|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Aug 18, 2011 8:59:47 GMT -6
I have noted a tendency of some posters on this board to praise Gary's LBBs to the stars, but take a harder line with Holmes. I find this curious, as the clones that have made it into the present age seem to universally follow the directions Holmes took, as opposed to those of Gygax.
Examples include the modifications to die rolls for character requisites. Gary's rather clumsy "percentage strength" for fighters is gone, as are the varying modifications for most other requsites, that existed in both the LBBs and AD&D. These are replaced by Holmes' more tidy universal modifiers of 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, etc. Even games that do not follow the exact pattern set by Holmes (such as S&W) give universal modifiers that are similar in effect. Similar clean-ups following the Holmes' pattern are present in every clone I know of.
Please note that this is not an attempt to blast Gary. He was, as has so often been said, breaking new ground, and he was bound to make mistakes, or at least to attempt things that were not as streamlined as what came after.
Still, it is an attempt to give credit where credit is due. The present OD&D culture owes a great deal to Holmes' editing and organizational skills.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 9:55:44 GMT -6
On the contrary, I think Holmes did a great service for D&D in general, getting the game out there among folks who were not as strongly connected with gaming, particularly "strategy & tactic" games as the rest of us. The box itself was strongly evocative of the feeling the game was trying to create, as opposed to either of the OD&D boxes. And the content was far more digestible, though, like OD&D, it did have its own issues.
I mainly game with the 1974 rules because they were my introduction to the game and they are the one with which I'm most familiar. Not because I don't care for Holmes.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Aug 18, 2011 12:59:58 GMT -6
These are replaced by Holmes' more tidy universal modifiers of 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, etc. This is not the case in my copy of Holmes. Moldvay, yes, but Holmes hews more closely to the LBBs on such matters (where there are modifiers at all). |
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Aug 18, 2011 13:17:51 GMT -6
I have nothing in particular against Holmes, but I still prefer the LBB.
Part of this I think has to do with where I am coming from in relation to OD&D. I get the impression that I am a lot younger than some on this board, so when I went to look into OD&D it wasn't a nostalgic look back on my childhood. I didn't even start playing tabletop games until I was in high-school in the early 2000s. So when I began exploring OD&D it was my attempt to find the roots of the game and I wouldn't settle for anything less than the LBB (I don't even use the supplements).
Now yes they do have issues, and my group and I have our own houserules to streamline them. But that is kind of my point. We have our own streamlining of the system that works best for us. Why would we want to use any clones, revisions, etc?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 13:36:23 GMT -6
I get the impression that I am a lot younger than some on this board, so when I went to look into OD&D it wasn't a nostalgic look back on my childhood. I'd like to respectfully raise a point of order. It is not necessarily nostalgia for those of us who started playing in the 1970's, either. I, and others here as well, never stopped playing this version of the game. One must leave something behind in order to look back upon it, with nostalgia or otherwise! |
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Aug 18, 2011 13:53:29 GMT -6
I get the impression that I am a lot younger than some on this board, so when I went to look into OD&D it wasn't a nostalgic look back on my childhood. I'd like to respectfully raise a point of order. It is not necessarily nostalgia for those of us who started playing in the 1970's, either. I, and others here as well, never stopped playing this version of the game. One must leave something behind in order to look back upon it, with nostalgia or otherwise! Same here. For me, it is a question of what I think is most functional, and remember that the first three letters of functional spell 'fun.' The LBBs were great, but, IMHO, had too many mistakes, poorly organized rules, and left a lot out. I think that playing without, at least the Greyhawk supplement was simply not worth it, but, to each his own. Later versions of D&D got increasingly expensive and complex, to the point that I believe 4e is actually unplayable as a game, but, hey, many people have said the same about the LBBs, again, to each his own. For me, the Holmes and Moldvay versions were the most playable, and gave you the most bang for the greatest simplicity. I think that Labyrinth Lord is even better, as it incorporates the best parts of AD&D without the additional cost or dross. Again, to each his own. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 18, 2011 14:35:06 GMT -6
I get the impression that I am a lot younger than some on this board, so when I went to look into OD&D it wasn't a nostalgic look back on my childhood. I'd like to respectfully raise a point of order. It is not necessarily nostalgia for those of us who started playing in the 1970's, either. I, and others here as well, never stopped playing this version of the game. One must leave something behind in order to look back upon it, with nostalgia or otherwise! Agreed. I've never left. Oh, sometimes I'll venture off to try C&C or DCC or soemthing like that for a while, but I always return to OD&D and it's my favorite rules set. As to praising one and taking a harder stand on the other: 1. I opened this board with the intent of supporting OD&D. Naturally it would get more love. 2. I don't dislike Holmes. In fact, you'll notice that I opened a space up on these boards just for Holmes discussions. Keep in mind that Gary and Dave (and Rob and others) did the hard part. They created this game from scratch. Holmes was more of an editor, attempting to put together a better organized version of the rules. Had the Holmes edition gone higher than level 3 it would doubtless gain more respect. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 14:47:17 GMT -6
And some of us don't think "simple consistant modifiers" are an advantage.
