Should WoTC Bring back Classic D&D?

[Ron]

I would love such product but I would never release it if the decision was mine to make. First of all, there is no sense in creating a second line without synergy with the main product. However, I would examine the old basic sales and perhaps discuss the possibility of releasing a new basic line simpler but still fully compatible with the current edition, as the old basic was with AD&D. It might be a good sale strategy as I seriously doubt anyone can learn to roleplay by reading the core books alone and a rules light version of the game may please quite a number of players. In the other hand, WotC have the numbers at hand and appearently decided this strategy is not worth of following.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

IMHO NO.

Classic was great for its time but the game and people's tastes have evolved. Now I don't think the d20 system is perfect by any means but unless I create a system myself I'll never have the perfect system for me.

However, I am still hanging on to my old Red Boxed basic set to use it to introduce my son to it when he gets old enough. IMHO the current edition smacks too much of a tactical wargame and I'd prefer my son get introduced to the role-playing aspect first.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't agree with the comparison. We're talking about a stand alone product not a complete game line requiring supplements.

And I'm talking about a demonstration in the marketplace of an interest in such a product.

There is interest, but it's a small niche, not worth WotC's time.

 

[Umbran]

I don't agree with the comparison. We're talking about a stand alone product not a complete game line requiring supplements.

The less supplement support you're going to give, the less likely it is to sell well. A game without supplements means a lot of work for the GM if they want to do much with it.

In addition, such "one shot" publishing probably isn't in WotC's best interests. WotC is probably interested in material that will help provide or support a long-running revenue stream (like D&D supplements help sell D&D core books). A stand-alone game doesn't help sell anything else, and so is more restircted in the profit it'll make.

So, compare - thing pretty sure to sell poorly and which won't drive a revenue stream, vs. something that may do better, and helps the revenue stream. Pretty clear choice there for WotC.

 

[Glyfair]

In addition, such "one shot" publishing probably isn't in WotC's best interests. WotC is probably interested in material that will help provide or support a long-running revenue stream (like D&D supplements help sell D&D core books). A stand-alone game doesn't help sell anything else, and so is more restircted in the profit it'll make.

I agree. Releasing such a book and not supporting it is the worst choice they could make. They'd be splitting their audience and not deriving a revenue stream from it beyond a single product. That makes no sense.

You might argue that it's a different market. True, it might have customers that would by other WotC products. However, it certainly would draw some customers from their main game line. Those customers would reduce or stop buying products from the game line. The product also wouldn't be replacing those customers with anything except sales of a single, niche product.

 

[ChristianW]

I am a big fan of Basic D&D and would rather play it, or 1e AD&D, than 3.5. However, I don't think Wizzo should spend the time or money trying to market a new system. People can play a rules-light, streamlined version of the game is, if they so choose.

 

[Shemeska]

No, for two major reasons:

1) Market fragmentation

2) I doubt that there's a market base large enough to support it, and I would wager it's a shrinking population. But I suppose I could be wrong.

 

[Seeten]

I just say no.

If I didn't have time for D&D 3.5, I wouldnt have time for Basic either. Or any other RPG.

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, from a financial point of view it likely wouldn't make sense. But it would be pretty cool.

I would prefer AD&D 1st edition though, not the D&D. Not that D&D was bad, but AD&D was more popular.

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.

 

[Steel_Wind]

No.