|
Iunno - maybe they think the movie has more legs, or maybe they think making a GOOD movie might bring in a surge of people, but they need to keep the brand limping along until they can relaunch to coincide with a good movie. That would be a pretty solid strategy actually, I think.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
The real movie appeal is in releasing a generic fantasy movie with actual brand recognition. For non-gamers, D&D is basically shorthand for a) nerd poo poo and b) where Conan and Gandalf live. It's two words you can attach to any generic supermarket-brand fantasy movie to increase its profile. People who wouldn't ordinarily give a poo poo about Wizard House Party might go to see Dungeons and Dragons: Wizard House Party because they recognize the brand. (Or probably not, but I think that's the thinking...)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Isn't Pilars of Eternity the Obsidian game that looks like a generic as gently caress BG2 mod? I'm not sure what's remotely modern about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
moths posted:People who wouldn't ordinarily give a poo poo about Wizard House Party might go to see Dungeons and Dragons: Wizard House Party because they recognize the brand. (Or probably not, but I think that's the thinking...) Of the things adding value to Dungeons and Dragons as a movie property, the "enduring appeal of the D&D game-line" probably ranks somewhere under the fact that it used to be a stupid cartoon in the 80's. Because we live in a world where movies based on stupid 80's cartoons can gross upwards of 3.5 billion dollars. We're really in an apex of dumb Hollywood cargo cult nostalgia branding, and Hasbro would be stupid not to try and cash in on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:We're really in an apex of dumb Hollywood cargo cult nostalgia branding, and Hasbro would be stupid not to try and cash in on it again.  I hope they do get the IP back and make a DECENT D&D movie. But I'm not sure what a decent D&D movie would look like - whether it would have some reference to the characters having players in the outside world, or whether it would instead be like the D&D novels - just a fantasy movie with some D&D tropes set in (probably) the Forgotten Realms. Though, if it were set in Eberron, that would own bones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:We're really in an apex of dumb Hollywood cargo cult nostalgia branding, and Hasbro would be stupid not to try and cash in on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
ObMeiste posted:Back in the 80s D&D was in about as many households as there were copies of Asteroid or Missile Command. Like there was a genuine interest. In 2007 there were twice as many players as in 1981, about 6 million, and that I think that is quite a bit considering it's a make believe elf-game. Honestly? I'm pretty sure the exact mechanics don't have as much to do with how D&D is going to fare outside of Nerd Central as we think. A lot of the arguments made here, and much of it I do agree with, are very inside baseball. Monopoly is one of the world's most popular board games, and it's also one of the worst designs ever. Some might argue that nobody actually plays it, it's just a kitschy gift, people give their nephew the Street Fighter II edition because they don't know what else to get them, that the rules are often incorrectly applied, etc. That doesn't change the fact that as bad as it is (and it's still bad if you play it properly) it really moves units. This isn't me arguing that 5e's design is bulletproof and we're truly the grogs or whatever, rather mechanics aren't why the game hasn't taken the world by storm. 4e didn't crash like Paizo partisan grogs say it did, but it didn't light the world on fire with it's progressive mechanics either. I don't really think D&D as we recognize it is capable of that. Merchandizing, board games, card games and so on are probably the answer, they need to be pushed like Magic is. Take a cue from how comics are. The "hardcore" product still exists simultaneously with the Spider-Man toothbrushes. That's probably the best case scenario for the health of the brand, if we're going to play armchair marketing executive. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Though, if it were set in Eberron, that would own bones. Especially now that everyone knows what an elf and a hobbit is. "This dwarf is literal Sherlock Holmes and he's against the elf mafia, meanwhile mutant aliens from another dimension" Littlefinger fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:FTFY Clearly the best way to do a D&D movie or TV show is a pulpy dungeon crawl. Sweeping epic fantasy and gritty political fantasy are conquered niches. But a shirtless barbarian, a wily thief and a grizzled old wizard struggling to steal treasure from an ancient dragon in a labyrinth full of deathtraps? It sounds stereotypical or shallow to us crusty old gamers but if done well could be really entertaining and unique. It's a better idea than just trying to do a poor job of copying something else that's popular.