I also think "universal resolution mechanic" is the most over-hyped thing since Segway.
Strokes, folks, different.
|
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Aug 18, 2011 19:03:35 GMT -6
Had the Holmes edition gone higher than level 3 it would doubtless gain more respect. No question, and that was always my big beef with it, but I think this was TSR's attempt to milk the game, rather than anything that Homes would have intended. Pure speculation, but it's mine and I'll go with it. ;-) |
|
|
|
Post by bluskreem on Aug 18, 2011 19:12:29 GMT -6
I fall on the Holmes side of the equation. I enjoy talking about and reading the LLB's, but I prefer the organization, the "voice," and the implied universe of Holmes.
PS: No edition of Holmes I've ever seen had universal attributes. Are you sure you aren't thinking BX (Moldvay) D&D?
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Aug 18, 2011 19:13:19 GMT -6
I get the impression that I am a lot younger than some on this board, so when I went to look into OD&D it wasn't a nostalgic look back on my childhood. I'd like to respectfully raise a point of order. It is not necessarily nostalgia for those of us who started playing in the 1970's, either. I, and others here as well, never stopped playing this version of the game. One must leave something behind in order to look back upon it, with nostalgia or otherwise! I've been DMing for 29 years. The vast majority of that time, has been spent running AD&D. I don't know what the hell I'm supposed to be "nostalgic" about.  |
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Aug 18, 2011 19:14:53 GMT -6
I fall on the Holmes side of the equation. I enjoy talking about and reading the LLB's, but I prefer the organization, the "voice," and the implied universe of Holmes. PS: No edition of Holmes I've ever seen had universal attributes. Are you sure you aren't thinking BX (Moldvay) D&D? To the best of my knowledge, no printing of Holmes had the B/X attributes. |
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Aug 18, 2011 19:15:56 GMT -6
No edition of Holmes I've ever seen had universal attributes. Are you sure you aren't thinking BX (Moldvay) D&D? A thousand whacks for me with a set of red book rules, and then pelt me with really ugly dice. Yes, that was definitely Moldvay. |
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Aug 18, 2011 19:43:06 GMT -6
I get the impression that I am a lot younger than some on this board, so when I went to look into OD&D it wasn't a nostalgic look back on my childhood. I'd like to respectfully raise a point of order. It is not necessarily nostalgia for those of us who started playing in the 1970's, either. I, and others here as well, never stopped playing this version of the game. One must leave something behind in order to look back upon it, with nostalgia or otherwise! Mmm...I think what I said might have been taken the wrong way. I didn't mean that nostalgia was the sole motivation for people to play x or y version. I meant that a number of people around here have the luxury of looking back over the evolution of the game. Some of y'all were around when Holmes and the Moldvay/Cook versions initially came out and were able to form opinions about them then. Your memories and experiences with the initial releases of those products and the development of D&D over the years, influence which versions you play now. Anyone who has watched that process has the benefit of a continuum to look back on. On the other hand, I said to my gaming group: "Modern D&D is terribly flawed. Let's get as far from that as we can. We are going to jump back to the game's 1974 roots." Which leaves us sitting at a particular point in history and we (with one exception who played Moldvay as a child) don't have those prior experiences of the intervening developments to look back on. So my reasons for playing the LBB will be different from yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 18, 2011 19:49:49 GMT -6
I think these forums and the members here have shown more appreciation for Holmes than any other forums I've seen. We've got a dedicated Holmes forum that is fairly active. Knights & Knaves also has a Holmes forum, but it's low traffic, perhaps because they are more AD&D oriented over there. Keep in mind that Gary and Dave (and Rob and others) did the hard part. They created this game from scratch. Holmes was more of an editor, attempting to put together a better organized version of the rules. I agree with this 100%. Holmes was respectful of the original invention. In Dragon #52 he wrote: "we kept the rules as close as possible to the original intent. D&D is, after all, a truly unique invention, probably as remarkable as the die, or the deck of cards, or the chessboard. The inventor’s vision needs to be respected." A close text comparison of Holmes and the LBBs will show just how close the wording is in many parts. Holmes added a few things, mostly to clarify sections not clearly spelled out in the original rules (initiative, throwing oil). More important was his selection of what to leave out for beginners. Overall, I think his biggest contribution was the entire concept of an introductory set, and limiting it to just levels 1-3 (which was retained by Moldvay and Mentzer). In a way, this shows the greatest respect to OD&D: he wasn't trying to replace the original, just create a gateway. He didn't know at the time that TSR would change it to a gateway to AD&D, though I doubt he minded, since he seems to like AD&D well enough in his FRPG book. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 18, 2011 20:03:48 GMT -6
