tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post3926296538824248555..comments2024-03-18T02:49:18.084-05:00Comments on Jeffs Gameblog: Mightiest Monsters: Holmes BasicJeff Rientshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-83933246134143317992007-10-05T16:13:00.000-05:002007-10-05T16:13:00.000-05:00I don't know why the brass dragon made it into Hol...I don't know why the brass dragon made it into Holmes Basic. Perhaps the Gold Dragon (which replaced it in later Basic versions) was considered too potent and/or friendly. With regards to draconic alignment, in Chainmail (and OD&D, IIRC) all dragons were listed in both the Neutral and Chaotic columns.<BR/><BR/>Everyone likes using kobolds because they a pathetic little bastards, but no one can quite agree on what they should look like. Personally, I consider the wee rascals with the square shields found in the original MM and DMG to be definitive. Was that Sutherland art? I'll have to go back and look.Jeff Rientshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-6452288445948269612007-10-05T15:42:00.000-05:002007-10-05T15:42:00.000-05:00Was just looking through the blue book again, and ...Was just looking through the blue book again, and noticed two strange things. The colors of dragons they decided to represent were black, white, red, and brass. Why brass? Plus, all the dragons had neutral as an alignment option (well, except for red, cuz they are always jerks) Oh yeah, and kobolds were described as dwarf like. Huh. They went from dwarf like, to lizard-dog like, to ugly dog like, to lizardy dragon like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-73555232641081018592007-10-05T08:01:00.000-05:002007-10-05T08:01:00.000-05:00dar, I assume you mean this post. The blue book pi...dar, I assume you mean <A HREF="http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2007/08/basic-set-with-character-generation.html" REL="nofollow">this post</A>. The blue book pictured in this very blog post was the original AD&D intro product, written specifically to introduce the non-grognard to the intricacies of Dungeons & Dragons. The '81 Basic/Expert rules were nominally a different game (mainly for arcane legal reasons) but functioned the same way for lots of players. My own group used Basic/Expert as a springboard into Advanced play.<BR/><BR/>You can ask Delta yourself, of course, but I think his main gripe with the new sets is that they teach you the mechanics of D&D play without exposing you to the joy of imaginative creation.Jeff Rientshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17493878980535235896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7652921.post-35524561045586371192007-10-04T17:09:00.000-05:002007-10-04T17:09:00.000-05:00Did you read his post from Tuesday? Wtf? What is t...Did you read his post from Tuesday? Wtf? What is the blue edition that was compatible with AD&D? And I know there is a level 1-3 3.5 intro product, there were two, other than the 'Players Kit'. I bought both. Played both. I'm confused.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com