Zereth listened a moment at the entryway and then threw the great door shut.
"Hear anything?" asked Boinger.
"Yes, still behind us, whatever it is." He sat on the stone. "Why do we go through this?" he asked. "Is it greed or glory?"
"Some sages say we have a need to find death," suggested Boinger.
"Sometimes," said the elf, "I think that the gods do drive us for their own amusement."
-the end of chapter 2 of The Maze of Peril (1986) by J. Eric Holmes
Here Zereth seems to break the fourth wall with some insight into his own nature as a D&D character and the "gods" (us) that control the characters. Zereth and Boinger were two of Chris Holmes' first D&D characters in Dr. Holmes' campaign, circa 1975.
Showing posts with label Quotes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quotes. Show all posts
Friday, January 18, 2013
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Quote of the Week: Holmes on The Hobbit
"Literary inspiration for the worlds of the fantasy role-playing games comes from many sources. The fantasy worlds of Dungeons & Dragons and Chivalry & Sorcery are based on the myth and fairy tale. This field of literature is dominated by the work of one man in this century: J. R. R. Tolkien. Without the popularity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, fantasy role playing would not have found the wide public it now enjoys. Despite this, most fantasy games are closer to the wild, blood-thirsty worlds of Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, and L. Sprague de Camp ... As Dungeon Master, I have drawn extensively on the works of A. Merritt, Andre Norton, Clark Ashton Smith, Lord Dunsany, Edgard Rice Burroughs and H. Rider Haggard" - J. Eric Holmes, Fantasy Role-Playing Games, 1981, pg 46.
The animated Hobbit film premiered 35 years ago in November 1977, just about six months after the Basic Set was first released in June 1977. A big year that also saw the release of Star Wars in May, Tolkien's Silmarillion in September, and the first AD&D hardcover, the Monster Manual, in late December.
More Holmes on Tolkien.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Quote of the Week: Quasqueton Exterior
 |
| The watch tower of Quasqueton as depicted by David Sutherland; scan from Old School FRP |
"Far from the nearest settlement, away from traveled routes, and high upon a craggy hill, the new construction took shape. Carved out of the rock protrusion which crested the heavily forested hill, this mystical hideaway was well hidden, and its rumored existence was never common knowledge. Even less well known was its name, the Caverns of Quasqueton ... Vast amounts of rock were removed and tumbled off the rough cliffs into large piles now overgrown with vegetation. A single tower was constructed above ground for lookout purposes, even though there was little to see other than a hilly, forested wilderness for miles around" (pg 6; bolding added for emphasis)
"The Caverns of Quasqueton ... are hewn from a great rock outcropping at the crest of a large wooded hill. Winds buffet the hill continuously, blowing and whistling through the trees, vines, and other vegetation which blanket the prominence on all sides" (pg 7)
"A cave-like opening, somewhat obscured by vegetation, is noticeable at the end of a treacherous pathway which leads up to the craggy outcropping of black rock. By sweeping aside some of the vines and branches the opening becomes easily accessible to human-size explorers. The opening leads straight into the rock formation, with a 10'
wide corridor leading the way to a large wooden door ... " (pg 8)
-from B1 In Search of the Unknown, 1978 by Mike Carr
Notes: The image above is a great visual aid for players from the back cover of the original monochrome version of B1, which was included in some versions of the Basic Set. When the module was revised in 1981 for the Moldvay Basic set and reissued with a new brown-colored cover, this image was unfortunately not included.
(I'm starting this quote of the week feature to highlight some of my favorite passages from Holmes Basic & the writings of J. Eric Holmes)
Update: This image possibly shows the pathway/entrance to Quasqueton. See this post for an annotated image.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Holmes on Holmes Basic
A compilation of quotes from J. Eric Holmes regarding the creation of the first Basic Set:
From “Fantasy Life in a Game Without End”, by Beth Ann Krier, LA Times, 7/11/79 (pg H1):
"Holmes recalls reading all the way through the [OD&D] rules and still not knowing how to play the game. He first became angry and later offered to edit the rulebook. "Some like having D&D simplified. And there are others for whom it can never be too complicated" he says, adding that his revision attempted to preserve some of the Byzantine D&D flavor and didn't dare tamper with such beloved phrases as "loathsome trolls are tough and rubbery and have the ability to regenerate."