Had the Holmes edition gone higher than level 3 it would doubtless gain more respect. No question, and that was always my big beef with it, but I think this was TSR's attempt to milk the game, rather than anything that Homes would have intended. Pure speculation, but it's mine and I'll go with it. ;-) My impression from reading the statements from Gygax and Holmes, is that Holmes had the idea of an introductory set and proposed it to Gygax, and volunteered to do it himself to which Gary said "if you want to try it, go ahead" (quote from Holmes book). For example, Gygax wrote: " ufficient information across the board to enable play for a group for a limited period of time--enough to determine if the game is "right" for the group. That's what the Basic Set of D&D was for, and that was a good idea that J. Eric Holmes came up with." --- Gary Gygax, Dragonsfoot forum post, 2002 |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 18, 2011 20:06:33 GMT -6
All of us have our favorite games/editions, and I think surely we’re at the point now where it’s recognized that playing any of them is a valid choice. It used to be (and still often is) that you had to defend your decision to “reject” 3e or 4e or whatever happened to be the in-print D&D at the time. Today, I think it’s more taken for granted that one is going to be picky about their edition and not automatically “upgrade”—but also one can speak of the things one likes about their game without having to go into what one dislikes about another.
With OD&D, there’s just so much TO like, and I think that’s what this forum has done so well at emphasizing. It’s the raw originality oozing with excitement for the possibilities, launching breakneck into ideas for the game with little introduction and explanation, and before you know it, ending by breathlessly saying, “That’s all we could fit; you’re on your own now!” As the original D&D, it’s also the essential D&D, like Howard’s Conan is the essential Conan; and for some, the quest for the real deal, ending in opening a precious eBay’d White Box for the first time is half the fun. It’s the primitive layout, art, and organization, whereby much can be learned to make a game more fun based purely on what’s missing and what’s emphasized in this version. It’s the elegance of knowing that endless adventures are possible with just the little box and its little booklets; that by itself it can replace shelves and shelves of expensive hardcovers.
I suspect many of you would agree that one of our central theses here is that OD&D is not as incomprehensible and unplayable as its reputation seems to suggest. (Though others here do seem to take the opposite tack, namely that the secrets of Chainmail and of FFC must be unlocked in order to properly understand OD&D.) That’s why OD&D fandom may come across as an implicit rejection of later reorganizations, because the later reorganizations had as their central reason for existence the idea that OD&D as it stood needed to be redone.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Aug 18, 2011 21:15:43 GMT -6
I think these forums and the members here have shown more appreciation for Holmes than any other forums I've seen. We've got a dedicated Holmes forum that is fairly active. Knights & Knaves also has a Holmes forum, but it's low traffic, perhaps because they are more AD&D oriented over there. I see respect for Mr. Holmes and his edition, all over the Old School interwebs. How many Holmes expansions and add-ons are there now? I count Eight on my hard-drive, not counting The Grey Book and the Swords & Wizardry Blue Book. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 21:36:28 GMT -6
Mmm...I think what I said might have been taken the wrong way. You are correct, I did misunderstand. What you said didn't bother me, just so you know. I was merely trying to amplify my own point of view. I've been accused of playing OD&D merely because of "nostalgia". I mean no harm. |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Aug 18, 2011 23:04:59 GMT -6
Um, okay, so I might be a minority opinion here, but I guess I don't see that much difference between Holmes Basic and the relevant portions of OD&D. Mind you, when I was younger, I thought there was a HUGE difference, but that was because I had gotten started on OD&D in 1975. Looking at it now, the differences seem much smaller than they did back then. And I appreciate BOTH of them much more now, after I have seen so many other role-playing games come along. I am quite sure that if I ran a campaign using Holmes Basic, I could seamlessly segue from that into an OD&D campaign at the levels past third.
