How big was Dungeons and Dragons to warrant having its own cartoon series? Why isn’t it popular anymore to have multiple like other Hasbro shows?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
How big was Dungeons and Dragons to warrant having its own cartoon series? Why isn’t it popular anymore to have multiple like other Hasbro shows?
Cartoon shows are expensive, why bother when an actual play show like Critical Role with a budget of peanuts can hold an audience anyway?
Do Wizards of the Coast make money from that show?
They, or their evil underling subcompanies or whatever, sponser it. They must get returns somehow beyond simple extra sales of D&D products.
Critical Role raised sales of DnD product by like 20% alone. It was and is enormously popular for some reason.
It's popular enough they have their own licensed content
This.
It is that popular still.
Odd Capcom did an original game on D and D.
Square did too, but they just changed enough of the names and hoped nobody would notice (and sue them into oblivion)
Yeah, there is a ton of DnD in the first Final Fantasy.
And still around in ways. Ochus never stopped getting called Otyughs in Japan, it's just funny the designs on both sides of the ocean evolved into very different creatures.
Goddamn sorcerers. I know a mindflayer when I see one (and it scoops out my brain on a one hit kill when I'm trying to get through the Ice Cave).
Same reason FF1 is the only game where Quake is an instant death spell instead of "earth elemental damage". Because Quake in D&D was instant death.
Back in the day you could choose between ripping off dungeons and dragons, or ripping off a game that was ripping off dungeons and dragons (wizardry)
and lord of the rings
And Conan
LOTR already got ripped off by D&D. If you're ripping off LOTR you're just doing what D&D and going straight to the source.
Odd? Not really.
And later on, 2 official games.
WTF did they get opening songs for everything?
>hampered
That's how we got based Eric.
The blue set is gorgeous.
Every region does (or DID) their own opening song for cartoons they import.
Nope, with D&D and He-Man, now there's two cartoons that didn't have sung openings that I've heard got one in spanish. I think Italy is kinda big into that, too.
Absolutely awesome game
That was THE best one. They really gave it all they had.
Welcome to the D&D world!
>How big was Dungeons and Dragons to warrant having its own cartoon series?
Huge in geek circles. Like 90% saturation anywhere there were model builders, comic book collectors, or Tolkien readers.
Remember when Pokemon got big and religious morons said it was from the devil? They did that with D&D too 25 years earlier.
Who the frick brings saltine crackers for the snacks? No wonder these people were bullied.
I do wonder why didn't stay popular even Pokemon kept some of the giant popularity it had in the 90s.
Mismanagement under Lorraine Williams.
D&D is more popular than it ever has been. You just aren't in high school anymore.
Goblin Slayer
I would argue that making a story that takes inspiration from D&D mechanics its not the same as making a D&D show.
That being said Gobling Slayer is D&D in everything but name.
Apparently it's like
said, it got a bit more mainstream, but it's probably harder to tell because it doesn't look the same.
>I would argue that making a story that takes inspiration from D&D mechanics its not the same as making a D&D show.
That reminds me, Game of Thrones was taken from a RPG campaign, but they were using a homebrew system or something.
Already got linked here.
You underestimate its popularity, but also DnD has much stiffer competition than Pokemon. Everything from Pathfinder to Mork Borg to the Warhammer Fantasy RPG spinoff are out there taking a bite out of DND's market dominance. Pokemon doesn't have competition like that.
D&D has consistently taken top share of the market since 5e. PF cratered because its entire selling point was 3.5 with the serial numbers filed off, and 5e was built around the elements people liked about 3.5 with QoL improvements. While 5e has more competition now than it did at release, a lot of what it is up against doesn't have proven legs.
A more simple explanation is that 3.x is crunchy as hell but also bloated as hell and poorly balanced, 4e is very balanced at the cost of having a ruleset more suitable for a tactical wargame than an rpg.
I heard Pathfinder 2nd edition fricked everything up, isn't that a factor? Also maybe the novelty of D&D 5e.
Didn't they do the whole #notall with other historically evil monsters, too?
Pathfinder 2e had some controversial changes but I don't know if it's actual problems with the 2e rules or people just b***hing because they changed something.
Its part of a bigger push to decouple the concepts of monsters from any sort of history or grounding.
