There is a version of the Holmes D&D rules that can be found on the internet. Edited and enhanced a bit to be a "What if?" type of rule set, but credited to Dr. Holmes, as it should be.
What's pretty fuckin' amazing is that the original theft (Mazel & Perils 1e) was nearly a word for word, page for page copy of the Holmes 77 rules you could find online. Heck, the charts look like were a copy + paste from the source right into Mazes & Perils. So, not even an original theft, but stealing someone else's reworking of Holmes D&D.
So, now what does Vincent do? Changes a few numbers, moves charts around and repeats his claim as author and copyright holder. He had to do this because the document he used as source material took passages and tables verbatim from the source material - which is why it got pulled last fall.
Why bother changing stuff around? We already know it's basically stolen.
You know what, let me screen shot the 3 tables of contents, then you can decide if Vinnie was doing an original work derived from another, or if he's a straight up thief.
|From left to right - Holmes 77, M&P 1e and M&P 2e|
Yep, as I thought - he's a straight up fuckin' thief.
Holmes 77 states "This version edited by Eric Holmes, Retro-organized by RC Pinnell
Mazes & Perils states "By Vincent Florio, Contributors: R.C. Pinnell" then at the end "Original System and Rules Authors: Dave Arneson, Gary Gygax and Dr. John E. Holmes". Being that the work was all done by Dr. Holmes and enhanced by RC Pinnell, I fail to see how the fuck Vinnie can claim "he wrote it". Unless he means "I changed some wording and made it mine - just like those term papers I bought in college that I handed in."
Vincent - just because you claim you wrote it doesn't make it so.
Shit, I need to go back to reading the 5e updates. At least there I didn't have to deal with outright thievery.
The Grumpy Dwarf