(Of course, I might be missing the entire point of this thread, too...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 23:49:42 GMT -6
Um, okay, so I might be a minority opinion here, but I guess I don't see that much difference between Holmes Basic and the relevant portions of OD&D. The differences are minimal. Take heart, I'm reasonably certain you are not in the minority with this opinion. Still, sooner or later a referee has to have a base rule sets upon which to base his milieu. This is what is being discussed here in this thread. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2011 23:54:39 GMT -6
I have noted a tendency of some posters on this board to praise Gary's LBBs to the stars, but take a harder line with Holmes. I find this curious, as the clones that have made it into the present age seem to universally follow the directions Holmes took, as opposed to those of Gygax. Examples include the modifications to die rolls for character requisites. Gary's rather clumsy "percentage strength" for fighters is gone, as are the varying modifications for most other requsites, that existed in both the LBBs and AD&D. These are replaced by Holmes' more tidy universal modifiers of 13-15=+1, 16-17=+2, etc. Even games that do not follow the exact pattern set by Holmes (such as S&W) give universal modifiers that are similar in effect. Similar clean-ups following the Holmes' pattern are present in every clone I know of. Please note that this is not an attempt to blast Gary. He was, as has so often been said, breaking new ground, and he was bound to make mistakes, or at least to attempt things that were not as streamlined as what came after. Still, it is an attempt to give credit where credit is due. The present OD&D culture owes a great deal to Holmes' editing and organizational skills. I started with OD&D, I did not see a copy of Holmes until 2006 which is 31 years after I started playing OD&D and it only goes to 3rd level. I have read through it once, and I grab every supplement anyone makes for it and read those looking for good ideas but that is the limit for me. I use the original 3 LBBs and do not use the supplements, other than an idea here and there as a house rule. I don't use any additional modifiers outside the 3 LBBs and if I were going to use exceptional strength I would use the Greyhawk way since I think they are very cool. I personally do not like the new school way at all, give me those percentages or nothing at all. I absolutely despise (yep, my personal preference YMMV) universal modifiers and universal mechanics. I see that as a deficiency that the clones suffer from. I like some of Holmes editing and some of his organizational skills. But the things I don't like about Holmes, I also don't like about the clones either.I also do not like the d20 elements that were introduced into the clones quite unnecessarily. |
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Aug 19, 2011 9:15:32 GMT -6
No question, and that was always my big beef with it, but I think this was TSR's attempt to milk the game, rather than anything that Homes would have intended. Pure speculation, but it's mine and I'll go with it. ;-) My impression from reading the statements from Gygax and Holmes, is that Holmes had the idea of an introductory set and proposed it to Gygax, and volunteered to do it himself to which Gary said "if you want to try it, go ahead" (quote from Holmes book). For example, Gygax wrote: " ufficient information across the board to enable play for a group for a limited period of time--enough to determine if the game is "right" for the group. That's what the Basic Set of D&D was for, and that was a good idea that J. Eric Holmes came up with." --- Gary Gygax, Dragonsfoot forum post, 2002Maybe I'm just a smarty-pants, but I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to that kind of reasoning. Just doesn't quite pass the smell test. You may, of course, view it differently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 9:38:24 GMT -6
Maybe I'm just a smarty-pants, but I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to that kind of reasoning. Just doesn't quite pass the smell test. You may, of course, view it differently. You are what my late father called a "self styled expert." I repeat my advice from another thread. Talk less, listen more, Sparky. |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Aug 19, 2011 10:41:27 GMT -6
Um, okay, so I might be a minority opinion here, but I guess I don't see that much difference between Holmes Basic and the relevant portions of OD&D. The differences are minimal. Take heart, I'm reasonably certain you are not in the minority with this opinion. Still, sooner or later a referee has to have a base rule sets upon which to base his milieu. This is what is being discussed here in this thread. Got it. If that's the case, I would argue that it is entirely a matter of mindset. If you've got the mindset for looking at the rules as a set of potentials and possibilities, just waiting to be house-ruled and otherwise changed, then you can do that with either Holmes Basic or OD&D. I think you get a different set of potential starting points for rules modifications, depending on which one you go with, but you can do it with either one: - OD&D: Wonderful sprawling mess of ideas, just waiting for someone to stitch them together. Lots of different ways you can go - the Perrin Conventions are just one example, Philotomy's OD&D Musings are another. Biggest value is precisely in the ambiguities in the material as presented.