Basically they are trying to reorient DnD as a multiverse game where anything can happen and so there should be no baseline onto what anything can be. Your game can still have evil beholders but if you want to make good ones instead of how it was before where you could just say this one is good now they are erasing all of the culture and history of most creatures to make everything a baseline generic.
The biggest example of this is that they recently reworked all player races besides humans into a generic pick a stat to have a +2 in and a stat to have a +1 in any alignment goes and some flavor extras which is great for building the characters you want but also leads into another problem 5e has which is its the most DM unfriendly the game has ever been. It took multiple books for any sold structure for downtime activates and the like for example.
And as a DM a lot of the time I want to make my own shit and I can do that but sometimes I want to just go "hey there is owl people now cool what do they do?" and get nothing.
Really it seems like wizards M.O is to strip away as much writing from their content as possible and place it all on the DM to figure out (likely to save costs with freelances and the like) which is fine but why the frick would I ever engage with your product beyond the bear minimum to make my own stuff if that's all your going to give me.
And all of this has only got worse as the edition has gone on.
TL'DR I miss when the people in charge gave a shit about making cool worlds and races and were willing to put the effort in.
WTF all of this sounds like absolute shit
Except, ironically, the IDEA that there are owl people.
Man, Player's Option had neat content, but I think what bothered me the most were those critical hit tables.
I mean, Player's Option was sort of a clusterfrick all around. 3rd edition took the character customization angle and made it more comprehensive than the PO books but at the same time baked those new rules into the system so they were no longer "optional". It also made a variety of other novel changes that completely change the way the game was played, and in turn perceived by the playerbase. AD&D 1e and 2e are largely quite similar, but 3e is an entirely different game. 4e is a different game again, as is 5e.
I find it interesting to compare editions but frankly getting a good group matters way more than the system. It's not worth getting bent out of shape about mechanics or about the culture war bullshit that's become the new hotness (I find it equally amusing and dismaying that people so readily forget that Wizards was always very PC in its treatment of D&D and 3e had the most overtly "woke" pandering by using entirely female pronouns in the PHB, way back in the year 2000.)
>(I find it equally amusing and dismaying that people so readily forget that Wizards was always very PC in its treatment of D&D and 3e had the most overtly "woke" pandering by using entirely female pronouns in the PHB, way back in the year 2000.)
I sure haven't forgotten, like for some reason in D&D's first big movie they had randomly black elves, and WTF was up with their choice of example for a paladin in the PHB.
The other side of the argument is that players and DMs constantly tweak, ignore, or come up with their own rules, settings, and fluff (I personally have never had a single DM who used the official setting material outside of shit like gods or major figures like Vecna) and that they're not really stripping anything out of D&D that players weren't already picking and choosing. Which in a way feels like a concession to the longtime D&D playerbase and houserulers who understand that you can break a game in any way you want to fit your desires at the expense of the new players, who aren't going to have any experience with houserules and homebrew and might still have issues with running the base game smoothly.
>preoccupied with the idea that classes should be balanced like PvP videogames
I think you're remiss in not bringing up people like Monte Cook and the Ivory Tower game design school of thought and their impact on the drive for class balance. When you've got game designers inserting functionally inferior options into books and claiming that it encourages mastery of the system you're going to see a lot more fanbase push for class balance because your audience doesn't like being told they're too ignorant or stupid to grasp the correct (mechanically superior) way to play. Why the frick would anyone want to play a game when the designers outright punish people for trying to play the game according to all options given, and why the frick would anyone want to buy a game when a chunk of the rules can be replaced with lorem ipsum because no one is going to take the trap options.
The ivory tower design was already part of AD&D, albeit more constrained. It was there, but most players I knew didn't really take note of it. They didn't actually take note of it in 3e either- not among the flesh-and-blood players I knew. But it was a different story online. Online discussion became very efficient at deconstructing the game, and most of the opinions on how games should be designed were obviously influenced by the competitive videogames that these much more hardcore gamers were also playing.
The real problem with Monte is that the power available became much less constrained much faster, but that's a different problem from the idea that classes should be balanced against each other, which is what the online community was clamoring for, and which led to 4e. Monte is his own can of worms for sure, but I don't see him as being a big part of the change in player perception.
