Should WoTC Bring back Classic D&D?

[Akrasia]

I would LOVE to see a new version of the Rules Cylcopedia or the Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D rules.

But I’m 100 percent confident that it will not happen. Best to simply get by with one’s old copies or C&C.

... I think it's a very small market that would be willing to play OD&D.

Judging by the popularity of sites like dragonsfoot.org, and the widely reported ‘underground OOP D&D groups’ out there (who obviously do not frequent sites like Enworld), I don’t think that it is a ‘very small market’ at all.

More people play OOP D&D than play most 'in print' RPGs. Of course, that still doesn’t mean it would be profitable for WotC to publish a new RC (or similar product), since these rules are already owned by most of the people who use them.

What about the RC needs updating? Isn't it pretty solid as it is?

It is (despite the considerable errata). But new things are … NEW!

 

[Akrasia]

.... There is C&C and Hackmaster, but one isn't very good (combining all the bad bits of 3.x and earlier versions) and the other isn't a serious game, really.

Ahhh, thank you for reminding me why I normally ignore your posts and reviews.

 

[grodog]

I don't think it's likely to happen.

I agree with this completley, but...

The old school fans who want such a product likely have all the old product they need and may not be willing to buy more. Why should WotC spent the time and money to produce something that doesn't sell? Also, WotC does do marketing research, and if the old game was what most people wanted, then that's probably what we would have.

The decisions behind making 3e into a new game system compared to 1e/2e were driven from a marketing POV, not from a sales POV. For example, Lisa Stevens has recently commented that the decision to stop supporting Greyhawk vs. the FR wasn't sales driven: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/dragon/compendium/aoWHCAndDragonCompendiumII (about 40% of the way down the page; search for Lisa and you'll find it)

 

[mmadsen]

It makes little sense to re-release "classic" D&D -- but I think it makes a lot of sense integrate classic D&D's strengths into the next edition (whenever it comes).

The old Basic D&D sets fit an entire game into a small package, and that game was very playable. The rules did not require careful study, they didn't get in the way of play, they certainly didn't require software tools, etc.

Ideally the next edition of D&D would be built on a much more streamlined core -- with plenty of supplements for the hardcore fans.

 

[CrusaderX]

I would LOVE to see a new version of the Rules Cylcopedia or the Moldvay/Cook Basic and Expert D&D rules.

Same here.

 

[Odhanan]

I think it would be great for the hobby to have a D&D Basic Set that (1) Does not require-include D&D miniatures and (2) does not encourage to upgrade to a full D&D set of core books "ASAP" (after just two/three levels).

For me, as a customer, that makes me feel like offering a blank check with the parents name and signature on it to a young kid: that's a gift that will cost rather than benefit in the short term. That's not the feeling I had from the Basic Moldvay set.

But it seems to me that's why the D&D Basic Set was designed in its present form, so I don't think that's going to happen from Wizards of the Coast.

However, it is certain that fragmenting D&D into several sub components would be well... not good, like many people on this thread advocated. What I'm referring to here is a Basic Set that would be compatible with D&D 3.X and take care of point (1) and (2). Maybe for a fourth edition?

 

[Staffan]

I could see something like that being done as a commemorative thing, but not as a full-fledged product line.

And as for commemorative, the year that would fit best would probably be in 2008 (30th anniversary of the first Basic D&D and 25th of Mentzer). Or possibly 2009, 35th anniversary of D&D 1st ed. They already missed the boat on Moldvay/Cook and RC.

D&D 1st ed: 1974
Basic D&D (2nd ed): 1978
Moldvay/Cook (3rd ed): 1981
Mentzer (4th ed): 1983
Rules Cyclopedia (5th ed): 1991

 

[Akrasia]

I don't understand all these worries about 'splitting the market' with multiple 'versions' of D&D.

It seems to me that if group A is running a game with 'core rules only' and group B is running a game with 'core rules + every WotC supplement published', the rules being used in those two groups are going to differ far more than the rules of B/X D&D differed from those of 1e AD&D.

Moreover, 'fragmentation' has already occurred with the proliferation of OGL systems.

WotC probably will not do it, but I'm surprised that a company hasn't produced an OGL-based 'D&D lite' (by which I mean a light system compatible with 3e even more than, say, C&C or True20 -- essentially a 'simplified' 3e that does not require minis, does not use AoOs, etc.).

Anyhow, given how well the old Basic D&D set sold during the 1980s -- and how well it acted as a 'feeder' into AD&D -- I doubt very much that 'supporting two systems' was a major factor in TSR's troubles. The separate B/X/RC line was phased out long before TSR went belly-up. I doubt very much that TSR's decline and fall had anything to do with the existence of separate 'D&D' line.

 

[Glyfair]

Judging by the popularity of sites like dragonsfoot.org, and the widely reported ‘underground OOP D&D groups’ out there (who obviously do not frequent sites like Enworld), I don’t think that it is a ‘very small market’ at all.

More people play OOP D&D than play most 'in print' RPGs. Of course, that still doesn’t mean it would be profitable for WotC to publish a new RC (or similar product), since these rules are already owned by most of the people who use them.

I was very specifically talking about OD&D. I'd wager the largest OOP RPG played is 1st edition AD&D. Second and third are probably tied between BD&D and 2nd edition. An OD&D group was already an aberration in the mid-80's before second edition was released.

I think it would be great for the hobby to have a D&D Basic Set that (1) Does not require-include D&D miniatures and (2) does not encourage to upgrade to a full D&D set of core books "ASAP" (after just two/three levels).

For me, as a customer, that makes me feel like offering a blank check with the parents name and signature on it to a young kid: that's a gift that will cost rather than benefit in the short term. That's not the feeling I had from the Basic Moldvay set.

I have to admit, I've never played Moldvay. I was brought into the game by Holmes and graduated to AD&D as it was gradually released (taking almost 3 years to get a full RPG on the market - what were they thinking? ).

Still, wasn't the Moldvay Basic set only 3 levels. What did you do after those levels? Create more characters to run from 1st-3rd? Create your own advancement for above 3rd level?

 

[ColonelHardisson]

It might even serve as a testbed to see which direction future editions of 3.x should go.

I'd say no to your main premise. However, I feel that the edition of D&D you're talking about should serve as inspiration for a simplified d20/3e that could serve as the basis for the more complex game we now know. That is, and I hate to bring up a 4th edition of D&D because it's a topic that's been discussed to death, any potential 4th edition would do well, in my opinion, to have a simplified base upon which to build more complex versions of the game. I think it can be done, and games like C&C and True 20 have made strides in that direction, but I think a self-contained, simplified d20/D&D - one about the length and complexity of the Cook/Molvay version you speak of - would be desirable. It could be released separately as its own entity, in a softcover version. It also could serve as the first part of the "regular" version of the game, the first section of a largere hardcover book like the current core books, with more detail and complexity added in successive chapters. Don't misunderstand me; I like d20/3e. I don't want it radically changed. I just think a strategy along the lines of what I propose could satisfy the needs of D&D fans all along the complexity spectrum, and maybe draw in new players.