|
While I'd love another adventure with this gang, I'm far more interested in the TV show they were teasing at one point. If the writing and humor is on point as much as it was in the film, a lower-stakes version of this would be a blast week-to-week. But since most fantasy projects over the past few years didn't exactly do GoT numbers, I'm guessing that's out.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
I suspect Hasbro fired everyone who could make it happen
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 07:39
|
|
|
Well yeah, but they fired them with the expectation that they can hire freelancer liaisons or make it the production company's responsibility. I mean they fired the Universes Beyond leadership team, and that's their most profitable cohort ever so they're not going to wind that down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2024 15:16
|
|
|
Hasbro is on a course to run D and D despite it being incredibly successful into the loving ground is a sight to behold honestly. They are just totally gutting the entire company.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 04:07
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Hasbro is on a course to run D and D despite it being incredibly successful into the loving ground is a sight to behold honestly. They are just totally gutting the entire company. I'm starting to think there's a fundamental incompatibility between D&d and capitalism. A cooperative game you play with imagination and a few carved rocks. They keep trying to figure out ways to monetize it and none of them work. Hell, TSR failed commercially. Nevertheless, it persists . . .
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 04:56
|
|
|
But it seems so easy... Sell prettier carved rocks. Is that not enough for them?!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:But it seems so easy... Sell prettier carved rocks. Is that not enough for them?! No. Especially since you can't copyright or trademark the platonic solids.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 05:07
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:But it seems so easy... Sell prettier carved rocks. Is that not enough for them?! Nothing is ever enough for them, ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 05:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm starting to think there's a fundamental incompatibility between D&d and capitalism. A cooperative game you play with imagination and a few carved rocks. They keep trying to figure out ways to monetize it and none of them work. Hell, TSR failed commercially. Nevertheless, it persists . . . This is correct. Fortunately we don’t need them to continue playing our dice rolling make believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 05:21
|
|
|
Vorgen posted:But it seems so easy... Sell prettier carved rocks. Is that not enough for them?! Last week I swung into a local Ollie's and left with two official DnD cases, one with figure flats and one for terrain, that came out 14 months ago at $65 apiece. Ollie's was selling them for $2.99 each.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 06:15
|
|
|
Oof Elemental (16HD)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 06:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm starting to think there's a fundamental incompatibility between D&d and capitalism. A cooperative game you play with imagination and a few carved rocks. They keep trying to figure out ways to monetize it and none of them work. Hell, TSR failed commercially. Nevertheless, it persists . . . Pretty much. D&D is in the unenviable but very funny position of having an extremely recognizable and well loved name but the actual associated product is just a set of rules and guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 21:04
|
|
|
Also, you can't copyright game mechanics, and a whole bunch of D&D stuff is common things like "goblins" and "wizards" so they really have nothing beyond Beholders and Mind-Flayers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
I’d never thought about it like that, but you’re right, they’ve sort of tried to become an IP company, but for an incredibly generic IP.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
They're going to try, though. They spent 100 million on a VTT and they're going to try to put D&D as The Roleplaying Game, the only one you need, the way the truth and the light, etc. The problem here is, generously, their current version of D&D isn't very good from a mechanical standpoint and has no real strengths, while the concept of an RPG is now old enough that there are various products that are designed to simulate certain narrative genres (deductive/mystery games, horror games, games where you and your buddies plan a heist, etc) and do it better. If even a single person at the table has been exposed to these other products, the "D&D stranglehold" starts to weaken.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
I mean, it seems like a pretty good way of monetizing D&D is making a film which popularizes a setting to which you hold the sole copyright. You can release a bunch of adventures for that setting, and no one else can, and you can release more films, TV shows, etc, all set in that setting. That (along with brand recognition and loyalty) seems like relatively easy money to me, but I'm not an MBA, so probably I just don't have the knowledge to understand how to make even more money by firing everyone and miring the brand in never-ending scandal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 21:43
|
|
|
Yes, but again - one of the funny things about the setting, The Forgotten Realms, is that it is literally "Generic Fantasy poo poo that you, the Dungeon Master, can use as a base for your wild adventures". There are other settings, and in my humble opinion they are way cooler, but anyone could use most of them with the serial numbers filed off. Anyone could make a Planescape or Dark Sun pastiche easily. Ravenloft is literally "ways to get poo poo from other famous classic horror books into dungeons and dragons", there's really nothing interesting there. The only real other setting they have that has any juice is Dragonlance, because the characters are at least somewhat memorable and the books were somewhat successful. However the actual value of their IP is almost nil beyond that, because an absolute ton of it is "folklore and mythical monsters stat'd up to kill your players" and the buyer is paying for the labor to stat it up, not for the concept. The concepts exist in the commons, and have no value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
See it sounds like the problem here is IP law. If Hasbro could copyright the number 20 and monetize it, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 22:19