Monte himself is just a reference figure for the idea. The thing about online discussion is that you're naturally going to have a more in-depth breakdown of the game because you're going to have greater access to people who will break down the game in-depth. Pre-internet any D&D discussion was limited to player groups and LGS mostly, and large scale two-way communication was primarily the purview of conventions. With the internet suddenly any guy willing to crunch the numbers and post it could have a massive audience for his findings and plenty of people willing to help with taking deeper dives into the mechanics. Even without video games the internet would allow for a better mechanical understanding across the player base. Though another issue is that "class balance" means different things to different people. When most people say "balance" they mean that for any given level characters of that level are on an even footing in regards to challenges as a whole, not that they're on an even footing in regards to every challenge. Otherwise what's the point of a level system? Which is why the complaints about 4e being too "MMO" always struck me as odd, because it doesn't actually play like a video game.
And I get that, I'm just saying that there is an argument to be made.
Yeah, 4e was never even adapted to a PC game, and I think it would have been a pain in the ass to make the attempt based on how the game works. But AD&D never had any semblance of class balance and people accepted it for the longest time. Maybe the real culprit was the fact that the d20 system completely upended the concept of classes with the new multiclass system. While before you kept the class(es) you started with, in 3e you had to ask yourself "what class is the best to take for my next level" every time you leveled up, and those comparisons led to some harsh truths. I think that concept has also endured in subsequent design in the attempt to avoid the so-called "dead levels".
>The other side of the argument is that players and DMs constantly tweak, ignore, or come up with their own rules, settings, and fluff (I personally have never had a single DM who used the official setting material outside of shit like gods or major figures like Vecna) and that they're not really stripping anything out of D&D that players weren't already picking and choosing. Which in a way feels like a concession to the longtime D&D playerbase and houserulers who understand that you can break a game in any way you want to fit your desires at the expense of the new players, who aren't going to have any experience with houserules and homebrew and might still have issues with running the base game smoothly.
While I understand what you mean I feel like it was an unneeded change that is damaging the growth of new DM's for minimal gain. For instance in my image I posted two pages from a 2e book these two pages with a good imagination are enough to let any passionate newbie DM take it make mate it their own. The already stablished content acts a part of a dialogue allowing young minds to develop new ideas inspired from the old. Also Mindflayers (its an example they are actually one of the more lore stable things in DnD0 are cool I think most people can agree on that and if I want to use Mindflayers needing to go digging through old books to learn out about them is another barrier which sucks, if the time I save by using mindflayers as antagonists I can then flesh out other aspects. Or for another example lets say on of my players wants to play a dwarf I can conjure a society and culture sure but that takes time and I can just use a generic baseline but that can be dull so being allowed to have baselines that have history and development to pull from really helps.
5th was good 6th preictally killed the brand
>6th preictally killed the brand
What?
Why? What the frick happened?
The game is actively broken like the designers don't have any editors or anything and so when it came out there was shit like gear that related to systems that were cut in development and shit like that.
This killed the brand.
That's a shame. Shadowrun's a weird setting I actually love. Fantasy cyberpunk supercriminals vs monolithic, corrupt corporations. Or just dragons. Frick dragons.
>that is damaging the growth of new DM's for minimal gain
It's not though. By all metrics DnD is the mos tpopular it's ever been, and the changes are (mostly) well accepted besides places like here.
That's because I'm not talking about brand growth I'm talking about the process of having DM's grow from newbies into people skilled at their part in the hobby. DnD is very popular no denying that. But new DM's need inspiration to build upon and learn from.
Such materials as my pic from the earlier post are perfect for giving enough structure for someone to use as a foundation and then over time make it their own. Which comes from lore and backgrounds that they can play out, get inspired by, and build upon.
Yes this can be drawn from other sources but having this stuff made for a DnD type environment helps much more.
Let put it this way, if you have a plant which one is more likely to give the better end result the Fertilizer handmade for those types of [plants (pic rel) Generic store brand fertilizer (whatever random inspirations they came into it with)
DnD will be popular for years to come but being healthy is different from being popular.
I prefer 2e to 1e
Because people watch podcasts of people playing the game instead of shows like this, they are working on a live action movie right now though
It's still popular. It caters to a market that has a lot of money and will buy anything. It's probably making more money now than ever before.
