Should WoTC Bring back Classic D&D?

[Odhanan]

I'm just expressing my opinion here, and I don't want to recreate debates I've had with fans of C&C around here.

That said I like C&C. Here's more or less how it goes:

It's the classes of AD&D more or less (Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Barbarian, Monk, Wizard, Illusionist, Cleric, Druid, Knight, Paladin, Bard) with different XP charts for each class, abilities a la third edition and a la broad skill bundle (survival/track for rangers etc) and standard fantasy races. It's the same ability scores, modifiers that are less steep than 3E, and a whole system of skills that uses d20+ability mod+level checks above a sort of DC (challenge class, if I'm not mistaken) calculated with modifier including whether the action is easy, difficult etc (challenge level) and whether the ability score you're using is primary or secondary for your character (which determines a challenge base).

What it creates? A D&D game that is much more quickly paced than Third Ed. but less precise.

What I specifically dislike is the reintroduction of different XP charts and (or that screws with) the balance of character classes that is not really great, IMO (example: I'd choose a Ranger over a Fighter all the time. The fighter's abilities are few and really limited, while the Ranger's are broad and useful, between favored enemies, hide, survival just for instance, versus only one extra attack for the fighter at 10th level, some extra attacks against... monsters with 1HD and Weapon Specialization. That's it. Right there, that tells me there's a flaw, even given the fact a Ranger is a *bit* slower to level up). But there's nothing that I couldn't modify, so I'm sure you'd make a breakfast of this issue!

The gain is really its compatibility with both 1E and 3E, and a gain in simplicity of rules concepts when compared to actually both editions of the game. All I'd miss really is the feats of 3E. I really like the relative simplicity of the attribute/skill checks too.

 

[Odhanan]

Oh, yeah, before I forget. Odhanan, I think you mentioned using a point buy before? In another thread perhaps? Can you repeat it? Or am I misremembering? I am thinking about using point buy for Doctor Who.

I'm not sure. You mean with my D&D campaigns here? I proposed to the PCs to use point buy but they don't want to. They prefer to roll 4d6-drop-lowest. So long as everyone's agreeing on the choice I have nothing against it.

Or do you refer to something else? Could you be more specific? Ta!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure. You mean with my D&D campaigns here? I proposed to the PCs to use point buy but they don't want to. They prefer to roll 4d6-drop-lowest. So long as everyone's agreeing on the choice I have nothing against it.

Or do you refer to something else? Could you be more specific? Ta!

See, I'm mis-remembering. It was someone else.

Thanks for the C&C info. For my Doctor Who game I replaced feats with rules-lite Knacks, but my D&D game uses them quite a bit (obviously, right?). Of course, if you were trying to create a rules-lite version of D&D, dealing with the question of feats would be mandatory. I tend also to think that the idea of single-chart progression is desirable, although I would accept the other if need be.

My game uses a skill-and-feat based psionic system and skill based weapons systems of my own devising....adds some complexity and horror/swashbuckling (repsectively) feel to the game without dramatically slowing down play. I would be fine with the disappearance of AoO's....the game would be far less reliant on minatures, and most players I know avoid provoking them anyway. When tiny creatures enter your space you get an AoO; this comes up often enough, but doesn't require a grid.

I guess that's really the thing I'd most like to see resolved: I like the grid for big, set-piece fights that the PCs should linger over, but the nature of the 3.X combat system makes the players want to haul out the grid for every orc-and-pie they encounter.


RC

 

[jmucchiello]

Actually, Odhanan's description of C&C is a bit off. C&C is a much more pure class-based RPG just like AD&D and other D&D's of gaming past. I'm not well enough versed in the system to describe it accurately though. Hopefully someone will chime in who is but the whole primary ability part of the SIEGE engine is cool IIRC and I wouldn't want to screw up explaining it.

 

[Odhanan]

Actually, Odhanan's description of C&C is a bit off. C&C is a much more pure class-based RPG just like AD&D and other D&D's of gaming past.

Well, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression of saying otherwise, because I wasn't, really. I agree with you there!

Hopefully someone will chime in who is but the whole primary ability part of the SIEGE engine is cool IIRC and I wouldn't want to screw up explaining it.

Where's Akrasia when you need him?

 

[RFisher]

How many of those "older games in print" have new editions of the game, from the same company?

OK. I yield. My bad. I don't want to restart (...relight...) the "3e is not D&D" debate.

The number of older games in print alone is not really a telling statistic.

