If WotC decided to revitalize and support AD&D, would you play/buy it?

[Mark]

If WotC decided to revitalize and support AD&D, would you play/buy it?

Since the purchase of WotC by Hasbro, the corporate mindset has shifted toward prioritizing business over creativity. One of the primary tenets of (O)D&D and early AD&D was giving just enough guidelines to empower the DM and players to tap their own creativity. In late AD&D (2E) TSR began getting greedy, fostering an environment of rules bloat and rampant consumerism that was antithetical to the early tenets of the game. Pre-Hasbro WotC managed to pull things back from that precipice but only for a short while. WotC no longer has the right sensibilities to suggest that stewardship of a true AD&D rebirth would be viable.

 

[Reynard]

Since the purchase of WotC by Hasbro, the corporate mindset has shifted toward prioritizing business over creativity. One of the primary tenets of (O)D&D and early AD&D was giving just enough guidelines to empower the DM and players to tap their own creativity. In late AD&D (2E) TSR began getting greedy, fostering an environment of rules bloat and rampant consumerism that was antithetical to the early tenets of the game. Pre-Hasbro WotC managed to pull things back from that precipice but only for a short while. WotC no longer has the right sensibilities to suggest that stewardship of a true AD&D rebirth would be viable.

I don't know whether this is true, or how much influence Hasbro exerts over WotC, but I do know this: d20 core mechanic aside, 3.0 did indeed feel like an evolution of AD&D. I don't like all the changes, but in those first couple years, 3.0 was as D&D as AD&D was.

Somewhere around the time 3.5 came around, that seemed to change.

 

[M.L. Martin]

TSR didn't have that kind of marketing savvy. Read the stories of Ryan Dancey's due diligence before WotC bought TSR. TSR didn't do marketing surveys so how could they have been test-marketing.

This is demonstrably wrong, or at least misleading. Numerous surveys were run in DRAGON Magazine, and survey forms were included in many TSR products. They may not have been the marketing research Dancey would have liked to have done, but to say that there was no surveying or market research was inaccurate.
In fact, a year before the bankruptcy, TSR overhauled Dragon Magazine. Whether it was done well is open to debate, but it doesn't fit the image of a company that ignored all market factors.

I disagree. I think in 1997 TSR was headed for a point buy system that might have been more universal than the limited point buy stuff in PO. Arguably many of the class customization stuff in PO became feats in 3E.

Tough to say, really, but I would have expected to see more PO support than one module if it was really meant to be pushed as the way forward for D&D. Compare that with UA classes showing up in 1E modules, or WotC doing a wholesale revision of the rules set.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I don't know whether this is true, or how much influence Hasbro exerts over WotC, but I do know this: d20 core mechanic aside, 3.0 did indeed feel like an evolution of AD&D. I don't like all the changes, but in those first couple years, 3.0 was as D&D as AD&D was.

Somewhere around the time 3.5 came around, that seemed to change.

You know, I feel the same way, but I'd be hard-pressed to put my finger on when the change occured. It's easier with previous mid-edition shifts--the change to more high-fantasy, story-based, 'saving the princess' adventures with I6 Ravenloft and the Dragonlance series in 1E, the 'back to the dungeon' emphasis when WotC took over in the last days of 2E--but something changed in the game's tone and culture in the buildup to 3.5, and I'm not quite sure what or how.

 

[jdrakeh]

Maybe. If they released a limited edition box set (like the BD&D 25th Anniversary Edition box set) or a single volume hardcover (like OSRIC 2e), I'd probably buy it.

 

[Reynard]

You know, I feel the same way, but I'd be hard-pressed to put my finger on when the change occured. It's easier with previous mid-edition shifts--the change to more high-fantasy, story-based, 'saving the princess' adventures with I6 Ravenloft and the Dragonlance series in 1E, the 'back to the dungeon' emphasis when WotC took over in the last days of 2E--but something changed in the game's tone and culture in the buildup to 3.5, and I'm not quite sure what or how.

It's funny you mention "saving the princess". I was just reading a Game Wizards column in dragon magazine issue (I think) #158 called "Mothers From Heck" that was extolling that type of adventure the best, true kind of adventure for AD&D and that the hack-n-slash, kill-n-loot of the late 70s was not just inferior, but less mature. The author -- James Ward, perhaps? -- says outright that it is the better role-player who saves the princess.

While the "save the princess" adventure or campaign can certainly be great fun, it isn't necessarily better than the "kill and loot" campaign, and certainly, imo, not representative of a objectively superior player or playstyle. In fact, I would contend that the puzzle, trap and monster filled dungeon requires "superior play" in its own way.

 

[M.L. Martin]

It's funny you mention "saving the princess". I was just reading a Game Wizards column in dragon magazine issue (I think) #158 called "Mothers From Heck" that was extolling that type of adventure the best, true kind of adventure for AD&D and that the hack-n-slash, kill-n-loot of the late 70s was not just inferior, but less mature. The author -- James Ward, perhaps? -- says outright that it is the better role-player who saves the princess.

That was where I was pulling the reference from, although it's actually issue #154. I don't think it's quite as slanted as you'd think--it's more "dungeon crawls have their place, but quest-based gaming carries more positive tones and can be more satisifying", IIRC--but my sympathies are decidedly on Ward's side of the issue in many ways.

In fact, I would contend that the puzzle, trap and monster filled dungeon requires "superior play" in its own way.

Sure, if your goal is negative reinforcement and shock treatment designed to break players down and rebuild them into paranoid, cunning, scheming, ruthless, avaricious, treacherous sociopaths. (I exaggerate, but I've got the impression of that style from several 'old schoolers', which is part of the reason I have no personal sympathy with the OSR.)

 

[billd91]

TSR didn't have that kind of marketing savvy. Read the stories of Ryan Dancey's due diligence before WotC bought TSR. TSR didn't do marketing surveys so how could they have been test-marketing. They put out whatever they wanted and expected the masses to buy because it was gospel from on high.

I'd say that's extremely uncharitable. It's probably just as likely they all thought they were reasonably well in tune with what gamers wanted.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know whether this is true, or how much influence Hasbro exerts over WotC, but I do know this: d20 core mechanic aside, 3.0 did indeed feel like an evolution of AD&D. I don't like all the changes, but in those first couple years, 3.0 was as D&D as AD&D was.

In hindsight, this may be true. At the time, it seemed more revolution than evolution.

Somewhere around the time 3.5 came around, that seemed to change.

3.5 was a direct continuation of 3e's evolution, but you're quite right: there was (and still is) a slow shift in attitude.

Lan-"and Mialee is still ugly, even in hindsight"-efan

 

[Geoff Watson]

I don't get it. It's just a single step of subtraction in an otherwise all addition process. The THAC0 hate always seems to me like a strawman, something to "hate on" for no real reason. Then again, I prefer 1E that didn't have THAC0 -- it used combat matrices.

Subtraction is more difficult for many people.

When one of the groups I played with switched to 3rd edition, the lack of subtraction in to-hit rolls speeded up the game significantly for a couple of players.

Geoff.