The Latam spanish song frickin slaps.
I liked the acrobat achertype, dex/str built without meme asian vibes to it worked great in their universe.
>The Latam spanish song frickin slaps.
I'm from Mexico and I don't we had that opening.
That song was only in Spain.
Every RPG came out of it. Anything like warcaft, jrpgs, Diablo, skyrim etc.
Retro versions are better.
>Retro versions are better.
Which is why you should have posted the retro art!
>Every RPG came out of it.
How true is this?
True as in, D&D was the first RPG proper.
About 90-95% true.
Not literally every RPG draws inspiration from D&D but you need to almost deliberately go out of your way to not have some lineage tracing back to it. Not coming out of D&D is an active choice.
And damn near impossible. It's damn near ubiquitous.
Damn near, yeah. But go into the really niche or very unorthodox types of roleplaying games, and you see not a trace of D&D. Take something like Fiasco (usually considered more of a party game), the Shab Al-Hiri Roach (again, usually considered more of a party game) for things that don't even have campaign or character continuity structures but are exclusively usable for one-shots. But the fact that they're not meant for campaigns is one of the things that make it obvious they're not really inspired at all by D&D, but by parlor games that are even older than D&D but still feature roleplaying. If we only want things that are more similar to D&D, we kinda beg the question by only looking at things necessarily influenced by D&D.
The hard thing isn't really finding games that are different from D&D, but being 100% sure they didn't get influenced by the popularity of D&D. Legends of the Wulin doesn't share a single feature with D&D, neither rules nor genre trappings, but it's pretty obvious it only exists because D&D paved the way. Same with Dogs in the Vineyard or Polaris. GM-less games, diceless games, there are a ton but D&D is known to all of the creators usually.
Especially, since it inspired Hylide and Wizardry.
>Why isn’t it popular anymore to have multiple like other Hasbro shows?
Hasbro didn't own D&D until 1999 when it acquired Wizards of the Coast. Also D&D as a property has hundreds of licenses and the production rights to D&D media were spread across multiple holders.
It was big but the cartoon was borderline INO (in the TV show, Dungeons & Dragons is a popular roller coaster ride and not a role playing game and the cast are sent to the magic world while riding it).
The TV show was condemned for promoting satanism as part of the moral panic trend and barely lasted like 27 episodes (13 episode first season, then an 8 episode second season and a 6 episode final season).
The show was also hampered by network restrictions, from content having to be G-Rated but most notably a mandate that existed on all three major networks at the time, that the show had to promote the notion that you must ALWAYS do what the group says and that the complainer/person who has an independent mind is ALWAYS WRONG.
The show did well but having to dumb shit down for kids plus the "anti-independent thought" mandate soured the then owners from ever licensing out the property for another animated show; even when censorship policy became more lax to do a more faithful D&D cartoon adaptation.
>Why isn't it popular anymore
Pretty sure D&D is more mainstream and popular now than it ever was before
This.
Stranger Things has D&D as a feature and Critical Role (much as I don't like it) have helped push D&D and tabletop into the mainstream audience.
I expect D&D will get more series (animated or otherwise) due to the current trend of the general public being (superficially) into nerdy shit.
the thing is, the modern game isn't "nerdy shit" anymore, rules are basically paper vidya, and the "lore" is flanderized to the point of memeing itself.
4th edition did a lot to ruin the game, it's true.
> rules are basically paper vidya, and the "lore" is flanderized to the point of memeing itself.
>4th edition
See, everything he said equally applies to 3e. You can't blame 4e for just continuing the road 3e started to tread.
Not equally, no, though the Diablo 2 influence was blatant, there.
At least 3e had the whole third-party thing which allowed good lore with official settings, though, like Ravenloft and Dragonlance. It's surprising that 4e Dark Sun still had some good explanations despite it being a whole mess.
>Every class has 'powers' that are basically spells
>So many powers are nearly identical with tiny variations like 'push foe one square' and 'mark them'
>Skill challenges to resolve social events with pre-set outcomes rather than roleplaying
>powers that only work once per encounter because ... uh ... they just do.
