Basic D&D, Holmes Edition - a review

[Bullgrit]

Talking about Supplement I:

My copy is the 12th printing, 1979. I was just thumbing through it, and I read the inside back cover -- "Other Fantasy Releases by TSR". Among the products listed is this:

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Collector's Edition -- The original game of swords and sorcery role-playing with paper and pencil, in its original format. This is the game that started it all! Three booklets, boxed.

Already, in 1979, there was a "collector's edition" of D&D -- a game only 5 years old!

Bullgrit

 

[Iosue]

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.

Holmes was published in 1977, which meant it was written mostly during 1976. At the time, TSR was working on AD&D, but at that point only the Monster Manual. Holmes had some contact with Gygax, as can be seen by the new alignment rules, but had no inside information on how AD&D would turn out. Hence, he still uses "Fighting-man" instead of "Fighter". His alignment has 5 points, instead of nine. His initiative system is completely unique. TSR wouldn't actually begin codifying the AD&D rules until 1978, when they wrote the DMG.

So Holmes was operating in something of a vacuum. He had the little brown books and supplements, and a vague idea that after finishing the Basic set players would go on to AD&D. And even that was something he learned in the course of doing it. Originally he simply wanted to do an introductory set for the original three books. At this point, no one had ever written a basic set for an RPG before. Wargamers were used to the kind of supplements Gygax and Arneson put out in 1974. Non-wargamers were used to boardgames or card games where the instructions fit on the inside of the box top.

So he put out his Basic set. When the AD&D DMG came out, it was actually with same presentation as Holmes: headings following headings without any real chapter breaks, and only a vague sense of thematic structure. Not to mention it had just as many inconsistencies as Holmes, if not more. For example, there are no Neutral Good or Neutral Evil monsters in the Monster Manual. Because when the Monster Manual was written, they were intending the same alignment system as in Holmes, but sometime afterward they decided to go with the 9-point system.

So while Holmes is by no means as good as Moldvay (published with the hindsight of the LBBs, the Holmes Basic, and AD&D), I think it's pretty clearly much easier for a newbie to learn the game from than the LBBs or AD&D. Which is probably why it was so successful.

 

[Bullgrit]

Which is probably why it was so successful.

Where is the info on how many copies it (or any D&D rule book) sold? I've never seen numbers, but reading between the lines of various information here and there, it was my understanding that the Moldvay set was far and away a better seller than the Holmes set.

For the record, (because I know my asking the above will be taken harshly if I don't clarify), I'm not challenging or denying your assertion, I'm just asking for the information that supports it.

Bullgrit

 

[MerricB]

"John Eric Holmes approached me to do an edited beginner's version of the D&D game at the time I was in the throes of designing the AD&D game. Eric's son was a dedicated D&D gamer, and after chatting with the Good Doctor and his son, I gave the go-ahead. When the ms. was turned over to me for approval, I inserted a goodly number of the new AD&D game rules so as to upgrade the D&D system as well. The Basic Set sold very well, and it was to TSR's benefit that Holmes' did that version, and it cost the company nary a red cent." - Gary Gygax, 28 May 2007.

From here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=23223&start=270

 

[Iosue]

Where is the info on how many copies it (or any D&D rule book) sold? I've never seen numbers, but reading between the lines of various information here and there, it was my understanding that the Moldvay set was far and away a better seller than the Holmes set.

For the record, (because I know my asking the above will be taken harshly if I don't clarify), I'm not challenging or denying your assertion, I'm just asking for the information that supports it.

Not at all, it's a fair question.

First of all, there's the point that the Holmes Basic set instigated the entire D&D line, separate from AD&D. Instead of just an intro to AD&D, TSR decided to create the Expert and Companion sets as a companion to the revised Basic. Note that the Cook/Marsh Expert set was released at the same time as Moldvay Basic, so it wasn't a reaction to the sales of Moldvay, but rather to Holmes. This quote from Gygax also supports that the success of the Holmes Basic inspired them to create an Expert Set (which then led to the Moldvay/Cook/March revision). That post also suggests that, contrary to popular thought, the D&D line was not just kept around due to the Arneson lawsuit, but because it was a big seller.

JeffB has mentioned Holmes Basic had 7 printings. So what does that mean for sales? Well, in this article in 1979, Gygax says the Holmes Basic is selling 4,000 copies a month. This is compared to probably 5,000-6,000 copies of the original D&D set for all of 1974-1975 (including Gygax's estimates for pirated copies). Then in this interview a year later, Gygax says it's selling 12,000 a month. These were tremendous numbers for the fledgling RPG industry. Heck, pretty good numbers even today.

Here are some more contemporary Gygax writings on the Holmes Basic, and here's a collection of Gygax recollections in recent years, just for some historical background.

Edit: It is indeed my understanding that Moldvay sold even better than Holmes (and later Mentzer even better than Moldvay). But not selling better than Moldvay doesn't mean that Holmes did not do very well.

 

[Stormonu]

Where is the info on how many copies it (or any D&D rule book) sold? I've never seen numbers, but reading between the lines of various information here and there, it was my understanding that the Moldvay set was far and away a better seller than the Holmes set.

For the record, (because I know my asking the above will be taken harshly if I don't clarify), I'm not challenging or denying your assertion, I'm just asking for the information that supports it.

Bullgrit

I have no idea how reliable this is, as it seems to be an off-the-cuff comment, but in an interview, Gygax claimed that around 1980, the Holmes set was selling 12,000 copies a month.

 

[Bullgrit]

Isn't it kind of amazing how something like this can sell so much with virtually no marketing? No general-media ads in the 70s, no Internet, etc. I learned of this game by word of mouth. I personally never saw any ads for anything D&D outside of TSR publications until the 2000s.

This game was so novel, so apparently wanted and needed, that it could sell well despite being so atrociously written and designed?

Bullgrit

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Isn't it kind of amazing how something like this can sell so much with virtually no marketing? No general-media ads in the 70s, no Internet, etc. I learned of this game by word of mouth. I personally never saw any ads for anything D&D outside of TSR publications until the 2000s.

This game was so novel, so apparently wanted and needed, that it could sell well despite being so atrociously written and designed?

Apparently you missed the TV and radio ads from the early '80s, the TV show, plus all of the advertising through negative press (BADD, et al). Never underestimate the power of word of mouth, though.

I think the novelty was a major factor in selling, but your view of "atrocious design" is 20/20 hindsight. When BD&D debuted, the only RPGs competing were worse. Check out some of the other games from that era.

 

[Riley]

BADD's crusade, and the TV show, occurred later than 1982, so wouldn'tve had any impact on Holmes. (BADD's founder's son killed himself in Oct. 82, and her 60 Minutes appearance was in 1985.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Pulling

 

[pemerton]

I personally never saw any ads for anything D&D outside of TSR publications until the 2000s.

I don't know what was around back in the late 70/early 80s. But by the mid-80s there were full-page ads in Marvel Comics (I remember the wizard pulling something out of his backpack, saying "Maybe this scroll will help us -Dimension Door!", and then the whole party teleporting from underground up into a castle - when I actually learned the parameters for the Dimension Door spell I was a bit disappointed).

And in the late-80s/early-90s, TSR used to have glossy ads on the back covers of Marvel Comics. I remember adds for Forgotten Realms adventures, Darkwalker on Moonshae, and maybe the 2nd ed core books.