I have a small group of three including myself (DMPC) and would love to play 1e, but as stated never played it (started with 2e). I know I'll have the DMG for certain calls, and I'm reading through the players, MM, etc. but I really want this rules light and fun, I'm not bogging myself with too much story, I have situations, items, and monsters in mind etc. would starting with Moldvay or Holmes (do they convert?) be easier? And advice is welcomed!

Any of the editions you named would work fine. It really depends on what you want.

If you like the feel and style of 1e AD&D, and would love to play it, then go ahead and run it. My advice is to just start off with the core rules (don't dive right into stuff from UA and the later books). You may have questions about how to run things. The 1e rules leave some room for DM interpretation. If you have questions about that, I'd ask at the Knights-n-Knaves alehouse or at Dragonsfoot in the 1e forums. You might also reference OSRIC (a 1e retro-clone). The OSRIC rulebook provides greater clarity for some rules (although it might be noted that OSRIC's way to doing things like initiative are just one interpretation of the 1e initiative rules). The 1e rules are rich and full of little rules and subsystems that are kind of like tools in a DM's toolbox (you don't always apply every tool every time). It can take some time to get your mind wrapped around the way you want to run 1e, but it is a rewarding system for a DM who likes that kind of thing. And it is definitely a classic. I think if 1e as the de facto standard for "this is the D&D experience" (the 1e DMG, rangers, paladins, assassins, %-strength, CE half orcs, great modules like the D and G series, et cetera).

If you don't want to worry about interpretation, and just want a nice clean set of rules that are easy to reference and stay out of your way, then the '81 B/X rules are an excellent choice. The rules are simpler than AD&D, but also clearer and lighter and easier to figure out (and find, if you're referencing them at the table). Again, I'd advise just sticking with the '81 B/X rulebooks, at first (i.e., don't add a bunch of stuff from the later boxed sets, the RC, etc. right away). I think of '81 B/X as the "just sit down and play it" version of TSR D&D.

Holmes Basic is also a fine choice, although it's not as "put together" as the '81 B/X rules (and only covers levels 1-3). It's essentially an edit of the original D&D little brown books. There are some quirky rules in Holmes, and I expect you'd probably want to start house-ruling stuff (weapon damage, initiative, etc), and you'd need to decide how to handle levels 4+. You could extrapolate, or you could go into original D&D (with the little brown books), or you could go into AD&D, or you could just go into the '81 expert set. I think of Holmes as a basic set for original D&D, and I think of original D&D as the "make the game your own" version of TSR D&D: wide open for house-ruling and tweaking.

Once you decide on your base, you'll find it relatively easy to convert between the TSR D&D editions, in most cases. If you're using B/X there might be a few odd things if you're using a 1e module (like multiclass characters, exceptional strength, and such), but none of them are deal breakers. People have been mixing TSR editions for decades.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992524Any of the editions you named would work fine. It really depends on what you want.

If you like the feel and style of 1e AD&D, and would love to play it, then go ahead and run it. My advice is to just start off with the core rules (don't dive right into stuff from UA and the later books). You may have questions about how to run things. The 1e rules leave some room for DM interpretation. If you have questions about that, I'd ask at the Knights-n-Knaves alehouse or at Dragonsfoot in the 1e forums. You might also reference OSRIC (a 1e retro-clone). The OSRIC rulebook provides greater clarity for some rules (although it might be noted that OSRIC's way to doing things like initiative are just one interpretation of the 1e initiative rules). The 1e rules are rich and full of little rules and subsystems that are kind of like tools in a DM's toolbox (you don't always apply every tool every time). It can take some time to get your mind wrapped around the way you want to run 1e, but it is a rewarding system for a DM who likes that kind of thing. And it is definitely a classic. I think if 1e as the de facto standard for "this is the D&D experience."

If you don't want to worry about interpretation, and just want a nice clean set of rules that are easy to reference and stay out of your way, then the '81 B/X rules are an excellent choice. The rules are simpler than AD&D, but also clearer and lighter and easier to figure out (and find, if you're referencing them at the table). Again, I'd advise just sticking with the '81 B/X rulebooks, at first (i.e., don't add a bunch of stuff from the later boxed sets, the RC, etc. right away). I think of '81 B/X as the "just sit down and play it" version of TSR D&D.

