Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dead" data-source="post: 1633575" data-attributes="member: 18707">Now, I know this poll follows quick on the heels of the other poll I posted: &quot;Which edition of D&amp;D did you start with?&quot; and if I were smart I would have included these Basic D&amp;D permutations into that poll. Alas, I didn't however. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :o"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" /> Anyway, it's my belief that Basic D&amp;D, if re-released in the present, would not be very successful. I think, back in the old days, the Basic D&amp;D set was just a really handsome and accessable package compared with the, then, 1E AD&amp;D PHB.With 2E and 3E, I think the rules of AD&amp;D were simplified somewhat which made AD&amp;D (or 3E D&amp;D) more accessible.It's my sneaking suspicion that it's the first 3 boxed sets (Holmes, Moldvey, Mentzer editions) that sold the best. Then 2E was released and, I think, Basic D&amp;D no longer served the same function as it did alongside the very intimidating 1E AD&amp;D.Also, TSR/WotC's later attempts to produce new Basic D&amp;D sets were, perhaps, too basic! You see, the great thing about the Holmes, Moldvey, Mentzer editions and the Rules Encyclopedia is that they were still serious, self-contained rules sets. The mentality in later times was: If we produce Basic D&amp;D, then it has to be a launching pad to 3E D&amp;D and thus has to be VERY simple.I don't know, just some thoughts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dead, post: 1633575, member: 18707"] Now, I know this poll follows quick on the heels of the other poll I posted: "Which edition of D&D did you start with?" and if I were smart I would have included these Basic D&D permutations into that poll. Alas, I didn't however. :o Anyway, it's my belief that Basic D&D, if re-released in the present, would not be very successful. I think, back in the old days, the Basic D&D set was just a really handsome and accessable package compared with the, then, 1E AD&D PHB. With 2E and 3E, I think the rules of AD&D were simplified somewhat which made AD&D (or 3E D&D) more accessible. It's my sneaking suspicion that it's the first 3 boxed sets (Holmes, Moldvey, Mentzer editions) that sold the best. Then 2E was released and, I think, Basic D&D no longer served the same function as it did alongside the very intimidating 1E AD&D. Also, TSR/WotC's later attempts to produce new Basic D&D sets were, perhaps, too basic! You see, the great thing about the Holmes, Moldvey, Mentzer editions and the Rules Encyclopedia is that they were still serious, self-contained rules sets. The mentality in later times was: If we produce Basic D&D, then it has to be a launching pad to 3E D&D and thus has to be VERY simple. I don't know, just some thoughts. [/QUOTE]

Verification