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Clearly the best way to do a D&D movie or TV show is a pulpy dungeon crawl. Sweeping epic fantasy and gritty political fantasy are conquered niches. But a shirtless barbarian, a wily thief and a grizzled old wizard struggling to steal treasure from an ancient dragon in a labyrinth full of deathtraps? It sounds stereotypical or shallow to us crusty old gamers but if done well could be really entertaining and unique. It's a better idea than just trying to do a poor job of copying something else that's popular. I imagine "Die Hard but with elves and dwarves and wizards" could do pretty well if handled right, given that the "Die Hard but _____" genre is still untapped enough to have two separate successful "Die Hard but in the White House" movies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Basically, The Raid, or the recent Dredd movie, but with a likeable 4-person team cast, and with orcs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Nancy_Noxious posted:*Pillar of Eternity, like 13th Age and 5e, has this "let's take the 'best' parts from 'classic' D&D editions and do something that seems modern but really isn't" vibe that reeks of grog tax. Regressive is the new progressive. OBV video games are much bigger money affairs, and it's a different kind of game, but I still feel as if there's a difference in terms of design philosophy. Countblanc posted:I hate harping it, but that's literally what SBBQ is doing. The math is completely flat (to the point where you don't roll damage, attacks just do fixed amounts), feats are barely things with RP-related stuff as a separate mechanic (traits and tricks, I think), advantage and disadvantage are the only real bonuses so there's no +2 to hit or whatever, and instead of a d20 and adding stats to see if you hit you just roll a d6 and hit on a 3+ with varying degrees of success. It uses grid combat and powers like 4e, and it separates Role and Class, so you can be a Blaster (aoe striker) Martial Artist or a Defender Martial Artist or a Defender Wizard or whatever. And yeah it's real cool, I'm excited to see the kickstarter when that happens soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:I am hoping that Kickstarters in particular stop being about nostaligia so much, but but I feel like POE is still a much more profesional approach to Getting Them Feels than 13a and 5e. In particular, there's the issue of design as merit. In 5e we have a mess. In 13th age, we some good stuff next to sidebars saying "John wanted this to be crap so we made it crap lol". I don't see anything in POE thus far that has that lack of discipline and rigor. This strikes me as one true wayism. Grognards aside, is everything old in RPGs bad? 13th Age isn't the Flagship Product of the Industry™ and it seems to be a Greatest Hits of D&D in general. It's often billed as a synthesis of 3e and 4e. Should we be surprised that 3e-ish design choices appear, then? I fail to see how this is a "lack of discipline and rigor"
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:This strikes me as one true wayism. Grognards aside, is everything old in RPGs bad? 13th Age isn't the Flagship Product of the Industry™ and it seems to be a Greatest Hits of D&D in general. It's often billed as a synthesis of 3e and 4e. Should we be surprised that 3e-ish design choices appear, then? I fail to see how this is a "lack of discipline and rigor" There's nothing 'one-true-wayist' about saying that people have to be competent and effective in their role as devlopers. 5e and to a lesser extent 13a have made poor design decisions that lead to poor outcomes. In contrast, I don't think POE is in the same boat, because while it's clearly designed to appeal to fans of, and emulate the features of IE games, it doesn't, thus far, appear to do it at the cost of good design. Anyway, how can any 'greatest hits of dnd' be done without a 4e fighter? A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:Bad design is still bad design regardless of what excuse it uses. Not everything is a matter of opinion, that's just a copout people use to defend bad design. The term one-true-wayism is most commonly used for this purpose. It might help me see what you mean if you provide some examples of what you think is bad design in 13th Age, and point at some of the "lol we made this suck on purpose, nostalgia ownz" sidebars. I think some people have a misconception that 13th Age was intended solely to be "4E but better!" and feel a bit burnt that it isn't really.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
ObMeiste posted:Like as good as MTG does as a table-top game, it does not nearly have the same cultural gravitas as D&D does D&D has absolutely no cultural gravitas at all. The only people outside of the hobby who know of it, know it as a stupid nerd joke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:D&D has absolutely no cultural gravitas at all. The only people outside of the hobby who know of it, know it as a stupid nerd joke. The idea that it is just a joke to everyone who doesn't play it is an outdated stereotype. Sure, it absolutely still exists. But a lot of other people think of it neutrally as some sort of boardgame that they don't really understand. Or an old cartoon. Or the basis of some video games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:It might help me see what you mean if you provide some examples of what you think is bad design in 13th Age, and