From "Basic D&D Points of View" by J. Eric Holmes, DRAGON #52, 8/81, pg 14 and 16-17:
"When Tactical Studies Rules published the first DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rule sets, the three little books in brown covers, they were intended to guide people who were already playing. As a guide to learning the game, they were incomprehensible ... 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. What I discovered is that the invention has four vital parts: the first is character generation ... the second part concerns magic ... third, a section on "the encounter" ... Finally, there needs to be a section of the rulebook intended for the DM ... [that] include guidelines for setting up and conducting adventures, usually with several examples. 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. D&D is, after all, a truly unique invention, probably as remarkable as the die, or the deck of cards, or the chessboard. The inventor’s vision needs to be respected."
"The first Basic Set rulebook contained some irritating typographical errors. Someone at TSR rewrote the wandering monster table and put in a number of creatures that were not in my list of monster descriptions. But most of the errors were corrected for the second printing."
"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."
"Organizing a Party, The Caller: I think this rule should have been thrown out. I put it into the first Basic Set because it was in the original invention. I have never seen a successful game where one of the players was elected caller and actually did all the talking to the DM. Usually everybody talks at once. The resulting confusion is much more lifelike; one can hear the characters dithering at the cross corridor as the monsters approach."
"I’m glad to see Moldvay included the dragons just as I did in the first edition. It seems almost silly to describe dragons in a book intended only for player characters up to the third level. On the other hand, think how disappointed you would be if you were an inexperienced player who bought a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game and found nothing about dragons inside!"
"I’m proud of the original Basic Set, and I like to think I did a good job of describing a great invention, the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, so that everyone could enjoy it. The nicest compliment I ever got for it was from a game-store manager who said, “That’s made a lot of people happy.”"
From Fantasy Role Playing Games by John Eric Holmes, November 1981:
"In 1974 I persuaded Gygax that the original D&D rules needed revision and that I was the person to rewrite them. He readily conceded that there was a need for a beginners' book and "if you want to try it, go ahead. I went through the original three rule books and the first two supplements, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, of which Greyhawk is the greatest help. Trying to use the original words of the two game creators as much as possible, I edited a slim (48 page) handbook for beginners in role playing, published by TSR in 1977 as Dungeons and Dragons and usually marketed as "the basic set"” (pg 68).
"The Basic Set of Dungeons & Dragons can be purchased as a rule book alone or as a boxed game with rule book, dungeon module, dice and miscellaneous playing aids. While limited, the game is complete in itself" (pg 80, caption for picture of Holmes Basic Set with rulebook, module B2 and chits).
"Most game stores no longer sell the original three little D&D booklets, so these need not be considered by the beginner. It was out of these booklets, plus the supplements that were issued every year, that I edited the Basic Set rulebook. This has been re-edited and reprinted and the version now sold has eliminated some of the inconsistencies and typographical errors that appeared in the first edition. The boxed set includes dice and a pre-written dungeon adventure. The dice are usable but so cheaply made that most gamers throw them away and buy another set" (pg 79).
"When and how should he transfer from one game system to the other be made, and should the Basic Set be used at all, since the game will outgrow it?
Let me answer the first question last, since the Basic Set is, to some extent, my own creation. It fairly represents, I think, the game as it was first produced. As much as possible it uses Gygax's and Arneson's words from those first scrambled rule books. It seems to me to be unfortunate that Advanced D&D does not grow smoothly and naturally out of the Basic Rules, but it doesn't. The combat system is different. Anyone is going to go on with the game to higher and higher levels (the Basic Set only covers the first three levels of experience) should start with the Advanced D&D and not bother buying the Basic Set. I think I can give this advice objectively, since I have no financial interest in the sale of Basic D&D sets" (pg 84).