Wow, yeah that's totally the same as 3rd edition, except 3rd is worse, amirite, Zoomie?
>Skill challenges to resolve social events with pre-set outcomes rather than roleplaying
Huh, I could appreciate this.
>Every class has 'powers' that are basically spells
Sounds familiar. Are you talking about the Book of Weeabo Fightan Magic?
>Skill challenges to resolve social events with pre-set outcomes rather than roleplaying
Totally different from making Diplomacy checks, Bluff checks, Intimidate checks, innit. Such great roleplaying there!
that only work once per encounter because ... uh ... they just do.
Turn Undead being a limited resource that can only be used so many times a day isn't videogamey at all now is it. Does your cleric run out of faith to preach with?
Frick off, it's only the next logical step after the videogamey bullshit that 3e epitomises. 4e was the game 3aboos created by being such anti-roleplaying shitlords.
>the game 3aboos created by being such anti-roleplaying shitlords
Hang on, are we talking about Gygax and Arneson too, before roleplaying became such a big deal?
>Are you talking about the Book of Weeabo Fightan Magic?
Yes, one of the last books released at the end of 3e's lifespan, basically the intro to the 4e paradigm.
I'm glad we agree that 4th edition was made solely by and for vidya players and is hated by real tabletop gamers.
HP Bloat, being reduced to just using the same powers over and over again, so bold and creative
Geez, this shit gives me a headache, how did 4e players keep track
It’s easy if you know anything about the game and aren’t just reading blurbs out of context. Nerds are afraid of 4e because it doesn’t read like a storybook and has actual rules.
Is this bait? How are all those powers supposed to measure against a feat that allows you to cause "double damage with a weapon of choice"?
>Totally different from making Diplomacy checks, Bluff checks, Intimidate checks, innit.
It is, because in 3e all of those had penalties based on how believable (or not) your chosen story was.
4e is just
>win 5 out of 9 skill checks, except if you use the wrong skill (which you have no idea what that is) then you count that as an autofail
>Turn Undead being a limited resource that can only be used so many times a day isn't videogamey at all now is it.
Per day is not 'per encounter' at least try to keep up.
Characters running out of spell slots, mana, holy juice whatever and needing to rest or pray for more is about game balance with a coating of fluff.
Wizards literally forget their spells after casting them and need to rememorise them.
Why can the warrior only do the 'big swing' once in a fight? Because he forgets how to do it afterwards?
literally forget their spells after casting them and need to rememorise them.
>He pretends this makes more sense than getting tired after swinging your axe
Vancian magic was always moronic. Extending it to Vancian martialing is also moronic, but you're moronic for thinking it was ever about lore and not just a game design decision.
Turn Undead being very poorly explained is one of the most glaringly immersion breaking parts of fantasy games. How long have the people you turn been undead? Where do they go after you turn them? If they have been dead for more than year this could create serious social problems. They might have nothing to go back to. They might not be welcomed back at all. By leaving the outcome open ended the role playing games create a void in the mind of the player. "Just shut up and don't ask too many questions, Pleb." Why not? Complex political motivations are often a part of such stories. But nobody bothered to have a regular system for what happens to undead people who are turned back to life? They just turn and are no longer present in the battle or world for some reason? Lazy writing. That's as lazy as saying the tough guys are easier to mind control because they didn't get an education. They would be easier to lie to, sure. They would absolutely not be easier to take magical possession of, which should require a hit point and constitution check vs your mind controller's magic level because you are seeking physical control of a body.
Anon, please understand my genuine wish to help when i ask this
Are you joking?
Go choke on Monte Cook's micro-peen while you jack it to Pathfinder.
I haven't played since 2nd edition, but everything I've seen about later editions is always complaints, what happened?
A mix of things, mostly that D&D got popular enough that it felt okay to shit on it since you no longer had to convince people just to have someone to play with.
Niche things get less flak.
Also 3rd and 4th editions were piles of shit.
Thanks for the answers, anons.
All good
3rd edition is honestly not that bad, though the art got kinda downgraded. A lot of the lore doesn't feel the same, and it got way too technical, like, the spell descriptions don't give a lot of room to do creative stuff with them. That's when they also had an open d20 system which allowed third parties to release their own compatible material, which was pretty cool.
