SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Moldvay, Mentzer, Holmes: What's the Real Difference?

Started by Joethelawyer, February 06, 2010, 02:39:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

Joethelawyer

February 06, 2010, 02:39:19 AM
I had the Mentzer Red Box, and went from that to AD&D.  Somehow or another I over the years I managed to acquire the 64 page Moldvay Basic Rulebook, though I never used it, just read through it briefly.  I've never seen Holmes.

So other than the art, which i meaningless to me as far as liking a rulebook, what sets these 3 rulesets apart from one another in some meaningful substantial way?
~Joe
Chaotic Lawyer and Shit-Stirrer

JRients:   "Joe the Lawyer is a known shit-stirrer. He stirred the shit. He got banned. Asking what he did to stir the shit introduces unnecessary complication to the scenario, therefore he was banned for stirring the shit."


Now Blogging at http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/


Erik Mona: "Woah. Surely you\'re not _that_ Joe!"

Kellri

#1
February 06, 2010, 03:36:50 AM
Not much. Holmes Basic could be considered an after-the-fact intro to OD&D, while the other two are designed as intros for the later D&D game. In most cases, folks have a fondness for whichever of these boxed sets they started out with, and the differences are easily reconciled in a later retro-clone like Labyrinth Lord for instance.
Kellri\'s Joint
Old School netbooks + more

You can also come up with something that is not only original and creative and artistic, but also maybe even decent, or moral if I can use words like that, or something that\'s like basically good -Lester Bangs

ggroy

#2
February 06, 2010, 04:09:38 AM
In Holmes, initiative in combat is done by dexterity order where highest dexterity goes first.

Moldvay and Mentzer does group initiative.

mhensley

#3
February 06, 2010, 06:45:44 AM
The Holmes rules are far more OD&D based- all weapons do d6 damage, there's hardly any attribute bonuses, some spells are different (magic missiles roll to hit), etc.

Moldvay and Mentzer rules are almost the same but the Mentzer rules are written more towards an younger audience.

jrients

#4
February 06, 2010, 06:57:50 AM
Are you looking for a complete list of differences, Joe?

The mechanical differences between Moldvay Basic and Mentzer Basic are negligible.  The monster lists are different, so you could end up facing different foes.  Presentation-wise I have long felt that Mentzer is a better introductory manual but the tone speaks down to the reader a little more.

Holmes is different enough that the connoisseurs can find lots of little differences, but as a practical matter few of them make as big a difference as the initiative thing already mentioned.
Jeff Rients
My gameblog

thedungeondelver

#5
February 06, 2010, 10:29:58 AM
Quote from: Kellri;359391Not much. Holmes Basic could be considered an after-the-fact intro to OD&D,

I must respectfully disagree with the good senator from Cambodia!

Holmes Basic is a direct introduction to Advanced D&D - the rules mention time and again that for more information on given topics, AD&D should be where the player looks.

AD&D is the "Expert Set" for Holmes Basic (although the Expert rules for the Moldvay edition of B/E tell you how to use the "new" Expert rules with Holmes basic).

Holmes was intended as a bridge between OD&D and AD&D.

To the broader question of the original poster, Holmes Basic had the best art, Moldvay/Cook had the second best art.  The art in the Mentzer sets and the RC was just awful.
THE DELVERS DUNGEON


Mcbobbo sums it up nicely.

Quote
Astrophysicists are reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion l

Ronin

#6
February 06, 2010, 10:43:05 AM
Your dead on DD. Except for the art. Thats just a matter of taste. Because I feel the opposite. I Like the Elmore Cover. Course I also prefer the Sutherland, over Erol Otus. I will definitely agree though that the art inside the RC is pretty stinky.
Vive la mort, vive la guerre, vive le sacré mercenaire

Ronin\'s Fortress, my blog of RPG\'s, and stuff

Dirk Remmecke

#7
February 06, 2010, 05:19:41 PM
Quote from: Joethelawyer;359387So other than the art, which i meaningless to me as far as liking a rulebook, what sets these 3 rulesets apart from one another in some meaningful substantial way?

Mark Bertenshaw's D&D Review Guide
Swords & Wizardry & Manga ... oh my.
(Beware. This is a Kickstarter link.)

Philotomy Jurament

#8
February 06, 2010, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: thedungeondelver;359417I must respectfully disagree with the good senator from Cambodia!...Holmes was intended as a bridge between OD&D and AD&D.
The Holmes text definitely aims the reader at AD&D, but my understanding is that those references were added by Gygax after the initial drafts were completed.  And Holmes definitely worked from the OD&D texts as his source.

Looking at the text and the Holmes rules, I think Holmes is OD&D rules with a few variations, here and there.  Playing Holmes is more like playing OD&D with a few house rules than like playing AD&D, or even B/X.
The problem is not that power corrupts, but that the corruptible are irresistibly drawn to the pursuit of power. Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito.

ggroy

#9
February 06, 2010, 05:41:05 PM
In the past I've played some one shot games using the Holmes basic D&D book, where we didn't bother rolling for the character ability stats.  With a few minor changes, such as using a group initiative, Holmes D&D was actually completely playable without any character ability stats.

Casey777

#10
February 06, 2010, 05:47:31 PM
The monster selection in Holmes includes a great overall selection including monsters that are much higher than 3 hit dice. That makes it easy to play up to more levels using a few pages of expanded charts (such as Meepo's pdf) and is a very compact D&D in one book. Note this is where I started playing D&D so I am biased. :pundit: I managed to get past not being able to play a Halfling Thief my first session and kept on playing. ;)

There was a page in Expert for those who went from Holmes Basic to Expert. It's mainly name changes and "use these stats in this book instead".

Mentzer is written more in the manner of regular games, step 1-10, do this, here's that, take this out of the box now, etc..

ggroy

#11
February 06, 2010, 05:55:11 PM
In Holmes D&D there was also a rule for parrying, which I don't recall offhand seeing in the 1E AD&D books.

Peregrin

#12
February 06, 2010, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: ggroy;359498In Holmes D&D there was also a rule for parrying, which I don't recall offhand seeing in the 1E AD&D books.

I think AD&D has parrying, it was just in the PHB, and never gets mentioned in the DMG.  At least, that's what I remember from my last read-through.
"In a way, the Lands of Dream are far more brutal than the worlds of most mainstream games. All of the games set there have a bittersweetness that I find much harder to take than the ridiculous adolescent posturing of so-called \'grittily realistic\' games. So maybe one reason I like them as a setting is because they are far more like the real world: colourful, crazy, full of strange creatures and people, eternal and yet changing, deeply beautiful and sometimes profoundly bitter."

ggroy

#13
February 06, 2010, 06:43:15 PM
Quote from: Peregrin;359503I think AD&D has parrying, it was just in the PHB, and never gets mentioned in the DMG.  At least, that's what I remember from my last read-through.

Back in the day, we didn't even bother using any parrying rules in our D&D/AD&D games.

Casey777

#14
February 06, 2010, 06:58:56 PM
Holmes has a more freeform approach, similar to OD&D. It has a bit on you can play anything including a witch, samurai or dragon. The other two increasingly locked that down to present a more set rules approach. Funny, cos Holmes was a bridge to AD&D which forbade playing monsters and in general was not for deviating from the presented rules.

tl;dr in Holmes this is a viable character option:


teh Lizards! I CAN SEE FOREVER!
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions