Holmes Basic wasn't really meant to be a whole system, just an intro. to AD&D.

There are a number of Holmes Companions about the net that extend the rules from Holmes past level 3.  Here is a link to the most famous of them (which goes to level 9), though I think a look on Dragonsfoot.com would likely turn up some other options for Holmes.

http://www.philotomy.com/holmes.html

I suppose it comes down to style of play. One application is for campaigns that vary considerably from the Greyhawk-ish default, in which case damage by weapon, & higher level spells, are often quite unlike the PHB.

Another is the way most of my games have gone in the past decade. In the '80s when I was in school, most of the groups I played with would begin with PCs at a certain level (everybody creates a 7th level character, for instance). For that you need the whole PHB.

In the past 15 years or so, the groups tend to start at 1st level, then when the adventure is concluded we start all over with new 1st-level characters. This might be because we're older now, so adolescent power fantasies are less appealing.

So are complex rules systems. The idea of creating a world in simulacrum is an interesting mental exercise with applications in computer programming, but a real-life D&D game rarely uses all that stuff. The DM has to constantly over-rule the dice & charts, in order to keep the game moving. After more than 30 years, I know what I need vs. what I don't - the path to enlightenment has come full circle.

Lastly, Holmes is the best-made incarnation of the game. It truly follows the goal of instructional/technical writing, to express complexity in an efficient, understandable way.

Wow, I didn't expect this 5th edition thread to drift over to a discussion of the merits of Holmes...but I like it.

You can read my summary of historic/modern expansions of Holmes here:
http://zenopusarchives.blogspot.com/201 ... -play.html

I started with Holmes Basic but soon moved onto AD&D (~1982). However, I've come to realize that I was really playing an expanded version of Holmes, since we never used weapon speed factor or AC adjustments, ability score minimums or race/class limitations, dual classing, spell components, complex initiative - the rules that distinguish AD&D over OD&D (which I didn't see until I got a White Box around '88 or so). Holmes was good for showing me that you didn't need so many rules to play D&D. Of course, these days I play in an AD&D game that does use some of these rules, and that's fine too.

Having played with a hodgepodge of rules before I ever saw the Holmes set left me with the impression that the  Holmes ed. was not a very sophisticated game.

At the time I wanted a "war-game", not a commercial game like Monopoly.

Plus I'd seen -- but didn't own -- all the digest size supplements and their complex and mystifying tables and charts.  I wanted more, but what I felt like I got was less.

But hey, I was a teenager.

My advice for 5e is to reprint 1e in a single volume, maybe with some updated art. IMHO.

sauromatian wrote:
It suffers the curse of any classic which takes the world by storm - everything that follows is a diminishing shadow, like what Carrie Fisher said that same year about her own efforts: "there's nowhere to go from here but down."

Holmes took the world by storm? That was AD&D.

clangador wrote:
Holmes took the world by storm? That was AD&D.

Not sure why you are so adamant to dismiss Holmes, but both Holmes and AD&D took the world by storm during the 1977-1980 timeframe.  Holmes was on its third printing by the time the PHB was released, and ultimately had 7 printings before being superceded by the Moldvay/Cook version of D&D.

I'm a Moldvay guy myself.  That was definitely my gateway drug.  

I've never even seen a copy of the Holmes version.  I'd love to get hold of one someday to check it out.  Always been curious to see the difference.

When 3E arrived, my group had been playing AD&D for about 20 years. We were ready to give the new edition a try, since we had created our own skill system and other house rules that were kind of a crude 3E. 3E just worked for us (and 3.5 currently serves us even better).

When 4E rolled out, I bought the core books and convinced the gang to give it a try. Epic fail. To us, it seemed slow, cumbersome, and not a whole lot of fun. Back to 3.5, boys!

When 5E shows up, I will most likely buy the PH or core books and give them a good read. I won't dismiss a new system until I've actually held the book in my hand and had time to put eyeballs on the print. If WoTC wants me and my buddies to make the switch to 5E, they had better be damn sure it's all that and a bag of chips. We have been playing for 30 years now, and felt the sting of 4E, so 5E is going to have to be REALLY special for us to even consider it.