Should WoTC Bring back Classic D&D?

[mhacdebhandia]

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)

Sure, but whether Greyhawk supplements sold equally as well as Forgotten Realms supplements is only half of the equation - because Greyhawk never supported a novel line that sold nearly as well as the Forgotten Realms' novel line did.

I imagine novel sales was the deciding factor in choosing which of their two, equally successful traditional fantasy game settings to support: Greyhawk never had a Bob Salvatore.

 

[Staffan]

So, what were the Companion Set, the Master Set & the Immortals Set (admittedly, few would tread into the last of these)?

Those were the next iteration of the Basic D&D concept, 4th ed (aka the Mentzer edition). Moldvay/Cook was 3rd ed.

 

[Melan]

Short answer: it should, and it will not. Any introductory product will be heavily miniatures-dependent and lead straight into the 3rd edition product line.

 

[Ron]

Short answer: it should, and it will not. Any introductory product will be heavily miniatures-dependent and lead straight into the 3rd edition product line.

As sad as it is, I couldn't agree more. I think their strategy is to replace the basic line with the miniatures line. As far as WotC is concerned, miniatures are more lucrative, which really justify their decision.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Greyhawk never had a Bob Salvatore.

That's why four out of five literary critics prefer Greyhawk.

 

[Melan]

Mind you, Valdur, I agree with your main points in that a decently (re)made basic-expert style D&D wouldn't just be cool, it would also sell well as a separate product, no to mention generating new gamers more efficiently than the current model does - e.g. in the 80s, the Moldvay-Cook and Mentzer boxes were bestsellers who had a crucial role in recruiting today's gamer generation. Those who are most opposed to the idea aren't the target market - the target market should be teenagers, not old fans. Such a game shouldn't necessarily be a "nostalgia-based" product at all.

However, I see no way current day Wizards would make such a design decision. Their view of the game is incompatible with such a release, their entire design culture opposed to it. They see the game business as supplement-driven, increasingly giving way to a miniatures-driven focus. An evergreen and constantly promoted basic/expert set doesn't fit into the model. As sympathetic I am to your views, my advice is: let it go. Just let it go and walk away. You will not accomplish anything.

 

[Henry]

The big question to me, on whether it would be short-term profitable, is this:

How many people who already use those rules would buy it? Maybe half of the Basic D&D users active? Because I'm willing to wager that the number of people NOT using those rules currently who would pick it up would be only half the amount of those usingthe rules willing to buy it.

Assume there's maybe 50,000 people currently playing Basic D&D (round figure). so maybe 25,000 people might buy it. Of that, only half of that number (maybe 12,500) who don't currently use those rules might buy it. A product that sells only 40,000 copies would be astounding to anypublisher but WotC -- who has problems when a product pre-orders for less than 50,000 copies.

I've never seen enough fan participation to make me think that more than 50,000 or so people currently play Basic D&D (and that's to me the high end of the scale); and if you're working from those numbers, then to WotC it's just not viable. They could be higher; only the publishers of products like C&C and Hackmaster have any idea if they're close or not, and direct sales figures aren't that forthcoming (I think I remember Steve Kenzer on a dragonsfoot post two years ago saying something like 25,000 of the Hackmaster PHB and 15,000 of the GMG sold, but I could be mistaken..)

 

[MerricB]

If you were referring to the Cook/Moldvay rules, they consisted of two 63 page booklets: the Basic rules (B) and the Expert rules (X). The Basic rules took you from level 1-3, the Expert rules took you from level 4-36. Each booklet was the PHB, DMG and MM all rolled into one 63 page booklet!

Correction: the Expert booklet covered levels 4-14. (And, yes, I'm looking at the Cook version now). A "Companion" set of levels 15-36 was planned but never eventuated, instead the entire line was reworked by Frank Mentzer two years later.

No additional supplements or rules were required or even made available.

...if you don't count Companion, Master, Immortal, Gazetteers, etc.

Basic D&D ended up with quite a lot of supplements, actually.

This would actually be a great marketing move for D&D. (1) it allows new players to learn the game without being intimidated or turned off by a lot of details

See the Basic Game and the Miniatures game.

Cheers!

 

[Glyfair]

Correction: the Expert booklet covered levels 4-14. (And, yes, I'm looking at the Cook version now). A "Companion" set of levels 15-36 was planned but never eventuated, instead the entire line was reworked by Frank Mentzer two years later.

Thank you. I was almost certain this was the case, but as I never played it I couldn't speak from experience.

...if you don't count Companion, Master, Immortal, Gazetteers, etc.

Basic D&D ended up with quite a lot of supplements, actually.

It essentially comes down to this: With D&D you "need" 3 core books to reasonably play (you can argue the MM & DMG aren't essential, but if you go down that road the PHB isn't essential). This applies to AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D as well (with the 2nd edition monster books being a bit of a mess because of change of focus). With BD&D you needed 4 books to play (and a 5th "epic level" book was available).

Would is be successful if they did this? Probably.

From their point of view it may be detrimental in the long run. If you sold 50% as much as a D&D product, but cut the sales of your D&D products by 25%, then it's probably not worth it for them to do. They'd be working twice as hard for a small overall gain.



See the Basic Game and the Miniatures game.

Cheers![/QUOTE]

 

[Glyfair]

Thank you. I was almost certain this was the case, but as I never played it I couldn't speak from experience.



It essentially comes down to this: With D&D you "need" 3 core books to reasonably play (you can argue the MM & DMG aren't essential, but if you go down that road the PHB isn't essential). This applies to AD&D and 2nd edition AD&D as well (with the 2nd edition monster books being a bit of a mess because of change of focus). With BD&D you needed 4 books to play (and a 5th "epic level" book was available).

Would is be successful if they did this? Probably.

From their point of view it may be detrimental in the long run. If you sold 50% as much as a D&D product, but cut the sales of your D&D products by 25%, then it's probably not worth it for them to do. They'd be working twice as hard for a small overall gain.

See the Basic Game and the Miniatures game.

As much as some rail against D&D "becoming a miniatures game," I do believe that D&D miniatures has the potential to get more D&D players than any basic set would.

Roleplaying has moved away from the public eye. It's done in homes and in private areas of the internet more often than not. D&D miniatures, however, are done in game stores. People can see them being played. They are visually attractive and draw people into them. Once you get people to play D&D miniatures, it's natural for them to try D&D. Some won't like it, others may like it more.