A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
You don't learn to play D&D in 48 pages though do you? Holmes is an excellently written extract, simplification or summary which those who have learned how to play D&D through AD&D can appreciate.
Joined: Aug 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 598 Karma: 17
Re: Why I love Holmes « Reply #3 on Jan 27, 2012, 6:59pm »
Cynical observation no. 1: Holmes cost $10.00 (Approx) out of my mom's pocketbook. I was 9. You need to spend about $120.00 for the three core rulebooks to play 4E. Ain't payin for it out of my paycheck! That's one day's wage instead of three hours back in the day.
Cynical observation no.2: Who the hell pays that much money to have their imagination spoon fed to them?
Cynical observation no. 1: Holmes cost $10.00 (Approx) out of my mom's pocketbook. I was 9. You need to spend about $120.00 for the three core rulebooks to play 4E. Ain't payin for it out of my paycheck! That's one day's wage instead of three hours back in the day.
And even cheaper now. (Helps to keep the price of OSR products down?)
You don't learn to play D&D in 48 pages though do you? Holmes is an excellently written extract, simplification or summary which those who have learned how to play D&D through AD&D can appreciate.
Ha ha! What?!?
It's how I learned (this was in '86 and I was given, prior to us starting the game, a friend's copy who's older brother it had been previously...they learned how to play with it as well of course). I learned more later by buying a friend's copies of Moldvay and Cook/Marsh for a dollar. (Yeah...in the Mentzer era, I wasn't playing or reading Mentzer at all and didn't until the RC was released.)
Also, I didn't know how to play AD&D and I certainly was and am able to "appreciate" Holmes...nor did I know how to play AD&D later.... and I still don't know how to play AD&D. I can't even make it through one of its unnecessarily dense spell descriptions.
It's how I learned (this was in '86 and I was given, prior to us starting the game, a friend's copy who's older brother it had been previously...they learned how to play with it as well of course). I learned more later by buying a friend's copies of Moldvay and Cook/Marsh for a dollar. (Yeah...in the Mentzer era, I wasn't playing or reading Mentzer at all and didn't until the RC was released.)
Also, I didn't know how to play AD&D and I certainly was and am able to "appreciate" Holmes...nor did I know how to play AD&D later.... and I still don't know how to play AD&D. I can't even make it through one of its unnecessarily dense spell descriptions.
Indeed! It's how I learned as well, back in 1977. Since it is not really a version or an edition, one did not, at least in '77, move on to another version. You just got the other D&D books out there to supplement or extend the game, which is what it was for after all.
I suppose a fair jury could be split over whether I ever played AD&D or was playing D&D all along. I used the AD&D books as they were released, but I learned the game from Holmes, the OD&D supplements, Strategic Review, and the Dragon (including the previews for, esp. the DMG). There were plenty of things in the AD&D books that I never used. However, the other people I knew playing AD&D in the 70s and early-mid 80s didn't seem to use them either. I never came across an AD&D product (module, article in Dragon, whatever) that suggested how I was playing was not how AD&D was "supposed" to be played, but I can say that, apart from things like hit dice for character classes, durations of spells, armor class 10, and a few other tidbits, I doubt the AD&D books changed much of how I played the game from what I learned first from Holmes.
You don't learn to play D&D in 48 pages though do you? Holmes is an excellently written extract, simplification or summary which those who have learned how to play D&D through AD&D can appreciate.
I sure used it to learn how to play D&D. No one introduced me to the game and the DMG wasn't even in print yet.
Joined: Aug 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 297 Karma: 18
Re: Why I love Holmes « Reply #11 on Jan 28, 2012, 11:42am »
I didn't make myself clear at all and perhaps misunderstood Falconer. What I meant was that Falconer and I at least look on Holmes with the hindsight of 900 pages of AOD&D material and can't read it with innocent eyes forgetting WoG, the Gygax modules and the DMG et al..
It is possible to learn D&D from Holmes alone, of course it is, but knowing what I do about D&D I would not want to be in a position where all I had read was Holmes. Falconer has said "learn to play the game in 48 pages" but if the learning stopped at 48 and not 900, limited like that that is not a D&D I have much respect for but it is a fine beginning.
... but if the learning stopped at 48 and not 900, limited like that that is not a D&D I have much respect for but it is a fine beginning.
I respectfully disagree. I think a strong case can be made that a campaign based around minimal "official" material and lots of home-grown rules is more "D&D" than a product with a lot of published support. Maybe because that is my own background with the game, but I've always had much more respect for that sort of campaign than yet another BtB/RAW game.
My own OD&D campaign had grown to the point that, when Greyhawk and the other supplements began to appear in print, I simply didn't need them. I always found it interesting how TSR's luminaries solved the same problems I did, but I used little of the material. I found coming up with my own stuff quite rewarding.
... but if the learning stopped at 48 and not 900, limited like that that is not a D&D I have much respect for but it is a fine beginning.
I respectfully disagree. I think a strong case can be made that a campaign based around minimal "official" material and lots of home-grown rules is more "D&D" than a product with a lot of published support.
I played for eight years in my teens using only the PHB, MM and DMG. I neither owned nor read a single module or supplement and created everything myself, for the better I believe.
While I now have a large collection of the most highly regarded D&D material I will never use any of it directly in my game. My point is this. Having read the material I know more about D&D in the sense that I have been exposed to more ideas. Frankly I think my campaign adventure material is diminished by influence but my understanding of what Gygax created and intended has increased. Someone who has only read Holmes may produce fine adventures but he has a lot left to learn about D&D, primarily through AD&D, Gygax's additional material, judges guild supplements, Paul Jaquays, Paul Vernon et al..
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://mux.net/~ulmo/ThorinII.jpg "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii55/akesher3/erolaxeAvatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
![[avatar]](http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac15/TravisDF/montaigne99.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k58/machfront1/MeGlowFB2_TB.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpL870wV2A4/SSi3dCn1SZI/AAAAAAAACl4/XuB-bD4_W4Q/s400/carcosa.png "[avatar]")
