Basic D&D, Holmes Edition - a review

[Bullgrit]

I am still playing 35 years later...I reckon that Holmes set was not nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

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

 

[JeffB]

I play OD&D. So even worse.

We will have to agree to disagree. You are trying to judge a model T by the standards of a 2013 Ford Fusion, an dit makes no sense to do.so, IMO. The Holmes book was a good intro to the game. It worked well enough to pump out a couple plus hundred thousand of them over 7 print runs I am sure WOTC would have loved to sell so many Basic sets for 3e and 4e , with their "superior" design :shrug:

 

[Bullgrit]

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up modern games/styles. I've judged this Holmes edition by its comtemporaries: Gygax AD&D and Moldvay BD&D. You keep making the comparisons to modern D&D.

Bullgrit

 

[JeffB]

You asked for people with experience to relate. So I did. At which point you felt the need to go on about my intentions and then blast the set as a intro product despite the fact it worked fine.for me and lots of people. Why bother asking for differing experiences than yours, if you do not want to hear them or believe them? That rhetorical by the way...no need to.blather on about it further.

No it is not as good as later sets at introducing a complete newbie. Yes it worked great as an introduction for many many gamers, despite its warts.

 

[Nagol]

I'm not the one who keeps bringing up modern games/styles. I've judged this Holmes edition by its comtemporaries: Gygax AD&D and Moldvay BD&D. You keep making the comparisons to modern D&D.

Bullgrit

Those aren't contemporaries: they are successors.

Contemporaries would include OD&D and Chivalry and Sorcery. Take a glance at the latter if you want dense, incomprehensible, and unbalanced.

 

[Bullgrit]

Those aren't contemporaries: they are successors.

Contemporaries would include OD&D and Chivalry and Sorcery. Take a glance at the latter if you want dense, incomprehensible, and unbalanced.

Gygax AD&D was published at the same time as Holmes D&D, and is even referenced by Holmes. So it is definitely a contemporary. Now, I can agree that Moldvay BD&D should be considered a successor to Holmes D&D, as it came 3 years after. But it's close, and it had the same purpose, so I think comparing and contrasting them is a legitimate idea.

I've read the OD&D booklets, and I own the Greyhawk supplement. But OD&D was published as far earlier than Holmes D&D as Moldvay BD&D was after.

In comparing materials, I like to judge it by what was intended between the materials. OD&D seemed intended to "get the idea out there." It was sort of a quick first draft. AD&D seemed intended to wrap things up, incorporate learned lessons and best practices, and get everyone playing the same game. Holmes D&D, (and later, Moldvay BD&D), was intended as a basic introduction.

Bullgrit

 

[Nagol]

Gygax AD&D was published at the same time as Holmes D&D, and is even referenced by Holmes. So it is definitely a contemporary. Now, I can agree that Moldvay BD&D should be considered a successor to Holmes D&D, as it came 3 years after. But it's close, and it had the same purpose, so I think comparing and contrasting them is a legitimate idea.

I've read the OD&D booklets, and I own the Greyhawk supplement. But OD&D was published as far earlier than Holmes D&D as Moldvay BD&D was after.

In comparing materials, I like to judge it by what was intended between the materials. OD&D seemed intended to "get the idea out there." It was sort of a quick first draft. AD&D seemed intended to wrap things up, incorporate learned lessons and best practices, and get everyone playing the same game. Holmes D&D, (and later, Moldvay BD&D), was intended as a basic introduction.

Bullgrit

Player material for AD&D was published a year+ later -- it was probably under construction during Holmes' writing and he got a glimpse of a draft. Only the monster Manual was published the same year and it followed months after the Holme's D&D. The PHB was published a year later. The DMG followed the year after that.

I remember trying to find the material and traveling to the "World's Biggest Bookstore" only to discover it hadn't been published yet and it should be out "soon".

 

[Mr. Patient]

Holmes was my first D&D. I remember it fondly -- especially the sad little chits that came with it, in lieu of dice -- but I was young (9) and couldn't really engage with the rules in any meaningful sense. For me, B2 was more of a rulebook than the actual blue book was; it gave me a better sense of how to play the game. I got the AD&D books very shortly thereafter.

A few years ago, my group and I decided to play B2 using strict Holmes RAW, basically as a lark. We gave up on it pretty quickly (daggers all around!), and switched to Moldvay.

 

[TerraDave]

The Monster Manual was released at the same time?

It is better. And had that cool cover.

But really, Bullgrit, if you own supplement I, try to read a section of it, say 3 or 4 pages.

 

[Bullgrit]

But really, Bullgrit, if you own supplement I, try to read a section of it, say 3 or 4 pages.

Oh, I have. I know what it's like. It's hard to believe the same man who wrote Supplement I Greyhawk also wrote The Guide to the World of Greyhawk. WoG is one my favorite gaming books, and a fantastic and imaginative read in general. Supplement I, on the other hand . . . just . . . eww.

Bullgrit