point at some of the "lol we made this suck on purpose, nostalgia ownz" sidebars. We're talking about design here, not purely preference. Not everything is a matter of opinion. I'm not working from a misconception here. We've been over these design issues multiple times. It's very clear that the game for all it's charm, rests uneasily on it's position between two very different approaches to design. And one of those approaches results in poor quality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:I'm not saying it was, but it certainly is a fantary rpg in the same area as 4e and indeed, 3e. Comparisons are valid, and indeed vital in any such discussion. My quibble with this is that 13th Age isn't D&D - I'm behind progressive design 100% in the latter because well, it's the vanguard of the hobby. However, a game that seems to expressly exist to bridge the gap between two approaches doing just that isn't a failing. It looks to me like a feature. I haven't been following this thread, but I am very interested in the discussions on the flaws of 13th Age, and not just for argument fodder. Point me in the right direction, man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:The idea that it is just a joke to everyone who doesn't play it is an outdated stereotype. Sure, it absolutely still exists. But a lot of other people think of it neutrally as some sort of boardgame that they don't really understand. Or an old cartoon. Or the basis of some video games. It really is though. D&D never became the nostalgic touchstone that Transformers or comic books did. It was always a dumb nerd game for nerds. Could D&D improve it's image? Hypothetically sure. Iron Man was like B-list at best before Robert Downey Jr made one of the most miraculous comebacks in film history, so it can be done. But right now if you talk about D&D, people born post-80's will know it as that super nerdy thing. And those born pre-80's probably see it STILL as that one super nerdy thing, also wasn't there some Satan thing? Like you have to realize that even the very worst video game nerds still use "hah hah loving Dungeons and Dragons" to mock people. It's really not seen neutrally as some sorta boardgame and certainly not seen as the basis of some video games, even though it is. It's the lowest spot on the nerd totem pole.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:It really is though. D&D never became the nostalgic touchstone that Transformers or comic books did. It was always a dumb nerd game for nerds. Could D&D improve it's image? Hypothetically sure. Iron Man was like B-list at best before Robert Downey Jr made one of the most miraculous comebacks in film history, so it can be done. But right now if you talk about D&D, people born post-80's will know it as that super nerdy thing. And those born pre-80's probably see it STILL as that one super nerdy thing, also wasn't there some Satan thing? I'm not saying that belief is totally gone or that D&D is some sort of nostalgic jewel among the general populace, I'm saying it's not a universal thing at all. I've talked to people who don't give a gently caress about RPGs and the responses run the gamut between "Fukken nerd poo poo" and "It's some board game about killing dragons right" It's probably a difference of perception here though. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
D&D isn't the lowest spot on the nerd totem pole. LARPing is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Point me in the right direction, man. Check out the 13th Age thread here on SA; when they aren't talking about homebrewing classes, there'll be a lot of bitching and moaning (especially by that one guy) about how they made monks require too many ability scores, so that it would maintain the class' d20 legacy or something. Basically the game does a fair bit of pandering to 3.X-ists because, well, either Tweet wanted it that way, or else they feel they need the exposure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
ritorix posted:D&D isn't the lowest spot on the nerd totem pole. For most people outside of D&D those are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Check out the 13th Age thread here on SA; when they aren't talking about homebrewing classes, there'll be a lot of bitching and moaning (especially by that one guy) about how they made monks require too many ability scores, so that it would maintain the class' d20 legacy or something. Remember that 13th Age used to have an entire sidebar that boiled down to "Yes, we gave the Fighter class less not!skill points and we know that doesn't seem very fair, but on the other hand tradition." They at least rolled that one back I believe but the fact that it was even a thing at all doesn't suggest the most progressive approach to making a d20-alike, whether your skills are "Use Rope" or "Used To Be a Bird."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:Remember that 13th Age used to have an entire sidebar that boiled down to "Yes, we gave the Fighter class less not!skill points and we know that doesn't seem very fair, but on the other hand tradition." They at least rolled that one back I believe but the fact that it was even a thing at all doesn't suggest the most progressive approach to making a d20-alike, whether your skills are "Use Rope" or "Used To Be a Bird." Ah yes, how could we forget?  This is a game that also allows spellcasters to use their powers in ritual-ish ways basically defined by GM fiat, but lets make sure that fighters have less narrative agency than rogues, it's only fair.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:D&D has absolutely no cultural gravitas at all. The only people outside of the hobby who know of it, know it as a stupid nerd joke. If anyone thinks that D&D has more gravitas than Magic the Gathering they are loving kidding themselves. One of those games is the reason Hasbro bought WotC, the other is an RPG
