Holmes vs Moldvay vs Mentzer

[Glyfair]

Holmes Basic D&D was a retooling of original D&D plus some ideas from Supplement I: Greyhawk. It has very little in common with later versions of Basic D&D, and a lot in common with Original D&D. It's rather confusing, actually.

Also note that Holmes was designed in parallel with AD&D. It was supposed to lead into AD&D, but the PHB hadn't even been written for AD&D (IIRC, a month or two separate the Monster Manual release and Holmes).

 

[MerricB]

Also note that Holmes was designed in parallel with AD&D. It was supposed to lead into AD&D, but the PHB hadn't even been written for AD&D (IIRC, a month or two separate the Monster Manual release and Holmes).

Although Holmes did his work in parallel with AD&D, I don't think there was much input from Gary as to what was going on with BD&D. AD&D was clearly designed (at the time) to replace OD&D, as it gathered together all the separate strands of development from the supplements and unified them.

Holmes BD&D is trying to form a basic introduction to OD&D more than anything. I don't think it does a good job of it, but it was better than trying to understand OD&D on your own!

Cheers!

 

[Fifth Element]

Yeah. That seems awfully wonky. It strikes me as a vestige of Chainmail man-to-man rules that may have worked within the whole system, but doesn't do what it was meant to once the other rules have been lost.

Hey, it worked in Mazes & Minotaurs!

http://storygame.free.fr/MAZES.htm

 

[Glyfair]

Although Holmes did his work in parallel with AD&D, I don't think there was much input from Gary as to what was going on with BD&D. AD&D was clearly designed (at the time) to replace OD&D, as it gathered together all the separate strands of development from the supplements and unified them.

You are right, my memory is fuzzy.

Gary says:

"“Basic” D&D does not differ greatly from the Original except that it is far better structured — thus far more understandable for an individual previously not acquainted with the concept of fantasy role playing. The rules clarify things and are changed in a few minor areas which do not materially affect existing campaigns."

Of course, even more interesting bits are about AD&D in the article and the reason for its creation.

 

[RFisher]

Moldvay's single rulebook is divided into 2 books -- a player's book and a DM's book

I think you meant to type "Mentzer" here.

I have a hard time believing that anyone who can't learn the game from the Moldvay book--who needs the Mentzer Basic to get it--isn't going to become a regular gamer.

Holmes BD&D is trying to form a basic introduction to OD&D more than anything. I don't think it does a good job of it, but it was better than trying to understand OD&D on your own!

I think they felt that the Basic set only needed to cover the same basic concepts as OD&D, not the specific rules. Especially in light of Gronan's claim that in those days they were intentionally leaving the specific rules somewhat incomplete.

 

[Mark Hope]

I don't know the name of the artist who did the interior art but it's very bland and uninspiring.

Isn't it some fellow called Dykstra? That name springs to mind for some reason. I liked his clean style, but there was little magic to his art. Certainly nothing in the evocative league of Otus, Roslof or Willingham. I'd also agree that the Mentzer Basic set was a great introductory tool, but not much cop as a reference work from which to run games in the ling term. My first D&D set was the magenta Moldvay box (and the Cook expert set, which I bought about a week later, iirc). I still have a great amount of respect for the way it is put together. Although I have the Holmes rules and the OD&D box (OCE, no woodie ), I haven't tried to use them in-game. I still have plans to run a Grand Experiment Campaign, which starts characters off with the OD&D rules and then meanders through the editions from BECMI to AD&D1e, 2e and 3e (Temple of the Keep of Dread Vaults of the Invincible Ptolus Frog?) I am, at the end of the day, something of a gaming slut who can't get enough of all of the editions of the game. Love them all. Give it to me, baby, and make me feel cheap!

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The Rules Cyclopedia (1991) is a compilation of all 4 Mentzer sets (plus some additional material from the Gazeteer series and a couple new rules) into a single hardback book. It marks the only time since the original 1974 OD&D set that the game was complete in one volume (and even OD&D has 3 separate booklets in the boxed set). Cover art was by Jeff Easley; I don't know the name of the artist who did the interior art but it's very bland and uninspiring.

Terry Dykstra

 

[Sqwonk]

Box covers

Is there a link or can someone list/show what box covers = what set
Since it was over 20 years ago - I don't remember authors but I do remember the different box sets.

 

[kenobi65]

Is there a link or can someone list/show what box covers = what set
Since it was over 20 years ago - I don't remeber authors but I do remember the different box sets.

Holmes book:
http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductD...facturerID_E_1_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_

Moldvay (this is the Expert, Noble Knight doesn't have the Basic game in stock; the Basic book cover also had an Erol Otus picture (the characters fighting the dragon that are shown in the smoke cloud in the left-hand side of this cover art), with either a purple or red cover, I can't remember):
http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductD...facturerID_E_1_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_

Mentzer:
http://www.nobleknight.com/ProductD...facturerID_E_1_A_CategoryID_E_12_A_GenreID_E_

 

[Sqwonk]

Moldvay

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tBoxCover.jpg/175px-DandDBasicSetBoxCover.jpg

This is the one I started with. It came with those crappy dice that you had to color/crayon in the numbers.