I believe Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D.


4th Edition

201 to 250 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Yeah, that's a good point. I haven't actually seen THAC0 nostalgia though. I guess it was an innovation over the tables, though.

It was. But then turning AC around and using a base attack bonus is a substantial usability improvement over using THAC0 as well.

Community & Digital Content Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a couple posts. Disagreements about editions are going to happen, but declaring that a select group of people who think one way about mechanics needs to "pull their heads out of their asses" is baiting and isn't really going to encourage productive responses.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
And sometimes they do. When was the last time you asked for a facial tissue, instead of asking for a Kleenex? Or a cotton swab instead of a Q-tip?

I've never asked for a Kleenex, and I've never even seen a Q-tip.


amethal wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
And sometimes they do. When was the last time you asked for a facial tissue, instead of asking for a Kleenex? Or a cotton swab instead of a Q-tip?
I've never asked for a Kleenex, and I've never even seen a Q-tip.

Have you seen a cotton swab, though?

(These are opposed to cotton swatches or patches, or cotton balls.)

If so, I'd be greatly surprised you've not heard of a Q-tip.

Anyway, amusing and related:

Quote:
The use of cotton swabs in the ear canal is associated with no medical benefits and poses definite medical risks. Cerumen (ear wax) is a naturally occurring, normally extruded product of the external auditory canal that protects the skin inside the ear, serves beneficial lubrication and cleaning functions, and provides some protection from bacteria, fungi, insects, and water.[8][9] A 2004 study found that the "[u]se of a cotton-tip applicator to clean the ear seems to be the leading cause of otitis externa in children and should be avoided."[10] Attempts to remove cerumen with cotton swabs may result in cerumen impaction, a buildup or blockage of cerumen in the ear canal, which can cause pain, hearing problems, ringing in the ear, or dizziness, and may require medical treatment to resolve.[11] The use of cotton swabs in the ear canal is one of most common causes of perforated eardrum, a condition which sometimes requires surgery to correct.[12] For these reasons, the American Academy of Family Physicians, among many other professional medical associations, recommends never placing cotton swabs in the ear canal.[11]

Sovereign Court

Adjule wrote:

Just look at D&D in tv shows. Big Bang Theory has it sometimes, Dexter's Lab had an episode, I believe Community did as well, among many others. Hell, the stereotype around here is still "fat disgusting neckbeards who don't shower and dwell in their mother's basement eating cheetohs and chugging mountain dew", and people here play it (I include Pathfinder in this).

To be fair, Community has done an exceptional job of portraying the game, considering Dan Harmon's love of D&D. Big Bang Theory is not nearly so open minded about any subject they tackle, but that's a soap box for another day.

D&D is getting more positive attention overall, and more fair-minded documentaries (like Zero Charisma) are taking the subject on and exposing it for what it is rather than what most people think that it is. This can only be good, and show people that it's no more shameful or deplorable than knitting clubs or train hobbyists.

That having been said, that Dragonlance cartoon had such a good cast, but the opportunity was squandered so poorly that it must have been deliberate. Such a waste of time and credibility...

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
Adjule wrote:

Just look at D&D in tv shows. Big Bang Theory has it sometimes, Dexter's Lab had an episode, I believe Community did as well, among many others. Hell, the stereotype around here is still "fat disgusting neckbeards who don't shower and dwell in their mother's basement eating cheetohs and chugging mountain dew", and people here play it (I include Pathfinder in this).

To be fair, Community has done an exceptional job of portraying the game, considering Dan Harmon's love of D&D. Big Bang Theory is not nearly so open minded about any subject they tackle, but that's a soap box for another day.

D&D is getting more positive attention overall, and more fair-minded documentaries (like Zero Charisma) are taking the subject on and exposing it for what it is rather than what most people think that it is. This can only be good, and show people that it's no more shameful or deplorable than knitting clubs or train hobbyists.

That having been said, that Dragonlance cartoon had such a good cast, but the opportunity was squandered so poorly that it must have been deliberate. Such a waste of time and credibility...

I would like to add the non-theatrically released Dungeons and Dragons movies are actually somewhat good (for "sci fi originals").

Sovereign Court

Spook205 wrote:


I would like to add the non-theatrically released Dungeons and Dragons movies are actually somewhat good (for "sci fi originals").

I may have to try to see them.

Also, there is a lovely play out that you all should track down named "She Kills Monsters"


Lorathorn wrote:
D&D is getting more positive attention overall, and more fair-minded documentaries (like Zero Charisma) are taking the subject on and exposing it for what it is rather than what most people think that it is. This can only be good, and show people that it's no more shameful or deplorable than knitting clubs or train hobbyists.

Also, things like Journey Quest, the Gamers movies, and similar productions (Standard Action, as an example), as well as even things as unlikely as Online Webcritics (ala The Spoony Experiment) have lent a surprising presence, credibility, and respectability to table top playing of late.

EDIT:

Lorathorn wrote:
Spook205 wrote:


I would like to add the non-theatrically released Dungeons and Dragons movies are actually somewhat good (for "sci fi originals").

I may have to try to see them.

Also, there is a lovely play out that you all should track down named "She Kills Monsters"

They... aren't "good" by most standards. They are respectable and "good" by "Sci-Fi Original" standards.

Intriguingly, each of the films (sort of) got better at getting D&D Lore "correct" and more "naturally" weaving it into the story they were trying to tell with the films.

That's not saying much, and I use a lot of "quotes" for a reason.