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:My quibble with this is that 13th Age isn't D&D - I'm behind progressive design 100% in the latter because well, it's the vanguard of the hobby. However, a game that seems to expressly exist to bridge the gap between two approaches doing just that isn't a failing. It looks to me like a feature. I haven't been following this thread, but I am very interested in the discussions on the flaws of 13th Age, and not just for argument fodder. Point me in the right direction, man. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
The feature is "Gets D20 players imagining stuff." Which is a much greater feat than you may think it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Dudes literally had a one stop shop solution to fixing the 13th Age Monk in the same playtest documents, because divine guardians of nature can decide to use STR or DEX as the attack stat but kung fu obviously needs both of them as well as wisdom plus constitution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:My quibble with this is that 13th Age isn't D&D - I'm behind progressive design 100% in the latter because well, it's the vanguard of the hobby. However, a game that seems to expressly exist to bridge the gap between two approaches doing just that isn't a failing. It looks to me like a feature. I haven't been following this thread, but I am very interested in the discussions on the flaws of 13th Age, and not just for argument fodder. Point me in the right direction, man. Here are the biggest criticisms of 13th age that come up pretty often in the thread. 1) There are no really complex martial classes (at least before the Warlord was introduced, but even that's not insanely complex). In fact: 2) About a third of the classes are sort of Hot Garbage. Ranger and Paladin are unnecessarily simple and not really all that interesting to play. Ranger at least was fixed a bit with a better animal companion, but it's still pretty underwhelming. There is also literally one build of Monk that is usable, because John whined until the Monk was made MAD and ignored all of the feedback from people that hated this (except for the ways people found around it, which he got rid of). This isn't even an exaggeration, he literally said "Yeah I know no one liked it we ignored them though" in an AMA. Druids are trying to be every sort of druid all at once, but this just leaves them either mediocre at a bunch of things or really good at exactly one thing. The mechanical basis for the Occultist was an interesting one, but everything else about the class is pretty bad. 3) The new Multiclass rules are weird. There are some interesting combinations, and things that work well but the way that it makes you lag behind and how there is a strict Non-Interaction policy between classes unless you spend some of your (relatively scarce) feats to make stuff work together. Also, more Fuk Munks because they aren't treated as full martial characters and have to step all of their damage die down if they multiclass. 4) Rituals give casters way more narrative power than martials. 5) Flexible attacks are super neat! Having a class (fighter) that is only about flexibles is not all that great because it's easy to screw yourself over with the wrong choices making it so that nothing special happens half of the time you attack. Meanwhile, the Bard exists which gets flexibles+spells+quick action songs which can deflate you a bit. 6) Con and Dex are way more important than the other stats. Con is used in two different defenses+HP, and dex is also used in two defenses+initiative. Wisdom is also used in two defenses. Classes that are primarily Dex or Wis based basically only need Con and their primary stat to have amazing HP and AC, while Dex based characters also get great PD and passable MD, and Wis based characters get to choose which of their secondary defenses will be good to go along with their great HP/AC. 7) As a DM, their monster formula is way too easy on players. The level balance that they suggest is basically made so that a party that rolls bad stats and only chooses 1 good ability each can make it through, which is good for beginners but makes it harder to judge for more experienced players. Those are the ones that I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more that would surface that other people have noticed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
The rogue on the bright side isn't too bad. Thief eventually lets you steal literally anything, physical or non, shadow walk has a lot of non-combat utility if you're creative with it, and swashbuckle basically mimics the spell function of "I don't roll, this just happens."