Holmes Basic is also a fine choice, although it's not as "put together" as the '81 B/X rules (and only covers levels 1-3). It's essentially an edit of the original D&D little brown books. There are some quirky rules in Holmes, and I expect you'd probably want to start house-ruling stuff (weapon damage, initiative, etc), and you'd need to decide how to handle levels 4+. You could extrapolate, or you could go into original D&D (with the little brown books), or you could go into AD&D, or you could just go into the '81 expert set. I think of Holmes as a basic set for original D&D, and I think of original D&D as the "make the game your own" version of TSR D&D: wide open for house-ruling and tweaking.

Thanks for the reply, I was beginning to lean towards Moldvay as I'd like "easier, and lighter" but keeping the the gritty aesthetic (or what I perceive it as anyway) of AD&D. I may be able to marry the two in some aspects. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm sure the first night will be roll ups and "getting acquainted" chicanery anyways!

Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992526Thanks for the reply, I was beginning to lean towards Moldvay as I'd like "easier, and lighter" but keeping the the gritty aesthetic (or what I perceive it as anyway) of AD&D. I may be able to marry the two in some aspects. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm sure the first night will be roll ups and "getting acquainted" chicanery anyways!

Yeah, I think the '81 B/X sets would be a good choice for what you're describing. I know exactly what you mean about the "gritty aesthetic," too. If you start with B/X, you'll have no trouble adding in elements from AD&D: that's exactly what many people did, back in the day.

Hope you have a blast with your game!

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992527Hope you have a blast with your game!

I know we will! Thanks again.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;992527Yeah, I think the '81 B/X sets would be a good choice for what you're describing. I know exactly what you mean about the "gritty aesthetic," too. If you start with B/X, you'll have no trouble adding in elements from AD&D: that's exactly what many people did, back in the day.

Hope you have a blast with your game!

Is there a big difference between Moldvay and Mentzer? I have both, and aside from separating the player and dm guide it seems as though he just dumbed it down a little, or made it easier for a younger audience?

Well, there's a villain named Bargle.

Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992643Is there a big difference between Moldvay and Mentzer? I have both, and aside from separating the player and dm guide it seems as though he just dumbed it down a little, or made it easier for a younger audience?

Well, of course Mentzer goes up past level 14, but I suspect you knew that. The actual Basic and Expert books by Moldvay and the Basic and Expert books by Mentzer have very similar rule sets (presentation is different, Moldvay has a sample adventure to introduce the concept of dungeoneering while Mentzer has a little choose-your-own-adventure section for the same purpose). Other than that, I can't think of any particular reason why it would actually be dumbed down or easier, so I think it is just presentation.

The rules differences I can recall are that Mentzer stretches out the thief ability progression so that they don't approach 100% by level 14 (I should stipulate that if you have the true original print run of Mentzer, it uses the same as Moldvay, and then they changed it). This is generally seen as a mistake, as you're then still plinking around in the 30s and 40s percents at 4-12th level where most of your dungeon-crawling is (however, house-ruling thieves in some way is almost necessary, and that will introduce more variation between gaming groups than the decision between Moldvay and Mentzer anyways). Moldvay, OTOH, has the rather unfortunate fact that your magic user spells known equal your spellcasting progression (so a 5th level magic user who can cast 3/2/1 would know 3 first level spells, 2 second level spells, and 1 third) with no way to learn more. There are some things you might want to pull from post-expert Mentzer like domain management or mass combat or weapon mastery rules (which make fighters much competitive above a certain level). But if you have both, mix and match. You now have twice as many books to use at the table.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;992649Well, there's a villain named Bargle.

Yes, there's a villain named Bargle and a cleric named Aleena who gets a few very nice Elmore illustrations that give you strange feelings as a 9-10 year old and make you very upset on pages 6&7 and again when you go back through and realize there isn't an option that lets you defeat the bad guy.  

Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992643Is there a big difference between Moldvay and Mentzer? I have both, and aside from separating the player and dm guide it seems as though he just dumbed it down a little, or made it easier for a younger audience?