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I mean, it seems like a pretty good way of monetizing D&D is making a film which popularizes a setting to which you hold the sole copyright. You can release a bunch of adventures for that setting, and no one else can, and you can release more films, TV shows, etc, all set in that setting. That (along with brand recognition and loyalty) seems like relatively easy money to me, but I'm not an MBA, so probably I just don't have the knowledge to understand how to make even more money by firing everyone and miring the brand in never-ending scandal. Yeah, the movie was their best shot. If they're smart at all they'll dump truck money into it as an investment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
CottonWolf posted:I’d never thought about it like that, but you’re right, they’ve sort of tried to become an IP company, but for an incredibly generic IP. The wild thing is that this is something the previous owners of D&D have already tried and failed to do. In the 90s, TSR had a whole slew of campaign setting box sets which were all designed to tie the actual D&D mechanics to new IP that they could actually profit from, but while a handful of them had their fans (including Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Planescape) it couldn't save the company. (And as M's J points out, many were still so generic that you weren't getting anything from buying those sets that you couldn't just 𝒾𝓂𝒶ℊ𝒾𝓃ℯ on your own.) Hasbro's current approach differs only in that it's not trying to profit from the ownership of full settings so much as a vague D&D "aesthetic" that can be painted over top any generic fantasy milieu. But, like, who gives a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
As somebody who has followed this a bit, the MBAs at Hasbro are trying to move into a walled garden model where they get you into the D&D "ecosystem" and keep you there, paying a monthly subscription fee to play on their proprietary VTT that only plays D&D. They've invested over 100 million in it, starting with paying 146 million in cash for a 3 year old business and continuing to pump money into it while also developing a 3d, best-in-class shared tabletop VTT. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robwieland/2022/04/13/hasbro-acquires-dd-beyond-for-1463-million/?sh=2395e8ee6d65 This is not going to be about IP exploitation (because there simply isn't IP worth exploiting there; being able to set your movie in the city of Baldur's Gate and use the Harpers and Thay isn't worth poo poo despite what some diehards may think) it's going to be about trying to create an RPG ecosystem where the player is perpetually charged to access content, like a streaming service. The enormous problem for Hasbro with this model is that a pretty good generic VTT that already exists called Foundry, it's 50 dollars for a forever license for it, it supports 95% of RPG systems, and having it hosted remotely is 5 bucks a month as opposed to each player having a subscription for the D&D VTT. And Foundry will run the new version of D&D! There's absolutely no reason for anyone to buy into this ecosystem other than wanting to be ripped off by Hasbro for having "Official Product of Dungeons and Dragons" on the letterhead. Also, regarding Schwarzy's post, yeah the old TSR way from the 90s wasn't the best but as somebody who bought a lot of their supplements I enjoyed it and they were actually providing value. I liked Dark Sun, I liked Planescape, I liked Al-Qadim! drat sight better than setting up a tollbooth between the player and the tools, even if becoming the 90s equivalent of a content mill brought on its own problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
Designing a setting to be generic and then having issues with how generic it is, pretty funny. I liked the cheerful setting. A cursory glance worth of how the others look: I’m assuming Dragonlance is the edgier, Gambo Thrones type dark fantasy? Planescape appears to be “trippy” 90s plasticine industrial fantasy? Weird. Spelljammer looks to be magic ships in space … where’s the animated adaptation of this? It’s eye popping
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
well why not posted:
This post made me feel old Dragonlance is somehow more generic than the generic settings, but in a kinda neat way if that's your vibe Don't forget dark sun which is mad max as a d&d setting
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Dragonlance's big thing is that it pretends to be grim but the good guys win. The Inn of the Last Home is the original Cozy Tavern, as the kids are saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Would love a sequel to this movie to be in a Ravenloft setting. Just make the world spooky as hell, but keep the same tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2024 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah the original idea behind D&D is that after you buy the rulebooks you've got everything you need to keep playing forever. The ads back in the 1970s really pushed the idea that after your initial outlay of just $10 you were good to go, all you need was paper and pencils. They very quickly pivoted to selling adventure supplements and miniatures and pushing subscriptions for Dragon magazine but that stuff was always optional.   In the modern era where anyone can download pirated PDFs and buy generic dice off eBay it's super easy to play D&D without giving any money to TSR if you don't want to, and as MJ already posted there's a ton of other RPG systems out there as well I can only imagine that TSR/Hasbro are super super jealous of Games Workshop who went the opposite direction where you have to buy physical figurines to play their game which are all very specific factions for their unique setting which only they sold, and they updated the rules every few years so everyone has to buy the new rulebooks to stay current, and they continuously issue new/updated miniatures every year. Technically someone could just buy a set of the old rules and use some generic models to play the game at home but if they want to enter any official tournament down at their local hobby store they must use the latest version of the rules and can only use official GW miniatures
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 02:19
|
|
|
Hasbro also recently shot themselves in the foot extremely hard with license nonsense. Basically DnD used to have a fairly generous license that freely allowed third-party game devs to make and sell supplements like new classes, adventures, etc. for DnD. Hasbro didn't profit directly from it, but of course there was a massive indirect benefit because all that stuff was only usable with their core product and kept people tied to their system. There's a whole gigantic secondary ecosystem of third-party supplements that significantly contributes to DnDs pre-eminent position in the elfgame market. But at some point some exec decided that the "Hasbro didn't profit directly from it" part is unacceptable, and they tried rolling out an updated license that would charge significant licensing fees for any successful supplement. This was not received well, to say the least, and they quickly reversed the decision. But the damage was done, trust lost, and a whole lot of third-party developers are now looking to jump ship towards other systems. Just an absolute MBA move by people who want Number Go Up but have no idea what the gently caress they're doing. 