"Earlier criticism of D&D was based, very rightly, on the total obscurity of the rules. It was literally true that one could only learn to play the game by watching a game in progress. I would like to think that this problem was solved by the "Basic Set" booklet, which takes the beginner into the first three levels of experience" (pg 98).
From “Fantasy Life in a Game Without End”, by Beth Ann Krier, LA Times, 7/11/79 (pg H1):
"Holmes recalls reading all the way through the [OD&D] rules and still not knowing how to play the game. He first became angry and later offered to edit the rulebook. "Some like having D&D simplified. And there are others for whom it can never be too complicated" he says, adding that his revision attempted to preserve some of the Byzantine D&D flavor and didn't dare tamper with such beloved phrases as "loathsome trolls are tough and rubbery and have the ability to regenerate."
From "Basic D&D Points of View" by J. Eric Holmes, DRAGON #52, 8/81, pg 14 and 16-17:
"When Tactical Studies Rules published the first DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rule sets, the three little books in brown covers, they were intended to guide people who were already playing. As a guide to learning the game, they were incomprehensible ... 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. What I discovered is that the invention has four vital parts: the first is character generation ... the second part concerns magic ... third, a section on "the encounter" ... Finally, there needs to be a section of the rulebook intended for the DM ... [that] include guidelines for setting up and conducting adventures, usually with several examples. 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. D&D is, after all, a truly unique invention, probably as remarkable as the die, or the deck of cards, or the chessboard. The inventor’s vision needs to be respected."
"The first Basic Set rulebook contained some irritating typographical errors. Someone at TSR rewrote the wandering monster table and put in a number of creatures that were not in my list of monster descriptions. But most of the errors were corrected for the second printing."
"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."
"Organizing a Party, The Caller: I think this rule should have been thrown out. I put it into the first Basic Set because it was in the original invention. I have never seen a successful game where one of the players was elected caller and actually did all the talking to the DM. Usually everybody talks at once. The resulting confusion is much more lifelike; one can hear the characters dithering at the cross corridor as the monsters approach."
"I’m glad to see Moldvay included the dragons just as I did in the first edition. It seems almost silly to describe dragons in a book intended only for player characters up to the third level. On the other hand, think how disappointed you would be if you were an inexperienced player who bought a DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game and found nothing about dragons inside!"
"I’m proud of the original Basic Set, and I like to think I did a good job of describing a great invention, the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, so that everyone could enjoy it. The nicest compliment I ever got for it was from a game-store manager who said, “That’s made a lot of people happy.”"
From Fantasy Role Playing Games by John Eric Holmes, November 1981:
"In 1974 I persuaded Gygax that the original D&D rules needed revision and that I was the person to rewrite them. He readily conceded that there was a need for a beginners' book and "if you want to try it, go ahead. I went through the original three rule books and the first two supplements, Blackmoor and Greyhawk, of which Greyhawk is the greatest help. Trying to use the original words of the two game creators as much as possible, I edited a slim (48 page) handbook for beginners in role playing, published by TSR in 1977 as Dungeons and Dragons and usually marketed as "the basic set"” (pg 68).
"The Basic Set of Dungeons & Dragons can be purchased as a rule book alone or as a boxed game with rule book, dungeon module, dice and miscellaneous playing aids. While limited, the game is complete in itself" (pg 80, caption for picture of Holmes Basic Set with rulebook, module B2 and chits).
"Most game stores no longer sell the original three little D&D booklets, so these need not be considered by the beginner. It was out of these booklets, plus the supplements that were issued every year, that I edited the Basic Set rulebook. This has been re-edited and reprinted and the version now sold has eliminated some of the inconsistencies and typographical errors that appeared in the first edition. The boxed set includes dice and a pre-written dungeon adventure. The dice are usable but so cheaply made that most gamers throw them away and buy another set" (pg 79).