Then Hasbro bought D&D, came up with 4th edition, reinvented the wheel somewhat and made character creation a bigger hassle, as well as keeping track of the "powers" your character could use at will, once per encounter, once per day or whatever. That replaced spells, turn undead, combat maneuvers and some basic bonuses. Making a Fighter wasn't that much easier than a Mage anymore.
5th edition seems to have made things a lot friendlier, specially spells, but by then you already have stuff like half-dragons and tieflings as basic races, some of the creature lore tries too hard to be "politically correct", and so on.
3/3.5 was really complex and so attracted an audience of build autists and the like and was the edition that coincided with the internet boom so the autism was intensified.
4th had a lot of good Ideas but didn't play anything like who people think dnd is meant to be played. alongside this its marketing was based around shitting on old players and the Digital component was never finished thanks to the one developer who made all the code obtuse for job security murder suicided his Ex. Its a common saying that if 4e was called DnD tactics instead of a mainline edition then most of the stigma would wash away.
5e is weird in that it actively works to achieve the platonic ideal of DnD but is watered down in function. By that its like the bard of DnD editions in that it can do everything but isn't the best at any of it. This leads to more veteran players getting frustrated on two fronts.
1. Due to its jack of all trades nature the more you play with it the more you discover limits of what you can do with it and this causes people to get sick of it leading to.
2. Its everywhere at this moment in time DnD5e controls more of the market than any other game meaning that just your sick of it and want to play something else its like looking for water in the desert. Combine this with a mass influx of new people who refuse to even try other games and would instead wish to break 5e to make it suit their needs (5e is not modular in its rules really) and to add ontop of that the people who it brought into the game (like 70% of TTRPG players came in with 5e and ONLY play 5e) and generally very progressive in the "Generic Orcs are an offensive stereotype of black people and must be changed" and "I should be allowed to have a PC in a wheelchair and all dungeons must be wheelchair accessible if you don't do this its ablest" which with a very liberal company that concede to these demands incenses the culture war.
>Its a common saying that if 4e was called DnD tactics instead of a mainline edition then most of the stigma would wash away.
And if they didn't kill off 4th edition for it. That's important.
I get that but if Pathfinder is anything to go by people would of been content playing 3.5 for at least 5 more years so in this hypothetical you could do DnD: Tactics let it do its thing an then let a entirely new 4e exist in the slot 5e does.
>people would of been content playing 3.5 for at least 5 more years
My party kept playing for longer, I'm sure if we get to play anytime soon it will still be 3.5e. They could probably keep it alive with supplements for a good while, it was kinda solid.
Can't believe they killed it off before giving the Ranger a feat to remove the last two-weapon penalty
>Generic Orcs are an offensive stereotype of black people and must be changed
man, the race of savage pillaging, murdering, raping psychopaths being considered an obvious allegory for Black people officially by Wizards of the Coast was probably the funniest thing to come out of BLM for me, personally. Such fricking oblivious virtue signaling
> 3e
> 3.5e
> 4e
> 5e
Why not just use the tried and true 2e and incorporate elements of the others as you please?
It's been decades since I played D&D but the d20 system sounds like a better way.
>Why not just use the tried and true 2e and incorporate elements of the others as you please?
NTA, but because it doesn't sell modules and books. But thats why there is the OSR movement which tries to go back to that sort of gameplay.
The d20 system is 3e/3.5e, though. Unfortunately a lot of later stuff would take lots of work to adapt for 2e.
Because when trying to engage with he greater TTRPG community its all 5e like honestly you need to either mold your friends who have no conception of what DnD is into your players or you need to wade through mountains of 5e to find anything because everyone else already has their longstanding groups.
5e flooded the market and brought the tabletop Eternal September with it, now it controls 70-80% of the market and has made it so that peoples first impressions of Tabletop are that rules are so complex that its not worth it to try another game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September#:~:text=Eternal%20September%20or%20the%20September,ability%20to%20enforce%20existing%20norms.
It was big enough to have its own moral panic, just like comics in the 50s.
Newer editions are generally more complex than basic AD&D. If you remember the Player's Option series from 2e, later editions went down a similar route of trying to offer more customization options to players, and much like the Player's Option books it wasn't always thought out very well. The variety was popular but also led to controversies due to problems that could arise form unrestricted character builds, and disagreements on how to handle things like powergaming at the table.
