Quote from: Thanlis;359693So Holmes had 5 alignments, Magic Missile was roll to hit... I dunno, I've been taught that those were signs of a heretical, non-D&D-like D&D.

The Holmes Heresy. Ended when Gygax and Holmes faced off against each other on the flagship of Holmes' fleet, in the midst of the Chaos invasion of Holy TSR...

Quote from: Warthur;359695The Holmes Heresy. Ended when Gygax and Holmes faced off against each other on the flagship of Holmes' fleet, in the midst of the Chaos invasion of Holy TSR...

I'd run that game.

Quote from: Warthur;359689On Holmes as an intro to AD&D: didn't someone here once point out that the original Monster Manual is more in line with Holmes Basic than AD&D? If you look at it there aren't any (or barely any, I forget which) Neutral Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic Neutral monsters in the Monster Manual... and Holmes presented a 5-alignment system, where NG/E and L/CN didn't exist.

Correct. If you look closely there are lots of little things in the MM that place it ruleswise closer to OD&D (and by extension the Holmes set) than to the other 2 AD&D books -- there are only 5 alignments represented (LG, CG, N, LE, and CE only)*, there are no monsters with AC 10 and monsters assumed (or stated) to be wearing leather armor have AC 7, there are references to spell-names that were changed in AD&D (e.g. raise dead fully vs. resurrection), the max. levels listed for demi-human leader-types match the level limits in OD&D (AD&D's are usually 1-2 levels higher), and there are references to casting-level equivalents that match the OD&D rather than AD&D tables (which is significant for clerics who in OD&D get 5th level spells at 7th level but not until 9th level in AD&D).  

This makes sense, of course, when you remember that the MM was published about 9 months before the PH and 21 months before the DMG.

*This is the same system used in the Holmes set, but Dr. Holmes didn't invent it. It first showed up in an article in The Strategic Review (TSR's precursor to The Dragon) about a year earlier (issue #6, Feb. 1976) and all of the TSR (and Judges Guild) D&D stuff released after that point assumes the 5-alignment breakdown, so Holmes was just following standard TSR practice of the time (or, possibly, Gygax re-edited that part of his manuscript to match standard TSR practice of the time).

Quote from: Casey777;359681Did Moldvay always comes with B2 and did Mentzer always just have the solo adventure included in the manuals? I never had either Basic back in the day (Holmes Basic + Cook Expert + looked at Mentzer in the shops for me).

If you bought the Moldvay set in a box it always included B2 (and the Expert box always included X1), but both books were also sold stand-alone, for $6. The Mentzer Basic Set never included a module, but in addition to the solo adventure in the Players book it also had a partially-designed sample dungeon in the DM book (level 1 fully stocked, including step-by-step instructions for how to run the first session, map and suggestions for level 2, suggestions only for level 3). The Mentzer Expert Set still included X1, but with redone art and layout.

QuoteAlso Holmes Basic has a bare skeleton of a wilderness (or at least non-dungeon) setting which except perhaps outside of Holmes novels (if they are the same setting) was not further developed, while the other two are IIRC just dungeons with a chart or two for providing why go there. The Expert sets are tied into a much more developed setting, The Known World (Mystara).

The solo adventure in the Mentzer book talks a bit about "town" and has an in-town scene where you haggle with a shop-keeper over the price of some new armor, but the town doesn't get a name or map until the Expert Set (where it becomes Threshhold, located within the Grandy Duchy of Karameikos in the Known World/Mystara setting).

I have all 3 sets.  Personally, I adore the Mentzer edition the most since it does the best job of explaining to an interested person who DOESN'T have people teaching him or her how to play.. how to play these RPG things.

I love the text type, I love the Elmore art (anyone who says the art in the Basic/Expert Mentzer is inferior can suck my dick.  Y'all bitches be smokin some dank ass nugz! ), I just heart the damned HELL out of it.

Companion and Master are useful resources, but not really something I expect anyone to ever USE in its entirety.  Most campaigns never reach name level anyhow.  Not even in 3.x.  One campaign I was in with nearly weekly play reached level 5.  In TWO YEARS.  A campaign I ran for 6 months made it to level 6 with similar levels of play.  

Though for purposes of usability, I have Moldvay/Cook in a binder.  The 3 ring setup is so damned USEFUL.  

Actually, this is the contents of my D&D game binder, ready for quality RPG fun in a moment's notice:  (If anyone cares how I do it.)

Homemade GM screen with the Black Box DM screen put on a more usable cardboard foldout.  

