tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post4788065909194644790..comments2024-02-16T22:05:32.773+02:00Comments on LotFP: RPG: Holmes D&D - An OverviewJimLotFPhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-1841351550923723352023-04-08T18:43:30.496+03:002023-04-08T18:43:30.496+03:00ทางเข้าslot joker123 สามารถ เข้า ต้องการลงทะเบียนเ...ทางเข้าslot joker123 สามารถ เข้า ต้องการลงทะเบียนเป็นสมาชิก PG SLOT ตอนไหนก็ได้ สมัครได้เลย การลงทะเบียนสมัครสมาชิกแบบไม่จำกัดเวลา สล็อต ทำให้บรรดานักเล่นการพนันเยอะมาก Gaming<a href="https://pg-slot.game/">ninja slot</a>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07153802534085428011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-28212430395034867282023-04-07T14:39:19.715+03:002023-04-07T14:39:19.715+03:00ทาง เข้าxo ปากทางเข้าเล่นใหม่ xoslotz อัพเดทใหม่ปั...ทาง เข้าxo ปากทางเข้าเล่นใหม่ xoslotz อัพเดทใหม่ปัจจุบันปี 2022 วิถีทางการเข้าเล่นตรง สามารถล็อกอินเข้าใช้งานได้เลยจากที่นี่ โดยเป็นลิ้งค์ pg slot ปัจจุบันที่พวกเราอัพเดท<a href="https://pg-slot.game/">สล็อตเว็บตรง</a>https://www.blogger.com/profile/06452575696285250582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-206797176287346962010-12-28T08:10:21.420+02:002010-12-28T08:10:21.420+02:00Discovered this GREAT article more than TWO years ...Discovered this GREAT article more than TWO years after you posted it ; - ()<br /><br />Only, one point of correction -<br />(speaking with authority, I am a neurologist)<br />and referencing the esteemed Stanford Professor, <br />NeuroBiologist Robert Sapolsky;<br />the human brain does NOT develop completely by age 12.<br /><br />Myelination or wiring of the language areas (temporal lobe)<br />is usually complete by adolescence; however, <br />the hippocampus and frontal lobes <br />(memory, impulse control, organization, planning)<br />is NOT often completed until the mid-twenties.<br /><br />This explains why 18 year olds make such <br />willing soldiers and/or ‘porn stars.’<br />They cannot appreciate their mortality and/or the long term consequences of their behavior.Clovis Cithoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208194219083373456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-86530147035978450332010-12-28T08:06:02.455+02:002010-12-28T08:06:02.455+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Clovis Cithoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18208194219083373456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-33195121258943223382009-01-05T19:56:00.000+02:002009-01-05T19:56:00.000+02:00It’s really interesting to me how Holmes’ article ...It’s really interesting to me how Holmes’ article in Dragon 52 reveals that he wasn’t only trying to create an introduction to the game, but wanted to make changes as well.<BR/><BR/>Despite Gary putting his foot down about some things, I think this shows that TSR never really considered any rules canonical. At least until AD&D came along, and still only partially. It was OK for oD&D, the Basic Set, and AD&D to all be slightly different variations on the same theme.<BR/><BR/>I thought it was kind of cool that when I recently ran a classic D&D campaign the group broke down this way: One guy had started with an experienced D&D/AD&D group (essentially no Basic Set). One guy started with Holmes. I had started with Moldvay. And the gal in the group had started with Mentzer. We had the whole gamut covered. ^_^Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16733274876782876659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-87278150656461917612008-12-16T03:59:00.000+02:002008-12-16T03:59:00.000+02:00RPGA and all the various "living" campaigns.Person...<B>RPGA and all the various "living" campaigns.</B><BR/><BR/>Personally, I found Living Greyhawk to be about the least magical universe I've ever gamed in.Jeff Rientshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-74053459998913278912008-12-14T00:23:00.000+02:002008-12-14T00:23:00.000+02:00"the characters can move from dungeon to dungeon w..."the characters can move from dungeon to dungeon within the same magical universe if game referees are approximately the same in their handling of play.<BR/><BR/><BR/>A blast from the past. Who does this these days?"<BR/><BR/>RPGA and all the various "living" campaigns.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Jeff+Key%22+rpg<BR/><BR/>http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Alan+Lucien%22+rpgNorman J. Harman Jr.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01319655075997712313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-91786852988750151902008-12-12T17:51:00.000+02:002008-12-12T17:51:00.000+02:00Which indicates to me that Gary was making editori...<I>Which indicates to me that Gary was making editorial decisions over and above those of the editor himself - Holmes. <BR/><BR/>Hope this helps.</I><BR/><BR/>Very interesting, thanks! The bit about wanting to use spell points gave me a particular chuckle!