[...snippage...]

What makes business sense depends upon the size of the publisher (among other things).

()

Aren't all those "still in print since the dawn of time" games owned by Hasbro or another company of its size at this point?

I understand all too well (from experience in some cases) many of the reasons why reprinting classic D&D would not make sense for Hasbro. I'm more interesting in figuring out the cases where they produce something even though it seems to go against those reasons. Heck, I wonder every day why they don't shut down D&D completely, since the whole RPG market wouldn't even show up on Hasbro's radar. (Only the licensing opportunities for the D&D brand.)

 

[T. Foster]

Hasbro produces retro "nostalgia" editions of a bunch of their classic boardgames (Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Stratego, etc.) with board art, pieces, rules, etc. that are facsimiles of editions from the 30s-60s that are sold right alongside the standard/new editions of the games. I really doubt they have any worry that somebody buying a facsimile 1930s edition of Monopoly is splintering the market for the game, and in fact I'd imagine a lot of people buy both -- the retro edition as a curiosity and "collector's item" (even though it's not a real collector's item, just a facsimile of one), and the standard edition to actually play with the kids.

I can think of no good reason why they couldn't do the same thing with D&D, either the original edition from 1974 (which seems to be the most in-demand as a collectable -- even late-printing copies are regularly going for $100+ on ebay nowadays) or the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh edition of 1981 (which seems to generate the most fan-nostalgia, presumably because it was the 'current' edition at the height of the game's mainstream popularity). Heck, they could include both -- all 3 booklets from the 1974 set plus the 1981 Basic and Expert rulebooks combined don't have the page count of even the 3.5E PHB and could easily fit into a 2" 'bookcase game' sized box with perhaps a pamphlet on the early history of the game and some 'retro' dice and character sheets.

People who played D&D briefly back in the 80s and gave it up and got rid of their books might see this on the shelf at Target or Barnes & Noble and feel a little nostalgic and decide to pick it up (yeah, they could probably get 'real' copies of the books cheaper on ebay, but 1) that's a hassle, and 2) you never know what kind of coffee&pizza-stained, pen-marked, loose-paged monstrosity you might end up with). People who started playing later and have heard about but never seen the early editions of the game might get curious and pick it up. People still playing the old editions who want new rulebooks to play with so as to not damage their vintage copies might pick it up (I fall into this category -- yeah, I've already got the 1974 set and the 1981 rulebooks, but I'd be in the market for new copies, so long as they were reasonable facsimiles of the originals and didn't cost an arm and a leg).

Honestly, given the fact that Hasbro already sells retro editions of many of their other 'classic' games, it seems like a no-brainer to do the same with D&D.

 

[Glyfair]

Hasbro produces retro "nostalgia" editions of a bunch of their classic boardgames (Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Stratego, etc.) with board art, pieces, rules, etc. that are facsimiles of editions from the 30s-60s that are sold right alongside the standard/new editions of the games. I really doubt they have any worry that somebody buying a facsimile 1930s edition of Monopoly is splintering the market for the game, and in fact I'd imagine a lot of people buy both -- the retro edition as a curiosity and "collector's item" (even though it's not a real collector's item, just a facsimile of one), and the standard edition to actually play with the kids.

\

Except those nostalgia editions tend to be higher priced, prestige editions of the game. A D&D Basic Set would very likely be priced in the Special Edition Core Book range ($70-$80 or so). Would there be that much demand for an edition like that for earlier D&D editions.

I will note, something like this was released shortly after 3E was released. A 3rd party was licensed to produce mini-verisions of D&D books. I picked up a version of one of the basic sets (basic or expert, IIRC) for clearance. Admittedly, there small size was an additional barrier.

 

[Umbran]

Aren't all those "still in print since the dawn of time" games owned by Hasbro or another company of its size at this point?

Ah, I see. My bad. For some reason, I took you to be talking about RPGs that were in print longer than 3e, rather than games in general.

But then - the market for Monopoly and the market for RPGs are very, very different. Apples and oranges. What works in one really isn't a measure of what works in another.

Heck, I wonder every day why they don't shut down D&D completely, since the whole RPG market wouldn't even show up on Hasbro's radar. (Only the licensing opportunities for the D&D brand.)

By reports, Hasbro doesn't micro-manage WotC. I expect Hasbro understands that they themselves don't have much experience with the sort of products WotC produces - both in the RPG and CCG realms. So long as WotC is doing well, why mess with it when you can let others manage it and you just reap the profits.