Some slightly modified player copy charts from chapter 2 of the M/C Expert rulesbook.

Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert books.  (Yay ready for spiral binder!)

My 1 page houserule page including:
Class ability minimums for the 9 allowed classes
Fighter Attacks Per Round
Class HP/Level
Thief Backstab Damage Multiplier
Dwarven Axe Specialization
Halfling Thief Skills
New Magic User Weapons

My binder copies of the Player Character Information Charts

My version of Mystara's Gods.  (4 good, 4 evil, 4 neutral)

Hex maps of Karameikos & Mystara courtesy of Thorf.uk.  

The Dungeon Map Key from Mentzer Basic.

New classes modified from the AD&D 2nd ed CDROM 2.0 DOC file printouts of Bard, Druid, Paladin, and Ranger.

Printed out from Rules Cyclopedia Mystic class.

The New Armor and Weapons page from Companion.

The Druid spells from Rules Cyclopedia.

The Mass Combat & Dominion/Stronghold chapters from the RC.

A buttload of character sheets.

The PDF printed out versions (Thanks for getting rid of something GOOD WOTC.) of B1, B3, B9, and the Judge's Guild module "Glory Hole Dwarven Mine".  Because the name is just WRONG by modern terms, meaning its the bad joke that KEEPS ON GIVING.

A bunch of graph & lined paper.

I could also slip in my copy of X1 into the back sleeve if I wanted to.

Its like a "Bug Out Bag" except for RPG fun as opposed to essentials you need in a major emergency where you need to leave your home for an extended period.

Some very interesting posts from T. Foster.  :hatsoff:

Even though I started with Holmes, Moldvay has always been my favourite of the three versions.  The text is the most straightforward (although Mentzer is better for absolute beginners, Moldvay is more useful in actual play).  Also, I like the level range covered by Moldvay/Cook D&D (levels 1-14).  The 1-36 level range covered by BECM/RC always struck me as too much (and required introducing clumsy devices like 'attack ranks' for non-human classes).  I prefer an 'endgame' of setting up a stronghold and becoming a ruler (as per the Cook Expert rules) over the 'endgame' of BECM/RC (becoming an immortal).  Thieves' abilities max out at level 14 in Cook, whereas they are stretched out in Mentzer (yes, Mentzer made thieves suck even more).  Finally, I think that the art in Moldvay/Cook is the best.  I love the Otus covers, which convey a kind of 'weird fantasy' ethos.  The interior art is also, for the most part, top-notch.  (I did like much of the interior art for the Holmes set as well, given that Trampier is tied with Otus as my all-time favourite D&D artist.  I also love the Tom Wham stuff.  However, the Sutherland cover never really appealed to me.  As for Mentzer, I never liked Elmore or Easley.)

FWIW, since I didn't actually mention it in my previous posts, I like the Mentzer Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert Sets best because those are the ones I started with and have setimental attachment to (whereas my best friend had the opposite -- a Moldvay Basic and Mentzer Expert Set -- clearly I won and he lost, though I'm sure he felt just the opposite ). I also like the Holmes set because of its art (Tramp + DCS + Wham = my holy trinity of D&D art) and because IMO it's the only Basic Set that maintains the DIY spirit of the original. The later iterations are a little too buttoned-down and polished for my taste -- they work so well and smoothly as-written that I don't feel the same implicit invitation to muck around with them.

Which is to say that with the original set and Holmes set (and 1E AD&D to an extent) the rules are so obviously just cobbled-together collections of whatever seemed like good ideas at the time (with occasional post-hoc handwaving justifications) that it feels like a completely natural progression for the individual GM to continue adding to and modifying them in his own image -- these aren't rules, they're just collected examples and suggestions. Conversely, the Moldvay/Mentzer/RC versions feel more like a well-oiled machine, a complete game, and that you shouldn't try to fix something that ain't broke. This is, of course, what you want for a casual mass-market game, but feels staid and hollow to my hardcore hobbyist self (which is, I suppose, a testament to the importance of presentation since OD&D and the B/E sets are about 95% identical ruleswise, but reading the former I feel like it's saying "this is a starting point for you to create your own fantasy campaign," and reading the latter I feel like it's saying "this is the complete game for you to start playing").

While Moldvay or Mentzer would probably be my choice to introduce the game to a kid or to show a non-gamer friend what it's all about (though I might go with Holmes, especially for an adult), I couldn't see myself ever running (or even playing in) an actual long-term campaign of them; for that I'll always go with OD&D or AD&D (depending on how much Gygax Flavor I want).