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-66442837713663760692008-12-12T17:42:00.000+02:002008-12-12T17:42:00.000+02:00I came in with Moldvay, but have a distinct memory...I came in with Moldvay, but have a distinct memory of an overnight trip to visit some friends of my parents. They had a college-aged kid. They told my brother and I that he had some D&D stuff in his closet that we could look at. We dug through it and found all kinds of stuff like the Holmes set and a version of B2 which had a +1 flaming sword (I can't remember now where that was, but it wasn't in our version). I think he also had the giants modules, plus some of the other monochrome cover modules. Back then, one of the best things about D&D was that it really felt like it was something "out there" that you were discovering. This guy's closet was like finding a secret door with a treasure chest inside.<BR/><BR/>Alan Lucien, by the way, is credited in Tomb of Horrors, as well. There are accounts that he created the original version of the module, which Gary adapted:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=412349&page=3" REL="nofollow">link</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-77920189396399874202008-12-12T06:18:00.000+02:002008-12-12T06:18:00.000+02:00Great run down, James. After months of hunting for...Great run down, James. After months of hunting for my old Holmes box, I gave up and assumed it was lost forever. Bought a spiffy copy on ebay and have been loving life ever since. I never appreciated it then the way I do now, jonesing so badly on AD&D the way I did as a teenager. Thanks for posting this. It's funny you noticed that Thieves do not actually Detect Traps in Holmes. I noticed that this is the case in Greyhawk as well, and I have been seriously rethinking my stance on the class (I still don't like a lot of the conventions introduced, but Detect Traps is the big turn-off for my sensibilities).Sham aka Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14329116400656617173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-59990413146514588892008-12-12T00:52:00.000+02:002008-12-12T00:52:00.000+02:00Forget the firkin' ding blast DM! As a player und...Forget the firkin' ding blast DM! As a player under Holmes if I had Strength cast on me I'd be trying all sorts of stuff: pulling columns down on Philistines, cracking open stone statues in case there's candy inside, parting the rocks of Gibraltar, crushing coal into diamonds, using telephone poles as melee weapons, etc.Jeff Rientshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-263377333320282422008-12-11T23:30:00.000+02:002008-12-11T23:30:00.000+02:00There are no bonuses to strength (except XP for Fi...<I>There are no bonuses to strength (except XP for Fighters...) in Holmes, so this spell is useless.</I><BR/><BR/>Only as useless as the DM, just means he actually has to think and come up with something. There are a few clues to help elsewhere in the book:<BR/><BR/>- <I>a character...with a strength of 3...would barely be able to lift his sword off the ground</I><BR/><BR/>- <I>...half his normal strength. Weakness is reflected in defense, attack, and carrying ability</I> (Ring of Weakness)<BR/><BR/>- <I>Creatures who lose strength will do 25% less damage than is indicated, per 4 points of strength lost</I> (Ray of Enfeeblement)<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it's tough I know, but the DM actually has to make stuff up. They did that back then. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-72552515911113207692008-12-11T18:16:00.000+02:002008-12-11T18:16:00.000+02:00>>There are no bonuses to strength (except X...>>There are no bonuses to strength (except XP for Fighters...) in Holmes, so this spell is useless.<BR/><BR/>I don't do this often, but...<BR/><BR/>LOL.<BR/><BR/>That is indeed an excellent point. :DJimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-64056414685760333642008-12-11T18:14:00.000+02:002008-12-11T18:14:00.000+02:00Strength... This spell increases a fighter’s stren...<I> Strength... This spell increases a fighter’s strength by 2 – 8 points, a thief’s by 1 – 6 points, or a cleric’s by 1 – 4.<BR/><BR/>F-U M-U.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>And not only F-U to the M-U for his strength, but even for taking this spell. There are no bonuses to strength (except XP for Fighters...) in Holmes, so this spell is useless.Will Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06379173017869751088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-41204281990533593602008-12-10T23:42:00.000+02:002008-12-10T23:42:00.000+02:00Matthew James Stanham said... I do not believe tha...<B>Matthew James Stanham said...</B> <BR/><BR/><I>I do not believe that Gygax's ideas about AD&D were fixed strongly enough in 1977 for Holmes to have to "slip" ideas past him. Certainly, if he was adding in substantial references to AD&D, he must have given the manuscript more than a cursory edit.<BR/><BR/>Anybody have a link to a more detailed discussion of events?</I><BR/><BR/>Holmes' article <I>Basic D&D points of view</I> in <B>Dragon #52</B> makes for interesting reading on the subject. He said:<BR/><BR/><I>When I edited the rules prior to the first edition of the D&D Basic Set, it was to help the thousands (now millions) of people who wanted to play the game and didn’t know how to get started. Gary Gygax acknowledged that some sort of beginner’s book was badly needed, and he encouraged me to go ahead with it....<BR/><BR/>I struggled very hard to make all these things clear to the readers of the first Basic Rules and yet retain the flavor and excitement of the original rules. I even used the words of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Collectors Edition (the original books) whenever possible. I had disagreements with Gary over some items (I wanted to use a spell point system, for instance), but we kept the rules as close as possible to the original intent.</I><BR/><BR/>And on the subject of Alignment he wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>The first Basic Set had one of those diagrams which said that blink dogs were lawful good and brass dragons were chaotic good. I never felt that this was particularly helpful. I am sure Gary Gygax has an idea in his mind of what chaotic good (or other “obscure” alignments, etc.) may be, but it certainly isn’t clear to me.</I><BR/><BR/>Which indicates to me that Gary was making editorial decisions over and above those of the editor himself - Holmes. <BR/><BR/>Hope this helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-17316939429332900632008-12-10T22:38:00.000+02:002008-12-10T22:38:00.000+02:00I started with Moldvay, and to this day have never...I started with Moldvay, and to this day have never even seen a copy of Holmes. Great rundown and commmentary, Jim. I'll have to pick up an ebay copy someday.SirAllenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11106665195318475302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-53821394962067532312008-12-10T19:25:00.000+02:002008-12-10T19:25:00.000+02:00Thanks for this. I wasn't even aware of the Holmes...Thanks for this. I wasn't even aware of the Holmes edition until I got plugged in to the old school community online. Nice to get a nickel tour. :)<BR/><BR/>I like the use of term "gamesters". Too bad that never caught on.<BR/><BR/><I>Too bad D&D never embraced the "a class for every ability score as prime requisite." Are Constitution and Charisma really that difficult to find archetypes for?</I><BR/><BR/>Now you got me thinking. Hmmm, how 'bout this:<BR/><BR/>STR: Fighter<BR/>INT: M-U<BR/>WIS: Cleric<BR/>DEX: Halfling<BR/>CON: Dwarf<BR/>CHA: ElfDavid Larkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04133630988557116729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-55963953592980733802008-12-10T18:42:00.000+02:002008-12-10T18:42:00.000+02:00Whilst I can appreciate the possibility that the H...Whilst I can appreciate the possibility that the Homes edit of D&D was not originally intended as a lead in to AD&D, I am not sure I entirely buy into it as a reasonable interpretation of the finished text. It sounds somewhat at odds with Kask's version of events, and I do not believe that Gygax's ideas about AD&D were fixed strongly enough in 1977 for Holmes to have to "slip" ideas past him. Certainly, if he was adding in substantial references to AD&D, he must have given the manuscript more than a cursory edit.<BR/><BR/>Anybody have a link to a more detailed discussion of events?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-30552611388618021282008-12-10T17:31:00.000+02:002008-12-10T17:31:00.000+02:00Holmes is awesome (I was introduced to D&D thr...Holmes is awesome (I was introduced to D&D through Holmes). For monster DEX scores, I simply take their movement rate as their DEX score:6, 9, 12, 15, etc. This makes fast monsters attack firstJohnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08362851153913826825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-25047065850689359062008-12-10T16:58:00.000+02:002008-12-10T16:58:00.000+02:00Great ramble through the rules! I remember being a...Great ramble through the rules! I remember being a kid with Holmes, thumbing through it over and over. I was just overwhelmed at 13/14 years old of how *cool* it was that you could play a wizard or knight.<BR/><BR/>My copy of Holmes says "3rd Edition, December 1979" and it does say in the Monsters section:<BR/><BR/>"Monster List - Bandit to Zombie<BR/>(italicized) Monsters' hit dice are 8-sided"Michael S/Chgowizhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02052820400496340137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-26499172938192304632008-12-10T15:13:00.000+02:002008-12-10T15:13:00.000+02:00Witches were a whimsy of Holmes (and a popular top...Witches were a whimsy of Holmes (and a popular topic of articles in <I>The Dragon</I> at the time) rather than an indication of a "path not taken" for the MU. There's a post by Gary somewhere I can't find at the moment, where he makes this clear. Holmes slipped many things in his rules set passed Gygax, who was too busy with <I>AD&D</I> to give the Basic Set more than a cursory "edit." If you find inexplicable divergences in Holmes, odds are they're decisions by Holmes himself rather than an indications early ideas later abandoned for <I>D&D</I>.