- Holmes: much cleaner exposition of the rules - but that topping out at 3rd level means that you get to build up from there (and there are too many examples of that being done right now to list here).
But the difference isn't in the rules themselves, it's your own mindset. I could run off and do my own homebrew using either one and be happy. It's just a choice of where and on what I wanted to work, to make the game my own. And I might still be missing the point of the thread, but, hey... |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 19, 2011 10:57:16 GMT -6
I don't see that much difference between Holmes Basic and the relevant portions of OD&D...I am quite sure that if I ran a campaign using Holmes Basic, I could seamlessly segue from that into an OD&D campaign at the levels past third. I agree. Once I came to realize that Holmes is basically an abridgement of the 1974 rules plus GREYHAWK, much of my enthusaism for Holmes was shifted to the 1974-75 rules. |
|
|
|
Post by gloriousbattle on Aug 19, 2011 11:28:33 GMT -6
Maybe I'm just a smarty-pants, but I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to that kind of reasoning. Just doesn't quite pass the smell test. You may, of course, view it differently. You are what my late father called a "self styled expert." I repeat my advice from another thread. Talk less, listen more, Sparky. Okay, I can be Sparky. You durned, consarned kids. Why, back in MY day... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2011 11:41:35 GMT -6
- OD&D: Wonderful sprawling mess of ideas, just waiting for someone to stitch them together. Lots of different ways you can go - the Perrin Conventions are just one example, Philotomy's OD&D Musings are another. Biggest value is precisely in the ambiguities in the material as presented.
- Holmes: much cleaner exposition of the rules - but that topping out at 3rd level means that you get to build up from there (and there are too many examples of that being done right now to list here).
Or you could do as originally intended by TSR and at 3rd level continue on with OD&D. Or is that just crazy talk? Seriously, the Holmes edits were to make the game comprehensible to someone who wasn't taught to play by the authors, and had no idea what an RPG was. The number of people who would pick up the LBB in this day and age, who do NOT know what a RPG is, I would be willing to bet is near zero. They might look at the LBB and go, "Crom, this is badly organized," but they would not be utterly baffled on what to do with the game. They've played other RPGs, they know what the game essentially is. |
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Aug 19, 2011 12:09:10 GMT -6
- OD&D: Wonderful sprawling mess of ideas, just waiting for someone to stitch them together. Lots of different ways you can go - the Perrin Conventions are just one example, Philotomy's OD&D Musings are another. Biggest value is precisely in the ambiguities in the material as presented.
- Holmes: much cleaner exposition of the rules - but that topping out at 3rd level means that you get to build up from there (and there are too many examples of that being done right now to list here).
Or you could do as originally intended by TSR and at 3rd level continue on with OD&D. Or is that just crazy talk? Is that what was originally intended? (Might sound silly, but I never kept track of that.) It's not crazy talk - it actually makes a good deal of sense to me - but I've felt that there's little difference between the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Aug 19, 2011 13:24:30 GMT -6
Maybe I'm just a smarty-pants, but I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to that kind of reasoning. Just doesn't quite pass the smell test. You may, of course, view it differently. I know this won't convince you, but for the record, Holmes' statements match with Gary's: "... I persuaded Gygax that the original D&D rules needed revision and that I was the person to rewrite them. He readily conceded that there was a need for a beginners' book and "if you want to try it, go ahead". I went through the original three rule books and the first two supplements, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, of which Greyhawk is the greatest help. Trying to use the original words of the two game creators as much as possible, I edited a slim (48 page) handbook for beginners in role playing, published by TSR in 1977 as Dungeons and Dragons and usually marketed as "the basic set"” (pg 68 of Holmes' FRPG book, emphasis added). Now it's certainly possible he worked out the specific details (e.g., "levels 1-3") with Gary prior to editing, but the intention as stated by both Gary and Holmes always seems to have been to create a beginner's book. |
|
