gygax, May 1978 (written earlier)

"As we realized that “Original” D&D (the first three booklets and the supplements) wasn’t anywhere near adequate for the needs of the readership it was attracting, it was decided that a simplified, clarified, introductory piece was needed. Shortly after this was decided, as if by divine inspiration, J. Eric Holmes got in touch with us and actually volunteered his services for just such an undertaking. All of you know the result, of course.”

"By the time the final manuscript from Eric was in our hands, the rough of the Monster Manual was also finished, rough outlines of Players Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide were typed up, and several portions of both works were likewise in manuscript form. We had two choices to consider with the new Basic Set: As it took players only through three experience levels, they could thereafter be directed to the “original” works, or we could refer them to AD&D ... Faced with a choice between chaos and a clean slate, we opted for the latter.

"Pieces and parts of the various components of AD&D were grafted into the Basic Set rules manuscript so that D&D would be more compatible with the Advanced game. Readers were directed to AD&D throughout the Basic Set ... our production people had no idea then just how well it would all work out in the end, because much of the AD&D system was still on rough notes or in my head at the time. It turned out to be relatively acceptable as an interim measure, too." Gygax, March 1980 (written earlier)


It's pretty simple- Holmes Basic is OD&D. More specifically, I will quote @zenopus (probably one of the best people to ask about Holmes Basic) who said this on a different forum:
Personally I love the simplicity of the Original D&D rules for running games, and consider Holmes Basic to be his take on OD&D.

So if you agree with what is the most uncontroversial point of all time, that Holmes Basic is a reiteration of OD&D, then you have to ask yourself-
Is AD&D, which is essentially an expansion of OD&D by including the many supplements and rules that Gygax had come up with, the inheritor of the OD&D line, or is Moldvay Basic (and BECMI, RC).

Given that AD&D and the AD&D PHB (and the other books, Deities and Demigods, the DMG, etc.) explicitly include the materials from the supplements (!!!!) and the Dragon Magazine articles, while Moldvay is a simplified and re-imagined system (which is excellent, but different than where OD&D ended up going), then it's pretty obvious that AD&D, from race-as-class to everything else is the OD&D line.

But whatever, man. If it's super important for you to reiterate your points, why don't you create your own thread? Thanks!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Man, you weren't kidding

Ugh. I know.

But this isn't the first time, unfortunately.