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

[Vegepygmy]

I had a peek into the past a few months ago as someone from my hometown was still using 2ed rules for his campaign. I played two sessions, and regret it. There was simply too much "out of whack" that made playing anything other than a Wizard completely useless, and Clerics were a joke.

I assume you weren't playing at low or even middle levels.

 

[Knightfall]

I'm torn about how to answer this question. Lately, I've become a fan of 1e and have found several of the rulebooks, but I don't have all the ones I want (like the MM; although, I have MM2 and Fiend Folio). Plus, the books I found aren't in the greatest condition.

Therefore, I'd likely buy a "reprinted" version of 1st Edition AD&D as long as it included errata and was printed using the latest advancements. It wouldn't have to be color but it would have to look cleaner.

Would I buy a new edition of AD&D? Maybe. It would have to be really good and build off of the best parts of 1e and 2e. More than likely, I wouldn't like WotC's implementation.

Besides, I've just order the latest printing of the Castles & Crusades Players Handbook, so I'm good.

Of more interest to me would be a new "Classic" Dungeons and Dragons game that was a successor to the B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D. Easy to pick up and play, low cost to get started, no battlemat required, streamlined character building, and a focus on the most iconic character archetypes.

Now, THAT I would buy in a heartbeat!!!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If some muckity-muck at WotC decided…to create a revised and perhaps expanded AD&D, drawing from 1e and 2e…would you buy, support and/or play it?

No. I don't need it, and I doubt I'd like the revisions (especially if it included much of the 2e-specific stuff). I have several copies of the core books, and if a new player can't find used originals, there's always OSRIC.

That said, if any new modules were 90% stat compatible with 1e AD&D, I might buy those.

 

[Zinovia]

We left AD&D behind us back in 1988, playing Rolemaster for the next dozen or so years. We started a 3E campaign eventually and converted it over to 3.5. Now we're doing a different campaign in 4E. I feel the game has grown and progressed with the newer editions, and have no desire to go back.
I'd play AD&D at a con for a 1-shot maybe, but that's it. There are too many things that I dislike about it to ever return. I still have all my old books if I really wanted to play AD&D for some reason.

I could see converting over some of the old modules, but the system itself I have no interest in.

 

[The Shaman]

The system [1e AD&D]] as-written is actually not that bad to run a smooth combat in, and it surprises me that more don't appreciate it.

That's a refreshing viewpoint to read here, Henry.

Joining intreweb message boards and learning how many gamers never really played AD&D by the rules-as-written was eye-opening for me. My groups in middle and high school played very much by-the-book so I assumed other groups did as well.

So many of the AD&D tales of woe leave me wondering, "Manwhut? What game were you playing?"

 

[Fifth Element]

Whether or not WotC is supporting AD&D has no bearing on my decision to play it. I played in a brief 2E campaign last year and would certainly not refuse to play AD&D.

My preferred game is 4E, I do feel that each new edition has been an improvement on the old, but the reason I play 4E is not that AD&D is no longer supported. Being an incorrigible collector/packrat, I still have all of my old 1E and 2E materials, more than enough I'd need to play if I wanted to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still love AD&D. I'd play in an AD&D campaign if asked to, no question.

Its just that 3.X does more of what I want- its more flexible, it has more room for creative PC design.

And since I have all the old books, it would take something spectacular for me to plunk down $$$ on new material for the old game.

 

[awesomeocalypse]

No. I've found every edition to be an improvement, and many aspects of old school gaming are completely unappealing to me (characters whose social or puzzle solving skills are limited by the social and puzzle solving skills of the player; a DM vs. PC mentality; fantasy vietnam syndrome;, characters who take turns with the spotlight rather than simply sharing it; randomized character generation; random monster and treasure tables; clunky and (to my eyes) nonsensical saving throw system). Older editions do have some flavor I love, but that is easily stolen for another system.

I spent a good-chunk of my childhood and adolescence trying (and failing) to houserule and fudge old school D&D systems into something that would approximate the kind of game I actually wanted to play. Then 3.x came along, and did a much better job than I'd been doing. And then 4e came along, and did a MUCH better job than even 3.x had done for giving me the type of game I was actually looking for.

 

[Reynard]

No. I've found every edition to be an improvement, and many aspects of old school gaming are completely unappealing to me (characters whose social or puzzle solving skills are limited by the social and puzzle solving skills of the player; a DM vs. PC mentality; fantasy vietnam syndrome;, characters who take turns with the spotlight rather than simply sharing it; randomized character generation; random monster and treasure tables; clunky and (to my eyes) nonsensical saving throw system). Older editions do have some flavor I love, but that is easily stolen for another system.

What's awesome and wonderful about D&D -- and also almost makes me believe that there's room for both Old School and New School D&D on the shelves, supported by WotC -- is that everything you mentioned are things I LOVE about AD&D, what makes the game fun and makes gaming -- particularly DMing -- fun. If you feel the way you do, and I feel the way I do, and neither of us is a unique special snowflake of a gamer, then there's room for both, and we can still share a forum and a con and shelf space.

 

[M.L. Martin]

What's awesome and wonderful about D&D -- and also almost makes me believe that there's room for both Old School and New School D&D on the shelves, supported by WotC.

Room for them both on the shelves? Probably.

Supported by WotC? Probably not.

As I understand it (I'm a wannabe theologian, not an economist ), it's a question of opportunity cost. Every dollar of effort WotC spends on producing OS D&D, from their perspective, would be a dollar not spent on 4E, and with far less return on investment. There are other companies that can fill the niche and seem to be doing quite well at it--but from WotC's viewpoint, it's spending resources on a niche market that could be used to sustain the 800-lb. gorilla. This appears to be part of the reason (alongside overproduced Dragon Dice and possibly too many novels) that TSR went under.

I do think there are some low-cost strategies WotC could use to support the game--I still think restoring all the pre-3E PDFs would be a low-risk, potentially high-reward endeavor. I say this as someone who's not particularly happy with any version of D&D, and whose gripes with WotC focus on the end of SWSE and the fact that they've got great settings and concepts--some of them ill-suited to the OTW D&D they espouse--languishing in the vault.