Drive Thru is having a sale, and I stocked up on TSR D&D

[Parzival]

Went to DTRPG today and lo and behold they’re having a sale on PDFs. So I grabbed some TSR BECMI modules, and the elements of OD&D which I did not have— Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry and Deities, etc.. (When I started back in 1980, OD&D was not available locally, so I never got to try it. So I’ve used DriveThru to give it the once-over I never did way back when.)


I’ve read OD&D I,II & III, and was surprised at how incomplete and sketchy they felt, especially in the area of combat, but also in the limited purpose of the ability scores. I come from a background of being introduced to the game by Holmes D&D, which even in its obvious introductory quality still seems more detailed and complete than the three OD&D booklets. As I then moved swiftly to AD&D and its Gygaxian complexity and specific explanation (and came to BECMI much later), the difference between my experience and what OD&D offered is to me striking. So I’m curious as to how GH, BM, EW, and DDG altered and expanded the original game— how close is it to what I know? I’m interested to find out.

As for the rest, I picked up some Mentzer and Moldvay books in PDF, and completed my collection of B modules, as well as acquiring the much later Thunder Rift campaign setting, along with some high level modules I’d never gotten around to back in the day.

[DungeonDevil]

Wasn't Holmes Basic just a reworking of the OD&D LBBs plus the Greyhawk supplement?

[soundchaser]

Holmes was something like that, a rules organization step. We played LBBs in ‘76-80 and it was mainly seat-of-the-pants with lots of rules gap-filling. Plus we didn’t know Chainmail. Still a lot of fond memories for the wild ‘framework’ to build a world of dungeons.

[dicebro]

The first 3 books had no predecessor. So the referee had to develop the world as the game was played. The cool thing was, it became your unique version. I think that’s why I love the original books so much. It had no predecessor, and none of the future editions ever matched it, or could ever match it.

[Parzival]

Mar 13, 2023 1:04:16 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Wasn't Holmes Basic just a reworking of the OD&D LBBs plus the Greyhawk supplement?

Skimming through the Greyhawk supplement, I would say “not really.”
Holmes does include the Thief class from Greyhawk, and incorporates the ability modifier concept (barely in the LBBs at all), but not to the level that Greyhawk does. And the combat “who goes first” procedure, which doesn’t exist in the LBBS or Greyhawk at all (look it up), is largely the author’s concept, as far as I can determine. Combat wouldn’t be broken down into an actual procedure with initiative rules and a set order of actions until the DMG and later Moldvay.

Also Holmes has connections to the Advanced game, including a 5 tier alignment system, which is a departure from OD&D.
And Holmes sets up the “Elf class is both a fighter and a magic-user” that became a staple of the eventual Basic line— but is not in the OD&D, where they have to choose one or the other (at a time :-? ).
As for the rest of Greyhawk, Holmes leaves out a good bit— including differing weapons damage and the like.

So Holmes is kinda stuck between OD&D and AD&D in one direction, and OD&D and B/X/ECMI in the other, while also having some quirky rules of its own (you can strike twice with a dagger, but only once with any other weapon… yet a dagger does the same damage as other weapons, so why would you choose anything else?).

In any case, it’s been interesting to see the development of the game from its very loose origins (which require a lot of interpretation on the part of the DM and players), and the later games with more defined processes and details.

[rredmond]

Great summary/comparison Parzival thank you!

[tetramorph]

Mar 12, 2023 18:34:16 GMT -6 Parzival said:

I’ve read OD&D I,II & III, and was surprised at how incomplete and sketchy they felt, especially in the area of combat, but also in the limited purpose of the ability scores. I come from a background of being introduced to the game by Holmes D&D, which even in its obvious introductory quality still seems more detailed and complete than the three OD&D booklets. As I then moved swiftly to AD&D and its Gygaxian complexity and specific explanation (and came to BECMI much later), the difference between my experience and what OD&D offered is to me striking. So I’m curious as to how GH, BM, EW, and DDG altered and expanded the original game— how close is it to what I know? I’m interested to find out.

Hey, Parzival! In terms of "incomplete and sketchy" - search around on these forums and you'll find a lot of good explanation of why the rules come across that way to a lot of folks familiarized with later versions of the game.

