Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 5671365" data-attributes="member: 3586">What's really fun is that your basic set (the Holmes edition) isn't a basic set for AD&D. It's a basic set for the original D&D - the three little brown books plus a few things from the first supplement, Greyhawk (like the thief).Gygax went through the ms and added in the AD&D references, but it wasn't written with AD&D in mind - it's entirely an introduction to the (confusing) original game. It's rather confusing itself, but it's better than what you were faced with in oD&D. Note that it came out in 1977, which is the same year as the AD&D Monster Manual, and a couple of years before the AD&D system would be complete!Tom Moldvay, when he edited the 1981 edition of the rules, made it very much its own game; his edition doesn't bear much closeness to Holmes' Basic, save that both derive from oD&D. It's the Moldvay version which was the baseline for all future Basic D&D releases, including the Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal sets, although Frank Mentzer (the editor of the Red Box) made a few minor tweaks and changes. The Moldvay and later versions of basic aren't "introductory" D&D so much as their own game, and AD&D goes off in a different direction.It was only once 3E came along that Wizards started putting out Basic sets that, like Holmes, were meant to lead you into the more "advanced" game.My personal favourite edition of Basic D&D is that by Tom Moldvay. It's really an amazing version, which if you have the chance to get you should seriously consider it.But, for now, you have the introductory set for original D&D, with the original 1st level adventure by TSR. Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification