Ask me anything about Holmes Basic D&D (1977)

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Zenopus

Zenopus

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
81
Reaction score
255
Greetings, doomed wizard Zenopus here. I just posted hello over here.

Ask me anything about the original D&D Basic Set, edited by J. Eric Holmes from the original rules by Gygax and Arneson and released by TSR in July 1977. I will answer to the best of my arcane knowledge.
 
I've read a bit about Holmes Basic and its fans online. What is it you like about this particular edition? Is it just the rules as they are in the printed work or is it more what you've learned about Eric J. Holmes's approach to the game.
 
At the tail end of my dark ages I saw a copy in a charity shop and didn't buy it - argh! I've played BX OD&D and AD&D - which one thing I'm missing from not having Holmes do you think would persuade me to fork out and add it to my collection?
 
Séadna said:
I've read a bit about Holmes Basic and its fans online. What is it you like about this particular edition? Is it just the rules as they are in the printed work or is it more what you've learned about Eric J. Holmes's approach to the game.
Click to expand...

Great question! To some (many perhaps?) it seems a strange edition to call favorite, as it only covers three levels and asserts to be an introduction to an edition (AD&D 1e) that differs quite a bit in the details of the rules. It's a weird nexus of Original D&D, AD&D, the later Basic sets and certain bits of DIY California D&D. But us Holmes fans find this a feature as it spawns much discussion, and that creates community.

I'll also quote what I wrote when I started a Holmes Basic testimonial post back in 2012:

"Why do I like the Holmes Basic set? Well, it was my first D&D set, and left an indelible impression on my psyche. But I also like it because because it's a concise edit of the original D&D invention by an enthusiastic volunteer who was both a player of the game and long-time fan of fantasy literature. It's not necessarily perfect but has a strong vibe of "this game is awesome so I want to share it with as many folks as possible, so here's an introductory version"."

Personally I love the simplicity of the Original D&D rules for running games, and consider Holmes Basic to be his take on OD&D. I also greatly enjoy his take on initiative (simply in order of Dexterity), his pro-player scroll creation rules (can be made even at first level), his inclusion of high level monsters in a low level ruleset.
 
Last edited:
Silverlion said:
What's the best part of it you think?
Click to expand...

It's a bit weird because my absolute favorite part is Holmes' Sample Dungeon (the Zenopus dungeon), which strictly isn't even part of the rules (though there's much DM guidance baked into it). So much so that I've spent the last few months converting it to 5e so that a new generation can experience it!
 
Last edited:
Great idea for a thread, Zenopus!
JoeNuttall said:
At the tail end of my dark ages I saw a copy in a charity shop and didn't buy it - argh!
Click to expand...
Stevethulhu said:
My first D&D box set was Holmes. With dice chips and The Keep on the Borderlands. It got lent out, never to be seen again, sadly.
Click to expand...
It's not too late, there are plenty of Holmes booklets still floating about at reasonable prices. Boxes can be pricey, but there are still bargains from time to time.
 
JoeNuttall said:
At the tail end of my dark ages I saw a copy in a charity shop and didn't buy it - argh! I've played BX OD&D and AD&D - which one thing I'm missing from not having Holmes do you think would persuade me to fork out and add it to my collection?
Click to expand...

Well, as above the Sample Dungeon is a gem, though you can download it from the Wizards site in a free albeit poorly scanned pdf: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Basic_1977.pdf

But overall it's great reading for Holmes' enthusiasm, or as a clarifying doc for OD&D, or for mining for bits to make your own personal simple D&D, etc.
 
Last edited:
Holmes Basic was my starting set and I will always like it better than the later versions of basic because it has the alignment grid and the four races, four classes option range. Holmes was the basis for the first version of my Dark Passages neo-clone. It could use a little better attribute bonus setup. I actually like +1 / point over 15 but I'd apply it to damage and melee attcks for Strength. I'd also integrate variable damage by die type or a weapon verses armour table. Probably the damage dice because it's simpler.

Holmes was the basis for the first version of my Dark Passages neo-clone.
 
The Butcher said:
Your favorite piece of DMing advice from this volume?
Click to expand...

That's an easy one for me. It's the last paragraph of "Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art", Holmes' section of guidance to the new DM. You can actually see it in the PDF I linked above, it's on the same page as the start of the Sample Dungeon:

"A final word to the Dungeon Master from the authors. These rules are intended as guidelines. No two Dungeon Masters run their dungeons the same way, as anyone who has learned the game with one group and then transferred to another can easily attest. 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!"

So many quotable quotes there!
 
Did Holmes have the races as Classes that would come to define "Basic D&D" after the split? If so, how was that regarded by players at the time?
 
Vile said:
Great idea for a thread, Zenopus!
Click to expand...

Thanks, and feel free to jump in on answering anything too.

(Vile is author of the Holmes Basic retroclone Blueholme so he knows a thing or two about it as well ).

It's not too late, there are plenty of Holmes booklets still floating about at reasonable prices. Boxes can be pricey, but there are still bargains from time to time.
Click to expand...

That's very true, I found a used box with a rulebook (no module) at a FLGS just two years ago for a reasonable price, about $30. I had to rescue it.
 
TristramEvans said:
When did that start? With Mentzer?
Click to expand...
Depends on how you define it. If you define the various classes but only allow some classes for some races is that the same as race as class. Especially if you only define one class for a race.
 
Bunch said:
Depends on how you define it. If you define the various classes but only allow some classes for some races is that the same as race as class. Especially if you only define one class for a race.
Click to expand...

No, I mean literally "Elf", "Dwarf", etc. are classes
 
I only played Holmes briefly before getting the Mentzer Basic Set. Where would you suggest taking things after level 3? The booklet suggests going to AD&D, but that to me feels like a step in a different direction.
 
That's interesting: on p. 41 (of the PDF Zenopus linked to), Holmes says that the DM should have not only monster HP calculated ahead of time but attack rolls as well to keep the game zooming along.
 
Does Holmes BD&D exist in PDF?
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems like it's the only version of D&D that's not on DTRPG. (You've got your OD&D, B/X, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, 1E-5E, but not this version of BD&D).
 
I had an odd personal experience with Holmes. It was the first boxed set I ever played with. We'd already encountered OD&D but we only owned parts of the books as odd as that sounds. When the PHB came out we just integrated AD&D bits into Holmes.

Decades làter I found out a relative was a close friend of Holmes during the period he was writing it. He apparently played it regularly with his kids.
 
Zenopus said:
Thanks, and feel free to jump in on answering anything too.
Click to expand...
You don't have to ask me twice! :hehe:

The Butcher said:
Your favorite piece of DMing advice from this volume?
Click to expand...
Mine is on p.7: "At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be." - I have had black dragons, medusae, and intelligent gelatinous cubes at my table. And dreenoi, of course (Holmes's own highest-level PC was a dreenoi - he got to 4th level!).

TristramEvans said:
Did Holmes have the races as Classes that would come to define "Basic D&D" after the split?
Click to expand...
In a way, yes. Dwarves, elves, and halflings in Holmes are described pretty much as race-ass-class. Elves "can use all the weapons and armor of the fighting man, including all magical weapons, and can also cost spells like a magic-user." However, it does also say that there are special rules in AD&D for halflings, dwarves and elves who wish to be thieves.

K_Peterson said:
Does Holmes BD&D exist in PDF?
Click to expand...
Not legally, no. But you can join me in periodically bombarding WotC with requests to add it to their DM's Guild range! https://support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
 
ffilz said:
Not quite true, Cook/Marsh Expert does have a a section on how to use it with Holmes on p.X4.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. My B/X is buried in the garage in a plastic crate, so I can't check it easily. But I will!
 
Here you are Stevethulhu Stevethulhu. It mostly consists of replacing stuff from Holmes with 2nd Ed Basic (i.e. B/X):
X4.jpg
 
In case it’s not widely known, Holmes wrote an interesting article about his personal experiences with his group called “Confessions of a Dungeon Master.” It appeared in Psychology Today in 1980. I’ll refrain from linking, but it’s readily available through a google search.
 
Arminius said:
In case it’s not widely known, Holmes wrote an interesting article about his personal experiences with his group called “Confessions of a Dungeon Master.” It appeared in Psychology Today in 1980. I’ll refrain from linking, but it’s readily available through a google search.
Click to expand...

Yeah his description of his character's play is pretty hairy.
 
TristramEvans said:
Did Holmes have the races as Classes that would come to define "Basic D&D" after the split? If so, how was that regarded by players at the time?
Click to expand...

Fully-fledged "race as class" didn't come about until the second iteration of Basic (Moldvay) in 1981, but Holmes certainly appears to be an important point in its development even if it didn't quite get there.

The original 1974 rulebooks only allowed Dwarves and Hobbits (as they were called then) to be Fighters, and Elves could only be a combination of Fighter and Magic-user. In some ways, this is equivalent to "Race as Class", but the mindset is different. As soon as Greyhawk comes around the next year, Gygax adds a bunch more class options for these races. Hobbits can also be thieves. Dwarves can be fighter/thieves or (for NPCs only), clerics. Elves can be Thieves or F/MU/T or (again, NPC only) F/MU/C. Half-elves show up with various options. This is the road that leads to even more options in AD&D.

In the section on character classes, Holmes presents the classes and races in a way that does, at first glance, appear to be "race as class". Seven sections for character options are presented all in row, with the similar italicized headers: Fighting Men, Magic-Users, Clerics, Thieves, Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits (the first printing of Holmes still uses Hobbits). But looking more carefully, Holmes is actually still distinguishing race from class, and is careful to note that the races have more options than one will be covered in Basic: "all halflings and dwarves are members of the fighter class, unless they opt to be thieves. Elves are a combination of fighting man and magic-user, as described later" and "There are special rules for halflings, dwarves and elves who wish to be thieves — these are given in GREYHAWK" (Gygax changed "Greyhawk" to "AD&D" for the published rulebook). Essentially, Holmes has gone back to the options present in the 1974 rules, while still mention that other options are possible in the full ruleset.

From there it's pretty easy to imagine Moldvay looking at Holmes and saying, let's simplify this further and just make the demi-humans their own separate class.
 
Stevethulhu said:
I only played Holmes briefly before getting the Mentzer Basic Set. Where would you suggest taking things after level 3? The booklet suggests going to AD&D, but that to me feels like a step in a different direction.
Click to expand...

I use OD&D for expanding my Holmes games. It's what Holmes was consulting when he wrote up the rulebook. It's more compatible, particularly the HD for classes, AC, and the combat tables. My Holmes Ref sheets include tables that bridge between Holmes and OD&D:

Zenopus Archives - Holmes Ref - Reference Sheets for Holmes Basic Referees

HOLMES REF Reference Sheets for Holmes Basic Referees These are single-page sheets for use with Holmes Basic, perhaps in your own DIY DM screens. Each link takes you to a single page pdf for viewing or downloading. Generally, these are also suitable for use with OD&D or other OSR Games. Holmes
sites.google.com sites.google.com
 
Vargold said:
That's interesting: on p. 41 (of the PDF Zenopus linked to), Holmes says that the DM should have not only monster HP calculated ahead of time but attack rolls as well to keep the game zooming along.
Click to expand...

Good catch; I'm not sure if I've ever thought about what he was saying there. I just double-checked and the same language is in the manuscript that he wrote for the rulebook. It certainly sounds like he says to make the attack rolls in advance! This is why I love having fresh eyes look at the rulebook.

The exact language is: "The Dungeon Master should have all this completely mapped out, hit points and attack die rolls calculated and recorded, so that the game will proceed most rapidly at the exciting moments when the enemy is encountered".

In modern years I have heard of a technique where the DM makes a row of 50 (or more) d20 rolls and then checks them off as each monster attack (or save) is made. I wonder if this is what Holmes meant, or whether it was just some awkward language for having the monster hit die ready for use on the combat tables? I'll have to keep my eyes open going forward to see if there is anywhere else that Holmes mentions something like this.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like he may have been referring to the target numbers per AC.
 
That's certainly possible, but the combat tables have all of those target numbers, so you'd really just need to have the tables handy. Pre-THAC0, an attacker's target numbers were a string (e.g., AC 9 needs a 10, AC8 needs an 11, AC7 needs a 12, etc), so the table was generally what was used as it had all of the info handy in one place. "Calculating" (i.e., writing down) these numbers for each monster would be cumbersome unless a shorthand such as THAC0 was used, but that was a later development, first appearing in a TSR product in the Monster Table in the Dungeon Masters' Guide in the summer of 1979, two years after Holmes Basic was published.

There is an embryonic form of THAC0 that appears in the first Monster & Treasure Assortment called "Attack Level", which is the monster's score to hit AC9; essentially THAC9. Holmes could be referring to something like this, but the first M&TA came out in 1977, and Holmes finished the manuscript for Basic in early February 1977, so I'm not sure he had seen this at the time. Another possibility was that he was aware of an early form of THAC0 from an early zine (e.g., Alarums & Excursions, which he read) or California D&D variant.

Or perhaps he was just referring to having all modifiers ready, although there aren't too many standard modifiers to attack rolls in Basic. Really just magic items, as there's no Strength bonus to hit. Most monsters just use their HD to determine their to hit score; only a few get mods to this, e.g. Stirges get a +2 on their attack rolls that are made at 1 HD.
 
Last edited:
Cool thread! I started with the Holmes box set (the "chits" version) back around 1980 and still think fondly of it.

There isn't a lot of art in the Holmes basic rules. But I like what little there is, especially the Trampier pieces.

The Trampier illustration of the evil magic-user casting "Web" on p.16 is a favourite, as is the picture of the lizardman riding the lizard (with a tiny lizard on his helmet) on p.3 (not sure who did that one, but based on the style I think Sutherland?).

What are others' favourites?

The book is dedicated to "Jeff and Chris". I assume that these were Dr. Holmes's sons?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top