Also, my two cents as a player who started in 2e and played through later editions, it seems to me that the crop of players who started D&D post-2000 or so come into the game with a more "videogame" influenced mentality, regardless of whatever edition they actually play. This has led to debates about things like "class balance" that were never really paid attention to before. AD&D classes are blatantly not balanced against each other at all, but players with experience with things like MMOs and fighting games became preoccupied with the idea that classes should be balanced like PvP videogames, which had a big impact on the design philosophy after 3rd edition. The introduction of 4th edition split the community and the "edition wars" between 3e and 4e raged for years in online forums and message boards.
You were never a real nerd back in D&D's heyday if you believe that shit. You're probably like, 19 years old or something.
There is no D&D lore, because D&D is a ruleset. You could talk about Forgotten Realms, or Ravenloft, or Planescape, or Spelljammer, or Dark Sun, or Eberron or whatever, and I never liked D&D over other, better RPGs so I can't say if those settings are worse now, but the rules for 5th ed are way further from paper vidya than 3.5 or 4e or hell, even 2e. Not that that's a good thing imo, AD&D 2e will remain the peak of D&D for me into perpetuity, but 5e is very much a game made with modern RPG design sensibilities: high levels of abstraction, lack of granularity and GM arbitration but with very simple binary states for each decision. Video games don't work like that.
Imagine trying to make a 5th ed ruleset video game. It's not easy. On the other hand, 2e ruleset literally has dozens of games, including Icewind Dale and its expansions.
>There is no D&D lore
yet every race descriptions comes with some to explain their place int eh world, and where the variants live
I would have said Rick & Morty D&D helped more.
Kept my dice around for the frick of it.
>Dice with rounded corners
This shit would never fly in Vegas.
It was the 80s. Having a cartoon was the norm, not the exception.
How come? If all the corners are rounded the same way, then it shouldn't have any statistically significant impact. At least that's my assumption.
Your assumption isn't wrong, but you're neglecting how big of an "if" it is. Manufacturing processes aren't that precise and the rounding isn't done one-by-one, but by just tumbling all the dice to get rid of the sharp edges. This process isn't perfect so you can potentially get biases.
Been nearly twenty years since the last time I played and yea, I kept mine too.
>metal dice
You better fricking bring a rolling tray because that shit is sure not allowed near my furniture.
>those silly d10s
that's newbie shit
Vegas dice are machined to be as nearly perfect cubes as possible. Consumer dice are merely molded and tumbled.
I'm surprised there aren't more comics. Looks like from mid-2000s to around 2015 there were only TPB re-releases of 80s comics.
Nah, there were a few comics in the 3e and 4e era but they weren't all branded 'Dungeons & Dragons'. They were sometimes branded as Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance or whatever campaign setting they were based in.
But much like the games themselves the 80's ones are the only good ones.
>hating on Fell's Five
You are a swine.
Google 'Fell's Five'
I fricking loved this comic. Bree is best girl.
you get it the wrong way, at that time, cartoons were cheap and used to promote a new product, not to parade a success. They made a cartoon to sell more of a promising new market.
meanwhile, in Brazil
neat
Hopefully the live action film with Cris Pine is successful and WotC decide to do a new show that at least starts in Forgotten Realms proper. Hell, just make a TV adaptation of Fell’s Five for Adult Swim. Get Genndy to do it. They just signed him to that big deal so why not?
>genndy doing fell's five
I had no idea how much I wanted this.
>Forgotten Realms proper
Please no, just vanilla generic D&D ftw
What the frick do you mean "vanilla generic D&D"
Forgotten Realms is about as vanilla and generic D&D as it gets. What, you'd rather do Planescape's wacky tobaccy multiverse shit?
FR is too centered on their NPCs everywhere, societies and the gods interacting directly with shit like the Time of Troubles.
>What, you'd rather do Planescape's wacky tobaccy multiverse shit?
First off, that ship has sailed with them shoving tieflings fricking everywhere for no goddamn reason, even FR 3e books already had genasi and aasimar where they didn't belong at all.
