The Editions Need a Better Nomenclature

[devoblue]

This isn't a new problem. I remember back in the mid 80's we needed would refer to either Advanced D&D or, uh, Basic D&D. It wasn't the best of names, and we knew it, but we couldn't call it Original D&D, because it wasn't first. Everyone knew that Basic D&D meant basic through master/immortal.

In the last few years I've noticed the term BECMI become utilised more often on enworld where Basic would have been used in the past, but then we also get people still asking what BECMI means.

I've also yet to notice a thread on enworld, apart from this one, where the differences of B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia even mattered. That isn't the sort of conversation that happens here regularly enough for people to be expected to read the FAQ and appreciate the difference. If such a thread does start, it would need to define the terms it uses for the different editions, just as you have done.

The problem with redefining the names to be something like Classic D&D is that you will still get people regularly not knowing what you mean. I think the term that is most likely to convey clarity to someone who is aware of the previous editions but hasn't read this thread would probably be Basic D&D. It's just unfortunate that TSR didn't have the foresight in 1981 to predict the difficulties that us on Enworld would have, and to give B/X a better name.

 

[T. Foster]

The main things causing me to make a Holmes-AD&D connection, rather than just lumping it purely with OD&D, are: 1) the fact that it always refers the reader to AD&D for higher levels and additional detail (even though, as you point out, it's much much closer to OD&D in almost every regard) and 2) the handful of spells (ray of enfeeblement, Tenser's floating disc, a couple others) and monsters (mostly bugs and vermin that were mentioned but not actually statted out in OD&D - giant rats, centipedes, spiders, etc.) that come from AD&D. The 5-prong alignment chart is usually cited as an AD&Dism, but isn't really because after it was introduced in issue 6 of The Strategic Review it was used consistently in pretty much all OD&D products that came thereafter -- the Monster & Treasure Assortments, Dragon articles, all the Judges Guild products, etc. (which must have been confusing to people who didn't happen to own that particular issue) -- so its use by Holmes is more reflective of standard OD&D-circa-1977 practice than a foreshadowing of AD&D like the spells, monsters, and "See AD&D" references.

 

[Plane Sailing]

• OD&D: the original D&D game, which includes the 1974 rules (D&D ’74) and the Holmes Basic Set (D&D ’77).

This is the point that I disagree with you.

I played OD&D (white box + greyhawk, blackmoor (monk only), eldritch wizardry (druids and demons only))

When Basic D&D came out we took a look at it and unanimously said "who would want to play that dumbed down pile of rubbish?" -This isn't my opinion of BD&D now, and I think I'd probably find elements of the BD&D line quite attractive now, but that is certainly how it appeared to us back in 1977.

As far as we could see it was a huge step back from OD&D. It was full of restrictions, it had less options and seemed to us that it was designed for children (to be fair, it probably was an attempt to target a younger audience in a more accessible form, and was probably quite successful at that).

However, in my mind it represents the essential split of D&D into two forms, and I'd clearly put it in the BX/BECMI line of things.

To my mind the evolution of D&D is as follows

     OD&D
       |
       |
     -----
    |     |
  Basic  AD&D line (1e)
    |     |
  Mold    2e
    |     |
  Mentz   3e
          |
          3.5e
          |
          4e

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

However, in my mind it represents the essential split of D&D into two forms, and I'd clearly put it in the BX/BECMI line of things.

What elements of the rules in Holmes are closer to B/X and BECM than to OD&D? I do agree that Holmes is an "introductory" set, but as I detailed in earlier posts, the rules definitely have more in common with OD&D than with the other editions.

As far as a "split" goes, I think AD&D was the splitting factor. Holmes foreshadowed that split, but didn't precipitate it. Once AD&D was released, there was (O)D&D and AD&D. I'd argue that the 1981 Basic set marked the start of a third "family," rules-wise. I see both AD&D and the "Classic" (B/X and BECM) lines as being derived from OD&D, but different enough rules-wise to be distinct from it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The main things causing me to make a Holmes-AD&D connection, rather than just lumping it purely with OD&D, are: 1) the fact that it always refers the reader to AD&D for higher levels and additional detail (even though, as you point out, it's much much closer to OD&D in almost every regard) and 2) the handful of spells...and monsters ...that come from AD&D.

I tend to think of the AD&D references as a marketing sales pitch, more than anything else (kind of like Gary's "official miniature" sales pitch in the DMG). I do agree that there are a few AD&D elements in Holmes, and I also agree that TSR was positioning Holmes as a lead-in to AD&D, but I still think the Holmes rules, themselves, are substantially OD&D.