There are minor differences. For example, the '83 sets "stretch" certain things (e.g., thief skills) to cover the 1-36 level range of the complete BECM model. I prefer D&D in the level range covered by the B/X sets, so I find that less desirable. The C and M sets add some additional rules (like weapon mastery) that I think are best added only after you've got a solid feel for the main system, if you want to add them at all. (In the case of the weapon mastery rules, I personally would not, as they change the way different PCs/classes work in combat in ways that I don't like, but that's ultimately the DM's call.)

Honestly, though, the main reason I prefer the '81 B/X sets to their '83 equivalents have more to do with the organization and layout and "feel" of the rules. For example, the '83 basic set uses a kind of "choose-your-own-adventure" approach in the players book, with the aim of teaching young players how an RPG works. I think that's fine, but I find it makes the '83 basic rulebooks less useful as a table reference, compared to the '81 basic rulebook. I also prefer the varied "grittier" art of the '81 sets.

On a "big picture" scale, there's not much difference between the two (the '83 sets are basically an edit of the earlier rules, rather than a brand new system/game, although new stuff is found in the C and M sets, as I mentioned). It just boils down to what set of rules lights your fire, for whatever reason.

Quote from: GrabtharsHammer;992515I have a small group of three including myself (DMPC) and would love to play 1e, but as stated never played it (started with 2e). I know I'll have the DMG for certain calls, and I'm reading through the players, MM, etc. but I really want this rules light and fun, I'm not bogging myself with too much story, I have situations, items, and monsters in mind etc. would starting with Moldvay or Holmes (do they convert?) be easier? And advice is welcomed!

Most people I know run AD&D campaigns with the AD&D stuff (Classes, Monsters, Magic Items, Spells) but use B/X for combat/task resolution. That is roll 1d6 for initiative, high roll goes first, do one thing that round (move, attack, cast spell, etc).

Having said the above, if you want a concise and playable reinstatement of the AD&D rules for combat and task resolution download OSRIC for free.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/stewart-marshall/osric-a5-pdf/ebook/product-20697767.html

We all started with OD&D, and looked at AD&D as a series of sourcebooks to pull optional rules from at will.  We laughed at the notion it was a different game.  So starting with basic rules and adding bits as you go works perfectly well.

Also, the "gritiness" has nothing to do with the rules text, and everything to do with the referee.

As for AD&D Combat RAW, I use the following approximation.

1) The player declares their actions to the referee

2) The referee notes what the monsters are going to do

3) Both the DM and players roll a 1d6 for initiative

4) The opposing side's die indicates which segment of the round the other side goes on. For example the Orcs rolls a 3 and the party rolls a 5. The party starts on segment 3 and the orcs start on segment 5.

5) If a party member is firing a missile weapon and has a dexterity bonus then subtract it from the segment the party is starting on. This is the segment on which the missile weapon is fired. For example a party of Orcs roll a 4 and the party rolled a 3. And the bowman has a +2 dexterity adjustment for missiles. The initiative will be the bowman fires on segment 2 (4-2=2), the orcs attack on segment 3, and the rest of the party on segment 4.

6) Add the spell casting time (in segments) to the segment the party starts on. That the segment the spell will go off on. For example a party of Orcs rolls a 5, and the party rolls a 3. If the magic users choose to cast a 1 segment spell then he goes before the orcs. If he casts a 2 segment spell then he acts at the same time as the orcs. If he casts a 3 segment or longer spells he goes after the orcs.

7) If both sides are tied for initiative compare weapon speed. The lower weapon speed goes first.

If the difference between the weapons is five or more or twice that of the lower. Than the lower weapons speeds gets an extra attack. If the difference is 10 or more, the lower gets two extra attacks.

And that pretty much it. It not 100% the same due to the quirks of Gygax's writing. But produces the same result in my opinion.

Note I didn't get into surprise. The above assume that that been handled and resolved. The AD&D surprise rules are about determining how many segments of uninterrupted actions the surprising party has. Instead conducting combat in round, you handled it by segments. Movement is reduced to per segment, and spell casting time is not changed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;992659Also, the "gritiness" has nothing to do with the rules text, and everything to do with the referee.

I agree, if you're talking about how the game plays. But as the referee, I spend some time with books and rules text, and some presentations give me more pleasure or inspiration than others. For example, I find the 1e DMG to be full of inspiration, and I enjoy reading and referencing it, regardless of what D&D edition I happen to be running. All purely subjective, of course.

Oh true enough.  You can get an entire campaign just out of the narrative text.