"When and how should he transfer from one game system to the other be made, and should the Basic Set be used at all, since the game will outgrow it?
Let me answer the first question last, since the Basic Set is, to some extent, my own creation. It fairly represents, I think, the game as it was first produced. As much as possible it uses Gygax's and Arneson's words from those first scrambled rule books. It seems to me to be unfortunate that Advanced D&D does not grow smoothly and naturally out of the Basic Rules, but it doesn't. The combat system is different. Anyone is going to go on with the game to higher and higher levels (the Basic Set only covers the first three levels of experience) should start with the Advanced D&D and not bother buying the Basic Set. I think I can give this advice objectively, since I have no financial interest in the sale of Basic D&D sets" (pg 84).
"Earlier criticism of D&D was based, very rightly, on the total obscurity of the rules. It was literally true that one could only learn to play the game by watching a game in progress. I would like to think that this problem was solved by the "Basic Set" booklet, which takes the beginner into the first three levels of experience" (pg 98).
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Holmes on Tolkien
Happy Hobbit Day!
Today I've gathered up various quotes from Dr. J. Eric Holmes about Tolkien's work:
Dungeons & Dragons Basic rulebook, 1977
"The imaginary universe of Dungeons & Dragons obviously lies not too far from the Middle Earth of J.R.R. Tolkien's great Lord of the Rings trilogy" (pg 40).
This is one of the stronger statements in an early D&D rulebook associating the game with Tolkien's work. Gygax generally tried to distance the game from Tolkien.
Basic D&D points of view, Dragon #52, August 1981
"[In the new Basic set] there is a page-long list of "inspirational source material" which is more complete than the one given in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. I didn't have such a list in the first edition; this is someone else's inspired idea. I wish I'd thought of it. Do you know there may be people out there playing a D&D game who have never read The Lord of the Rings?"
Fantasy Role-Playing Games (book), November 1981
"Literary inspiration for the worlds of the fantasy role-playing games comes from many sources. The fantasy worlds of Dungeons & Dragons and Chivalry & Sorcery are based on the myth and fairy tale. This field of literature is dominated by the work of one man in this century: J. R. R. Tolkien. Without the popularity of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, fantasy role playing would not have found the wide public it now enjoys. Despite this, most fantasy games are closer to the wild, blood-thirsty worlds of Fritz Leiber, Robert E. Howard, and L. Sprague de Camp ... As Dungeon Master, I have drawn extensively on the works of A. Merritt, Andre Norton, Clark Ashton Smith, Lord Dunsany, Edgard Rice Burroughs and H. Rider Haggard" (pg 46).
"In the 1960's and 70's another phenomenon occurred which was to change the face of wargaming forever. J.R.R. Tolkien's wonderful book The Lord of the Rings was published in paperback and was discovered by an immense audience of young people. This epic adult fairy tale, without doubt the greatest work of fiction produced this century, inflamed the imagination of an entire generation. The story, as most readers now, involves the clash of great armies of men, elves, dwarves, goblins and magical creatures. The prelude to the epic, a children's classic, The Hobbit, is the tale of a quest to steal a dragon's hoard of gold. It wasn't long before wargamers were introducing armies of orcs and dwarves into their medieval battle plans" (pg 63).
The comment regarding the "greatest work of fiction" is prescient in view of LOTR winning readers' polls for the best book of the 20th century.
"The world of D&D is based on the legends, fairy tales and literature of Western Europe, with a scattering of items from other cultures. To some extent it resembles the Middle Earth of J.R.R. Tolkien's grand epic, The Lord of the Rings. The D&D world is filled with far more marvels than Tolkien's classic, however ... In many ways it is more like the ancient Hyperborean world of Robert E. Howard's Conan or the magic-ridden universe of Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser than it is an imitation of Tolkien. The rules of D&D conform to Tolkien, however, and to a lesser extent to a common background of myth, fairy tale and literature" (pg 70-71).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)