 

[Delta]

My picture:

    OD&D
       |
       |
    Holmes
    |     |
  Mold AD&D line (1e)
    |     |
  Mentz  2e
          |
           3e

To me, the keenest thing is Holmes collapsing race & class, which was nowhere in OD&D. (Even in original white books, elves had to track separate XP for wizard & fighter classes). Of course, he points out you can mix & match in AD&D, so for Holmes that was clearly a temporary simplification, not intended to be a whole game system unto itself.

And of course he has things like 1d8 Hit Dice which weren't in the original white books, but the same supplements which basically were collected into AD&D. He's got the same list of monsters (giant animals) as AD&D, not the wierd novelties as in Moldvay/Mentzer.

Actually, in Holmes all magic weapons add the bonus to both "to hit" and damage -- except for swords. Hammers do, arrows do, etc. (see p. 37 after the first sentence).

I see the AD&D references as being very important. Even if they stuttered in execution due to time of the publishing, the intention was very clear.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

To me, the keenest thing is Holmes collapsing race & class, which was nowhere in OD&D. (Even in original white books, elves had to track separate XP for wizard & fighter classes). Of course, he points out you can mix & match in AD&D, so for Holmes that was clearly a temporary simplification, not intended to be a whole game system unto itself.

Yeah, that's a bit muddy in Holmes. However, note that it says "Elves progress in level as both fighting men and magic users, but since each game nets them experience in both categories equally, they progress more slowly than other characters." So there's still a conceptual separation, there, and XP is tracked separately, just like in OD&D (and unlike B/X). I'd argue that Holmes didn't really "collapse race & class" like the Moldvay/Cook 1981 rules did, but rather attempted to present the OD&D approach in the simplest way possible.

(There's also the use of "Fighting Man," rather than "Fighter," which is very OD&Dish, although that's more cosmetic than an actual rule similarity.)

And of course he has things like 1d8 Hit Dice which weren't in the original white books, but the same supplements which basically were collected into AD&D.

Yeah, I don't consider the 1d8 monster hit dice in Holmes to be a move away from OD&D, since that was introduced in OD&D Supplement I.

Actually, in Holmes all magic weapons add the bonus to both "to hit" and damage -- except for swords. Hammers do, arrows do, etc. (see p. 37 after the first sentence).

Yep. That's exactly like (and distinctive to) OD&D, too. Swords are treated differently from other misc. weapons.

I see the AD&D references as being very important. Even if they stuttered in execution due to time of the publishing, the intention was very clear.

I agree that it's important for showing where TSR was moving, and where it wanted the customer base to go. I don't agree that it means much as far as what edition the Holmes rules have the most in common with.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In general, the differences in Holmes strike me as being variants or house rules on a solid OD&D base. Some stuff, like the % to know spell table, looks like it was imported from AD&D...

Actually, I was mistaken about that. The "% to know spell" rule wasn't from AD&D -- it was another concept introduced to OD&D in Supplement I. I'd forgotten that (I don't use much from Supplement I in my OD&D game).

 

[RFisher]

The problem—or a problem—is that when you need a term, you need one that fits the specific context. Sometimes I want to talk about the c. 1980 Cook/Marsh-edited Expert Set. Sometimes I want to talk about all editions prior to the year 2000. Sometimes I want to talk about...

Terminology driven by discourse tends to give us things that are a bit chaotic but mostly work. Trying to systemize the terminology and then impose it upon the discourse is nice and simple but, IMHO, tends to work somewhat less.

Something else to throw out there:

D&D ID

A really nice, if abbreviated, outline of editions of the game.

Thanks.

Some tweaks I’m considering include breaking oD&D (and possibly Holmes) out of the “classic” box and separating 3e and 4e. Might add a third layer.

And I’m sure my connected notes page could use some updating.

It’s always been problematic. First, because of what I said above. Secondly, because the page is trying to be descriptive of my actual practice, which is constantly changing.

 

[jdrakeh]

Yeah, that's a bit muddy in Holmes. However, note that it says "Elves progress in level as both fighting men and magic users, but since each game nets them experience in both categories equally, they progress more slowly than other characters."

Beat me to it! When I was working up my own level progression tables for Holmes (inspired by your own work and that of meepo), I ran across this. Also worth noting is that, by default, dwarves and halflings progress as Fighting Men:

Halflings and Dwarves progress as fighting men, but Halflings use a six-sided die for hit points.

And that there is an allusion to dwarves and halflings being allowed to earn XP as Thieves instead of Fighting Men, as well, though the reader is referred to AD&D for those rules (on my own tables, I included such progression, drawing heavily on Labyrinth Lord to fill in the gaps):

There are special rules for halflings, dwarves and elves who wish to be thieves — these are given in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

It also mentions elves, though I didn't include rules for that in my expanded progression — I figured that allowing a character to advance in three classes, while other characters could only only advance in one was a bit much