Especially since several of their owners worked on them and it looks like the are doing great things with The Bards Tale remasters!

That will be up to GOG who now owns the SSI era AD&D games and Hasbro/Wizards of the Cost who own the D&D ip.

I would be thrilled if these games were remastered and updated to D&D v5. The stories are great, and while the technical issues are a bit of a problem for younger players, a bigger problem are the older, clunky, AD&D v1 rules.

If the games are "updated" to a newer version of D&D (especially post-2nd edition), I would argue that they are no longer the same games anymore.

I would guess that a remaster would stick with the original ruleset (with perhaps some bug fixes here and there), although I wouldn't be surprised if Olde Skull removed the female strength rule.

ewww 5th edition.. honestly Wizards should of just stuck with 3.5 but that's just me.

I would like the ability to be Rangers and Paladins in the earliest games. Remove the racial level limits and female strength limits. Heck remove the racial class limits too! Mouse and Numpad control to the earliest games. Maybe even add in WASD movement. Fix bugs. I could probably come up with a ton of other QOL improvements before we even got to subtle graphics enhancements and music.

I argee with the annoyance of the racial level limits but I understood the reason behind them when it came to the pen and paper game since the non-human races can multi-class from the get go allowing them to reach the highest levels in classes would make them horribly broken. I mean imagine say a dwarven fighter/cleric/mage that can reach level 30 in all three classes, that would just be insanely op. Hence why when TSR allowed Humans to multi-class they placed the restriction that they can't access the bonuses of their previous class till they reached the same level in their new class as they were at in their old class and they could no longer advance in their previous class.

I still DM with v3.5, but I can't imagine that Wizards would authorize any rework without going to their "latest" version.

In general, the games would be easier for a modern audience to enjoy with out the racial level limits, the female strength rule, and the multi-class restrictions (including for humans as the rules are in the newer systems, otherwise as DCT said, it would be unfair to human characters). Though the math is the same, replacing negative ACs and THAC0s with Attack bonuses and positive Defense ratings make combat much more intuitive.

Well, the enhanced editions of Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 and Icewind Dale were allowed and are still using 2nd edition rules, so I don't see why this would be any different.

I should also point out that converting Unlimited Adventures to a newer edition would result in all the old designs not being usable, while not converting would allow at least non-hacked designs to work.

I would love to see remastered versions of the Gold Box Games and would totally buy them. However, when companies remaster an older game they should only do things like fix bugs, add quality of life enhancements, and modernize graphics. I would be strongly opposed to any rule changes or things like that because you are fundamentally changing the game.

However, I would be very supportive If GOG created a new Unlimited Adventures game using a newer D&D ruleset. I think it would be a lot of fun and it could be profitable with DLC packs for things like pictures, new game worlds (rule sets), and premium modules. Also, a new UA would fix the limitations of the original game that required people hacking modules.

I'd be supportive of the Gold Box games possibly having the option use use AD&D 2nd Edition rules as opposed to just AD&D 1st edition. I believe the changes to 2nd edition relax a lot of the level limits on demi-humans that people find so odious and get rid of the female strength penalty. Other changes, from what I can research, have nothing to do with the Gold Box series. Mostly alterations to 1e classes or mechanics which were never appeared in the Gold Box games in the first place.

I'd be fine with changes to the demi-human level limits and female strength penalty; but there were some suggestions about using 3.5 or 5th edition which I think is a horrible idea for a remaster but could totally work for a new game.

I would be fine with removing the female strength penalty (I actually find that rule stupid and sexist). Raising racial level caps would also be OK (at least for the later games in the series).

However, I think I may prefer other things to work like in 1st edition, like magic resistance and the Ranger class.

I think it's racist that Halflings have so low STR (no, not really).

There actually is a big difference here.

If you play a Halfling, there are trade-offs. In return for lower strength, you get resistance to magic and poison, as well as being able to get 19 Constitution (according to an online copy of the Pools of Darkness manual; might actually be Dexterity in game (havn't checked)). Also, the pencil and paper game gives them bonuses to thief skills, I believe. (Is that implemented in any of the Gold Box games?)

Female characters, on the other hand, are penalized and get nothing in return. It seems that Gary Gigax only wanted people to play male characters, so he penalized those who dared to play female characters (or at least that's my guess). As a result, from a game balance perspective, male and female characters are not balanced each all. (There are good reasons many DMs rule zeroed that rule away and that the rule did not survive to 2nd edition, while the halfling strength limit did.)