Perestroika fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jan 25, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
That was a fun gently caress up too, because everyone who makes derivative stuff with dnd (the Critical Role's and such) just immediately put out statements like "well, this sucks, but we'll move on using different systems". Making it crystal clear most would rather drop DnD entirely than cave to what that license was trying to take. They had way, way less leverage than they thought to bully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 15:19
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Dragonlance's big thing is that it pretends to be grim but the good guys win. The Inn of the Last Home is the original Cozy Tavern, as the kids are saying. It's kind of grim for it's time, but it's time is long past. It's mission statement was to create a setting where dragons could be scary again, and it included certain pieces that just became commonplace in later settings. It's a quasi-post apocolypse fantasy setting but post apoc in the first Mad Max style rather than Dark Sun's Beyond Thunderdome style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Dragonlance is epic fantasy. Its purpose was to tie all the cool dungeons and set-pieces together into a singular epic tale that dealt with the fate of the entire world, not just whatever problem sent your party into the dungeon your DM wrote or bought for this week's session. It was also a multimedia IP with tie-in novels and video games. All that stuff was relatively new and innovative in 1986. Now it's just a normal part of gaming IPs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I mean, it seems like a pretty good way of monetizing D&D is making a film which popularizes a setting to which you hold the sole copyright. You can release a bunch of adventures for that setting, and no one else can, and you can release more films, TV shows, etc, all set in that setting. That (along with brand recognition and loyalty) seems like relatively easy money to me, but I'm not an MBA, so probably I just don't have the knowledge to understand how to make even more money by firing everyone and miring the brand in never-ending scandal. these are the geniuses who have released dozens of games using their two rulesets least suited to being used for a video game, but neve released a single game using the ruleset that had the fatal flaw of "would be better as a video game"
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
the best things about dragonlance were the absolutely weird as heck card game rpg system they released for it in the 90s, and the fact that steel (?) was rare (!) and used as money (?!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Would love a sequel to this movie to be in a Ravenloft setting. Just make the world spooky as hell, but keep the same tone. I think this illustrates another problem with D&D as a brand, which is that it's extremely expansive. When the Middle Eastern Arabian Nights Fantasy Desert setting is under the same brand as the Mad Max Post Apocalyptic Sauron Won Desert setting which is also the same brand that contains Universal's Movie Monsters Gothic Horror which is also under the same brand as Lord of the Rings With More Dragons and it's all held together by Age Of Sail But Also Spaceships and HippoMen Imperialists then you've got a serious problem, there's no real brand identity there. Now from the gameplay side, sure, it's good they are branded and lets players know how the rule resolution works, but as actual IP it's unbelievably broad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:41
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:these are the geniuses who have released dozens of games using their two rulesets least suited to being used for a video game, but neve released a single game using the ruleset that had the fatal flaw of "would be better as a video game" Oh so now you admit 4E was just like WoW  But seriously, I don't think we can really blame the lack of a 4E game on WotC. My understanding is that's mainly because Atari sat on the license, and the minute WotC got it away from them they launched another set of multimedia tie-ins with the Neverwinter setting book, the Drizzt novels set in and around Neverwinter, and the Neverwinter MMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
DeimosRising posted:these are the geniuses who have released dozens of games using their two rulesets least suited to being used for a video game, but neve released a single game using the ruleset that had the fatal flaw of "would be better as a video game" People forget that the counter to "4E's combat is just like a video game!" was one of the devs saying "Yes, because combat in those can be fun."
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Oh so now you admit 4E was just like WoW lucasarts released a barely played, now forgotten tactical rpg for the gamecube called Gladius. it played with a lot of the same concepts that the powers in 4e were built around (movement and action control, very specifically shaped areas of effect, etc). that's basically how I imagine the combat stuff would have played out
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2024 21:02
|
|
|
It's me, the 4e grognard, here to say that 4e was awesome but had a terrible bloat problem because WotC clearly didn't know what they were loving doing with that system. 4e was ahead of its time and would be better received in 2024 than it was in 2008. But, like all things, WotC mismanaged the gently caress out of it. And, as always, gently caress Mike Mearls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 01:14
|
|
|
4e's Warlords are still the coolest fuckin' class they've ever made.DeimosRising posted:lucasarts released a barely played, now forgotten tactical rpg for the gamecube called Gladius. it played with a lot of the same concepts that the powers in 4e were built around (movement and action control, very specifically shaped areas of effect, etc). that's basically how I imagine the combat stuff would have played out Oh man I haven't thought about Gladius in ages. What a cool game that was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 06:46
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:
The only brightside to the WotC layoffs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
Hasbro is possibly selling the D&D IP to Tencent, so it looks like this movie, and 4th Edition, were the high-water marks for the franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 16:56
|
|