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I'm getting the feeling from the previews that the Fighter is all about being middle-ground-y. Tough, but not as tough as the Barbarian, good at crits, but not as much as the Barbarian. Good at self-healing, but not as much as the Paladin. Damaging, but not as much as the Rogue. OK at out of combat stuff but not as much as the Ranger. It feels like a class other classes dip into to improve their features, rather than really being a class in and of itself. FWIW, fighters can actually use finesse weapons with their class features (fighter class features? Lol) Whereas after the Dead in Thay packet, Barbarians got "using Strength" slapped onto all their melee attack features. Which blows because their AC feature uses CON and DEX. Seriously, not needing strength for your attacks is a godsend, it's basically a dump stat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 10:13
|
|
|
Flexible Attacks (13th Age) are really, really boring/weak/uninspiring. Like, the effects are most definitely not so strong that it would be overpowered to allow the player to decide when to use them. "Turn a melee crit against you into a normal hit... until the start of your next turn" "Reroll 1s on damage" "+2 AC" I mean, a class feature that was "you cannot be critically hit ever" wouldn't even be overpowered. Also, Skilled Intercept is pretty bad at letting the Fighter be a defender, they get no out of combat features, etc. The 5e Battle Master's maneuvers are significantly stronger and more relevant, especially since they can choose when to use them, get a damage bonus for doing so and blow them all in one turn for a nova if they want. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:34
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Basically, The Raid, or the recent Dredd movie, but with a likeable 4-person team cast, and with orcs. I'd be happy with fantasy GotG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
A Catastrophe posted:I am hoping that Kickstarters in particular stop being about nostaligia so much, but but I feel like POE is still a much more profesional approach to Getting Them Feels than 13a and 5e. In particular, there's the issue of design as merit. In 5e we have a mess. In 13th age, we some good stuff next to sidebars saying "John wanted this to be crap so we made it crap lol". I don't see anything in POE thus far that has that lack of discipline and rigor. Exactly; I get the feeling some of the people talking about it in this thread haven't read a word about the design. I'm not talking about the graphics, I'm talking about the gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Exactly; I get the feeling some of the people talking about it in this thread haven't read a word about the design. I'm not talking about the graphics, I'm talking about the gameplay. No. I went to their site and felt 13th-aged all over again — I was get pretty pumped up "Wow, this game looks super cool, I think I'll like it a lot!" only to be splashed with a bucket of cold water when I went to read the Fighter's abilities. PoE's Fighter is just the same kind of boring compromise that we see in 5e or 13A — "it should be on the simple side" (because grog tax, I presume), lots of boring passive crap, and (this is the deal-breaker for me) crappy defender mechanics. The PoE Fighter does have a faux defender aura — without any punishment ability to make it respectable! (I'll be vulgar here: a marking mechanic without punishment is like a soft cock — it's cute, but it doesn't do much.) Jack the Lad posted:Flexible Attacks (13th Age) are really, really boring/weak/uninspiring. Like, the effects are most definitely not so strong that it would be overpowered to allow the player to decide when to use them. This is basically what's wrong with the 13th Age Fighter, and I think it's because the same underlying principles that makes both the 5e and PoE fighters quite unimpressive: "Fighters must be the 'I attack class' — in case the fighter gets special attacks, it must be minor/passive stuff on top of said basic attacks" and "If fighters get some defender mechanic, it must be bland/minor enough so people won't associate it with 1) MMORPGs and 2) D&D 4e" As long as the grog tax is paid, fighters will remain unimpressive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
Thing I don't get is, 4e had the "simple fighter" thing with Essentials (you could argue they're not really that simple; I don't agree, but that's not the point I'm getting at). Slayers and Knights used just basic attacks, and their features were all some augmentation of the basic attack. But they were still good in the sense that they could contribute a lot to the party. Hell the Slayer is near the top of the striker pile. That's the source of my frustration; I don't care so much if the fighter is the the "simple" class, but you can make something simple that is also effective. What I've seen of the Next and 13a fighters are classes made simple to the point where they don't seem to do much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Generic Octopus posted:Thing I don't get is, 4e had the "simple fighter" thing with Essentials (you could argue they're not really that simple; I don't agree, but that's not the point I'm getting at). Slayers and Knights used just basic attacks, and their features were all some augmentation of the basic attack. Right. The 4e Knight was actually a super strong defender - right from level 1 you can slow and prone someone by hitting them with Hold the Line + World Serpent's Grasp, and you can do that to any number of enemies who violate your aura. Later on you can add stuff like Eldritch Strike + Battering Shield + Polearm Momentum. Other games just don't have options that powerful available to non-magical characters, and it sucks. Jack the Lad fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
I wonder how much of that goes back to the necessity of miniatures or tokens to make monsters accountable for their positions. Without that protection, it's super easy for the DM to rule that monsters are just out of reach, or manage to find an opening and sneak by. And with all the manufactured backlash against 4e's grids and minis, it's easy to see why designers would be gunshy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:24
|
|