D&D Family Tree by Mr Reaper on DF. What I like is that he listened to our feedback and has Holmes at the nexus between OD&D, AD&D and B/X. Bonus points for using pale blue for the 'bluebook'.
Read the entire thread starting here: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=72062
I think Black Wyvern's post in the same thread sums up Holmes Basic's place in the family tree pretty well. Took me a while back when I got into the OSR years back to wrap my head around the differences between OD&D, Holmes, AD&D, B/X and BECMI:
ReplyDelete"Holmes has almost nothing in common with B/X, BECMI, or the RC and its spin off beginner sets. Its original and published purpose, rules, and target audience differ completely. Just because DF has artificially lumped the systems together doesn't indicate a correct or even wise choice. Holmes is much more closely related to OD&D than the Dungeons & Dragon sets that followed.
Classic is an artificial term created by gamers after the fact to differentiate games that all had the same name. Discussing those widely differing rules under the same heading is what causes this conversation to pop up time and again.
B/X Dungeons & Dragons while possessing the same nomenclature as earlier editions has far less in common with them than it does with the editions of Dungeons & Dragons out to the RC, which are probably 95+% compatible in their mutual content. Just because a game has the same name doesn't indicate congruency. Holmes is probably less than 50% aligned with B/X to RC rules sets. In its published form it states, though not by the authors design, that players should seek out AD&D to continue on. The entries in the Cook/Marsh Expert set allows for backward compatibility.
Basically it says in order to use the X set to expand your game use the charts on page X2, which includes, ability score adjustments, missile fire ranges, encumbrance and movement. In addition use the character advancement tables, to hit tables, save tables, treasure generation tables, alignment rules. Equipment, variable weapon damage, spell lists, time scale and movement, xp awards, initiative rules, reaction and morale are all reproduced thoroughly enough for the Holmes player to run a close semblance of a game of B/X. He just has to ignore most of the Holmes rules."
It seems to me that there are also plenty of differences between B/X and BECMI. I cannot point to a comprehensive article, but Frank certainly "nerfed" plenty of things compared to B/X: saving throws, spell progressions, thief skills are just three that I seem to recall. Here are two posts I wrote that partially cover this: http://nilisnotnull.blogspot.com/2014/04/wizard-spell-progressions-compared.html http://nilisnotnull.blogspot.com/2014/05/saving-throws-in-mentzer-expert-set.html As I say at the end of the latter post, I don't know how there could ever have been a consistent "power level" between these. So whenever you use a B or X series module, it's going to mean subtly different things numerically depending on what version of "basic D&D" you play it with.
ReplyDeleteThis may seem strange since I am such a Holmes Basic booster, but I fall in the other camp that thinks that all old-school D&D up through 2E is essentially the same and highly compatible. A DM can take most any module for any edition of the game through that point and just run it as-is with little change. Also, Back Wyvern's analysis undervalues the contribution that Holmes' rules made to the Basic line. Moldvay incorporated many ideas from the Holmes rules that weren't in OD&D, the most major of course being using levels 1-3 for "Basic". But there are lots of rules from Holmes that Moldvay incorporated. One I noticed recently is the rules for natural healing (1-3 hp/per day), which Holmes added and Moldvay kept.
ReplyDeleteZach H I think that both views are correct. Just comparing numbers it's obviously the case that probabilities for whatever players and monsters do change quite a bit between various versions of D&D. But that doesn't mean that players cannot enjoy a module that was designed for different probabilities. This is not a video game after all, we always have the DM as a (presumably kind) moderator trying to keep things roughly fun. So that often-maligned "DM fiat" can "even out" a lot of the numerical differences, still giving everybody a fun game. Also players have a wider range of options. In a video game after the thief fails to open a door you might be stuck. But for us, the players can just come up with another way of doing things, maybe something completely unexpected. I am often too much of a "system zealot" aiming for numerical perfection, but I also know that in the end there's a lot of "self-correcting" stuff in an actual D&D game.
ReplyDeleteI like Reaper's tree, but I put Holmes squarely at the T-intersection of the game. It's basically OD&D for levels 1-3 with minor enhancements, and splits into AD&D on the one side, and B/X on the other.
ReplyDeleteYou can therefore trace either AD&D or B/X back to OD&D through Holmes. Understanding Holmes brings insights into all aspects of the game. It's the nexus.
Demos Sachlas I don't think that Gygax was influenced very much by Holmes in writing AD&D. Is there evidence for that anywhere in the AD&D rules?
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth is D&D Classic 1994?
ReplyDeleteMike Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_Game_%281991_boxed_set%29
ReplyDeleteIsn't that the "Black Box"?
ReplyDeleteI would propably have the "Greyhawk" supplement figuring somewhere between OD&D and Holmes, and the "Blackmoor" Supplement between OD&D and AD&D.
ReplyDeleteMike Hill Try this page, there is a link to a cover pic of the 1994/1996 sets (IIRC, the same with different covers):
ReplyDeletehttp://zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/2011/11/35-years-of-d-basic-sets.html