But honestly I think Planescape is wacky tobaccy enough that it would deserve its own spin-off movie, always loved that shit. Berks would be confused to hell and back with what "multiverse" actually entails, after being introduced to the word through basic b***h "alternate reality" concepts.
I never said Forgotten Realms wasn't bad, my favourite D&D game is Planescape: Torment (obviously). I like Planescape a lot more than FR, but how is there anything that could possibly be more generic and vanilla D&D than FR?
Sigil would be a great place for any kind of show or movie, honestly. I am always a fan of wheel-based cosmologies.
I'm not sure, I think Greyhawk and maybe Mystara might be more vanilla. Or maybe something generic with no specific setting.
You know what, you're right and I'm completely wrong. Greyhawk is a much more obvious candidate for vanilla D&D than FR, I just forgot Greyhawk because I literally forgot it exists. I can't remember a single thing about Greyhawk that sets it apart, but that's because it literally is just as generic as humanly possible.
I concede the argument.
I don't Mystara's a good fit for "more generic than FR" though since I think it's roughly equivalent to FR, but with less NPC meddling which wouldn't really be worth noting in a movie or something.
However, having said all of the above, I think anyone clamoring for a generic vanilla work taking place in Greyhawk has to be severely deficient in grey matter.
What do you think The Legend of Vox Machina is, anon? Is d&d for the current player generation.
Have things been settled, monster-wise? We can all agree that Gnolls are hyena-people now, right? Not some slightly larger version of Kobolds...who are small lizard-people?
Kobolds are a bit dog-like, you heathen.
Eh, who cares. Gnoll girls are the sexy ones. Kobolds are for trampling.
Now that I think about it, it is a bit odd that this got a cartoon during the "satanic panic" era.
Remember D&D webcomics? No one does.
Friendly reminder we got an ending for this show 30 years later from a fricking car commercial from Brasil.
Its also puts any Hollywood live action adaptation to shame, by actually adapting the show and not just doing whatever the hell they wanted.
They should do an Avatar-tier CGI tv series based on the original modules, the G-series (giants), followed by the D series (drow) and concluding with the Q series (Queen of the Demonweb Pits), which would provide enough of a storytelling framework for several seasons.
why cgi though
Live action is too difficult to implement all the cool monsters and SFX and different character races (i.e. have to use forced perspective for scenes with halflings and humans).
NTA but because any 2D animated content in this day and age will likely not be given the budget to make something worth of the content it was based upon.
Imagine the picture on
but with noodle limbs and dot faces 4D will still likely be bad but less so.
>any 2D animated content in this day and age will likely not be given the budget to make something worth of the content it was based upon.
Indeed, that's the other problem. The Star Wars Clone Wars cartoon fir example, looked like cheep kindergarten garbage (dunno about the storylines, I didn't watch the show).
>Imagine the picture on
They should do an Avatar-tier CGI tv series based on the original modules, the G-series (giants), followed by the D series (drow) and concluding with the Q series (Queen of the Demonweb Pits), which would provide enough of a storytelling framework for several seasons. but with noodle limbs and dot faces
why do you hurt me so, anon
it's popular enough to have influence on fantasy cartoons and anime that a D&D cartoon would just be redundant
I haven't played a TTRPG in over a decade, sad to see that DnD is still dominating.I like other settings like Mutants and Masterminds, Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, or even GURPS' kitchen sink approach.
Mind you, last time I read Shadowrun it was on 4e and I think it's on 6th or 7th now. I might not like the changes from other editions in true grognard fashion.
I think the perennial appeal of D&D is that it has a "default" state (kill things and acquire loot) which many higher concept games lack. So whenever you have a game where not all the players have read all the material (that is, most players, most of the time) the game can still fumble along. Meanwhile for a lot of other games if everyone isn't fully engaged things just grind to a halt. The imperfect nature of D&D that everyone complains about become the game's greatest strength when it comes to human element. If people struggle to organize games for something as approachable as D&D, I can only imagine what it's like for a game like Eclipse Phase. Which has an amazing setting but I've never heard of anyone actually playing it.
>How big was Dungeons and Dragons to warrant having its own cartoon series?
Pretty big.
>Why isn’t it popular anymore to have multiple like other Hasbro shows?
Video games dominated.
hasbro self sabotages