Here is my fast and loose answer: these are rules for fantastic medieval war-games CAMPAIGNS. They assume you are already a wargammer, that you already have rules for your war-game and, probably, that you at least have a concept of what a war-games campaign would be. That is where they start. So, they are not incomplete for the originally assumed audience.

AD&D is Greyhawk (O)D&D with an eye to consistency for tournament play at conventions.

[Parzival]

Mar 16, 2023 15:59:11 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Mar 12, 2023 18:34:16 GMT -6 Parzival said:

I’ve read OD&D I,II & III, and was surprised at how incomplete and sketchy they felt, especially in the area of combat, but also in the limited purpose of the ability scores. I come from a background of being introduced to the game by Holmes D&D, which even in its obvious introductory quality still seems more detailed and complete than the three OD&D booklets. As I then moved swiftly to AD&D and its Gygaxian complexity and specific explanation (and came to BECMI much later), the difference between my experience and what OD&D offered is to me striking. So I’m curious as to how GH, BM, EW, and DDG altered and expanded the original game— how close is it to what I know? I’m interested to find out.

Hey, Parzival! In terms of "incomplete and sketchy" - search around on these forums and you'll find a lot of good explanation of why the rules come across that way to a lot of folks familiarized with later versions of the game.

Here is my fast and loose answer: these are rules for fantastic medieval war-games CAMPAIGNS. They assume you are already a wargammer, that you already have rules for your war-game and, probably, that you at least have a concept of what a war-games campaign would be. That is where they start. So, they are not incomplete for the originally assumed audience.

AD&D is Greyhawk (O)D&D with an eye to consistency for tournament play at conventions.

Oh, I realize the origins and why it is the way that it is. It’s clear even early on that Gygax didn’t quite realize the broader market for the game. But that’s understandable— it was an entirely new kind of game, neither a board game nor a miniatures game. One of the smartest decisions Gygax made was agreeing to let Holmes create the original Basic set and giving Holmes some rein to add his own touches. And the other best decision (even if supposedly forced by a court) was to turn a new Basic set over to Moldvay, and give him the authority to define the game mechanics more precisely for new customers (and young customers) who had no experience in wargaming and hobbyists home-brewed rules.

So, yes, coming from someone who began with Holmes and AD&D, and then later discovered B/X/ECMI, the lack of defined rules for combat in the LBBs still comes as a surprise, even though I know the history of it all.

But it’s all fascinating to read.

[exploderwizard]

Mar 16, 2023 19:34:05 GMT -6 Parzival said:

Mar 16, 2023 15:59:11 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Hey, Parzival! In terms of "incomplete and sketchy" - search around on these forums and you'll find a lot of good explanation of why the rules come across that way to a lot of folks familiarized with later versions of the game.

Here is my fast and loose answer: these are rules for fantastic medieval war-games CAMPAIGNS. They assume you are already a wargammer, that you already have rules for your war-game and, probably, that you at least have a concept of what a war-games campaign would be. That is where they start. So, they are not incomplete for the originally assumed audience.

AD&D is Greyhawk (O)D&D with an eye to consistency for tournament play at conventions.

Oh, I realize the origins and why it is the way that it is. It’s clear even early on that Gygax didn’t quite realize the broader market for the game. But that’s understandable— it was an entirely new kind of game, neither a board game nor a miniatures game. One of the smartest decisions Gygax made was agreeing to let Holmes create the original Basic set and giving Holmes some rein to add his own touches. And the other best decision (even if supposedly forced by a court) was to turn a new Basic set over to Moldvay, and give him the authority to define the game mechanics more precisely for new customers (and young customers) who had no experience in wargaming and hobbyists home-brewed rules.

So, yes, coming from someone who began with Holmes and AD&D, and then later discovered B/X/ECMI, the lack of defined rules for combat in the LBBs still comes as a surprise, even though I know the history of it all.

But it’s all fascinating to read.

I came into the hobby in 1980 with B/X. The Moldvay rules still stand up as one of the most concise, complete, and well presented versions of the game. In just 64 pages it gave you everything that you needed to start playing a fantasy campaign including a nice sound scenario and dungeon construction section. It is still my favorite presentation of the original game due to its immediate playability without needing any background in gaming at all and what no other version, except perhaps for the Mentzer red box, has been able to do since. The Mentzer set was really good but was obviously built upon the stone foundation that Moldvay had built.