<BR/><BR/>FWIW, monks were already a sub-class of clerics in OD&D, as described in <I>Blackmoor</I>.<BR/><BR/>Great post. Holmes was my first rules set and I still retain much fondness for it.James Maliszewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-82669336523255893522008-12-10T07:06:00.000+02:002008-12-10T07:06:00.000+02:00Great post about my favourite edition of the game....Great post about my favourite edition of the game. I think you've fallen for one of the great misconceptions about Holmes though:<BR/><BR/>"<I>Holmes was intended to be a lead-in to AD&D</I>"<BR/><BR/>The original reason for the Holmes edit had nothing to do with AD&D at all. It was simply a beginner's intro to D&D. In December 1977, Gary said:<BR/><BR/>"<I>we determined to revise the whole of D&D in order to clean up the errors and fill in the holes</I>"<BR/><BR/>In May 1978, Gary then said:<BR/><BR/>"<I>Before the third supplement (ELDRITCH WIZARDRY) was in print, it had been decided that some major steps would have to be taken to unify and clarify the D&D game system. ...Organizational work was in progress when correspondence with J. Eric<BR/>Holmes...disclosed that the Good Doctor was interested in undertaking....the rewriting and editing necessary to extract a beginner’s set of D&D from the basic set and its supplements. The result of his labors is the “Basic Set” of D&D.</I><BR/><BR/>Finally, Holmes himself said the following in August 1981:<BR/><BR/>"<I>the D&D Basic Rulebook is written for people who have never seen a game. It is intended to teach the game to someone who’s coming to it for the first time.</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently Gary later said on a forum that he edited in all the AD&D references (for marketing reasons no doubt). <BR/><BR/>Also, I can't agree with you about the elf hit dice, but like many things in Holmes, it's so vague and contradictory, I don't think there will ever be a consensus on the issue. Personally I think Holmes took the race = class of <I>Men & Magic</I> and simplified it in the case of elves, which is why they "a six-sided die for hits". <BR/><BR/>It's great to read someone else's view of the game you love and their discovery of the edition's unique flavour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-55693537548136994882008-12-10T03:27:00.000+02:002008-12-10T03:27:00.000+02:00I am pretty sure the reason fighters are mentioned...I am pretty sure the reason fighters are mentioned as getting better in combat at fourth level is because they are the only class to do so at that level in OD&D, rather than because they are the only class to advance in combat ability.<BR/><BR/>You missed one of my favourite bits from Holmes:<BR/><BR/>"You are sure to encounter situations not covered by these rules. Improvise. Agree on a probability that an event will occur and convert it into a die roll - roll the number and see what happens! The game is intended to be fun and the rules modified if the players desire. Do not hesitate to invent, create, and experiment with new ideas. Imagination is the key to a good game. Enjoy!"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05646247954542936623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-60380964370250204752008-12-10T03:18:00.000+02:002008-12-10T03:18:00.000+02:00I think I may have a 1st edition Holmes copy here....I think I may have a 1st edition Holmes copy here. The monster section is shorter than most people mention... no spiders, ants, centipedes, etc. Definitely no line explaining hit dice right before the Bandit entry.JimLotFPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02992397707040836366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6670029344758253148.post-40381883542239857962008-12-10T01:36:00.000+02:002008-12-10T01:36:00.000+02:00James, I love Holmes! One of these days I'm go...James, I love Holmes! One of these days I'm going to Judge a D&D campaign in which Holmes is the ONLY rulebook, and all PCs and NPCs have level caps of 3.<BR/><BR/>Look at the line right before the entry for "Bandit" in the monster roster. It says: "Monsters' hit dice are 8-sided." :D<BR/><BR/>You are right about two-handed weapons getting only 1 attack every other round being an editorial error. James Mishler told me so, and that it is a case of the influence of weapon speed factors surreptitiously creeping into Holmes.<BR/><BR/>For monsters' DEX scores, just roll 3d6 on the spot. :)<BR/><BR/>I like the Holmes rules better than any other version of the A/D&D rules. It wouldn't work for Carcosa, though, since Carcosa practically begs for high-level play.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com