That said, I did enjoy them and myself, (edit:) at least much more than the 2000 one, so...

(Just... don't expect continuity. Ever. At all.)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

So, no one is going to comment on this? No one at all? Come on, guys! I spent, like, an hour finding everything and writing it all out! I had links and everything!

Also fun factoid: Pathfinder is grouped with D&D on Wikipedia.

Sorry, but making my way through this thread has been work.

Your information is invaluable, and a line chart might even make it better, but I think that it's pretty telling.

The truth is that WotC has decidedly shifted it's market strategy, but we can't at all say what the impetus for it may be. I'm working on a written letter to both plea that they change their ways, and inquire as to the rational behind their choice. If nothing else, I imagine that it'll get read for novelty's sake, as have my letters to other game companies.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:


They... aren't "good" by most standards. They are respectable and "good" by "Sci-Fi Original" standards.

Intriguingly, each of the films (sort of) got better at getting D&D Lore "correct" and more "naturally" weaving it into the story they were trying to tell with the films.

That's not saying much, and I use a lot of "quotes" for a reason.

That said, I did enjoy them and myself, (edit:) at least much more than the 2000 one, so...

(Just... don't expect continuity. Ever. At all.)

In a case like this, continuity would be deplorable. That having been said, I think I could bring myself to appreciate a good B (or C) movie about D&D, though it is my utmost hope that something more productive is done with the overly contentious movie rights.


Contentious is correct.


Lorathorn wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:


They... aren't "good" by most standards. They are respectable and "good" by "Sci-Fi Original" standards.

Intriguingly, each of the films (sort of) got better at getting D&D Lore "correct" and more "naturally" weaving it into the story they were trying to tell with the films.

That's not saying much, and I use a lot of "quotes" for a reason.

That said, I did enjoy them and myself, (edit:) at least much more than the 2000 one, so...

(Just... don't expect continuity. Ever. At all.)

In a case like this, continuity would be deplorable. That having been said, I think I could bring myself to appreciate a good B (or C) movie about D&D, though it is my utmost hope that something more productive is done with the overly contentious movie rights.

They kind of half try to have continuity, though. At least the second one does. It claims that it's in the same kingdom, and the blue-lipped guy comes back (SPOILER OH NNNNOOOOEEEESSSS*), and is the main villain, but it's "been 200 years", there is no indication of equality (though the mages don't rule anymore), and the kingdom is literally worse in every way than it was in the first movie. Nothing looks the same. Somehow, in 200 years, all traces of the previous architecture have been swept away, replaced by really-hard-to-build castles, with sweeping geographic changes. Totes the same kingdom, though. >.>

Three doesn't even pretend. It's just in a place where a thing happens.

(mild) SPOILERS:

Spoiler:
Wrath of the Dragon God is pretty classic and tropy. Big dragon, big drama, here's a team with unique skills, etc.

Book of Vile Darkness follows a paladin (well, sort of) in a group of evils (he doesn't tell them he's a paladin); it goes about as well like you'd expect a group composed of those types would.

Both remind of D&D games of their kind in that way.

* It's in the opening crawl of the film.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:


They... aren't "good" by most standards. They are respectable and "good" by "Sci-Fi Original" standards.

Intriguingly, each of the films (sort of) got better at getting D&D Lore "correct" and more "naturally" weaving it into the story they were trying to tell with the films.

That's not saying much, and I use a lot of "quotes" for a reason.

That said, I did enjoy them and myself, (edit:) at least much more than the 2000 one, so...

(Just... don't expect continuity. Ever. At all.)

In a case like this, continuity would be deplorable. That having been said, I think I could bring myself to appreciate a good B (or C) movie about D&D, though it is my utmost hope that something more productive is done with the overly contentious movie rights.

I included the scare quotes about Sci-Fi Originals for a reason.

They're entertaining and functional D&D movies. They are not high cinema.

Wrath of the Dragon God is what I wished the first movie had been.

One thing I did like (even in the first one), is that they exemplify just how John McLane level crap-beaten-out of, a group of adventurers should look after a really tough adventure.

No hero gets through a D&D Movie unscathed. Wrath particularly puts its people through the wringer.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
amethal wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
And sometimes they do. When was the last time you asked for a facial tissue, instead of asking for a Kleenex? Or a cotton swab instead of a Q-tip?
I've never asked for a Kleenex, and I've never even seen a Q-tip.

I should have specified that those question were directed towards those with.some degree of personal hygiene. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D nor do they want to. If the brand started ailing for whatever reason, they could shelve it for a few years before bringing back a retooled edition on an anniversary date to appeal to the nostalgia crowd. They seem to do this sort of thing all the time .. look at Operation, for example. It probably has ok sales, maybe around Christmas but nothing special. Then every once in a while they will release a "new" version with Doc McStuffins or Planes and it pops the sales numbers again.

I have doubts that Hasbro is twirling a mustache and demanding that D&D make material come out slowly just to stymie players. Their edicts are probably more along the lines of "Go make money and try not to screw up. Have some new products for X time period if you could." Then they go back to swimming in gold doubloons.

I would expect that their minds are on things making a little more money for them, like GI Joe, Jurassic Park (new movie coming out, get your toys now!), Star Wars (same), and so forth. I don't have any insider knowledge of this, mind you. I just know that I'd certainly pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie than one of the dozens of others that are trudging along doing fine. They have people (WOTC) to worry about the day to day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Tacticslion - Pathfinder sales overtaking 4E around the time that Essentials launched is fascinating. Because WotC obviously would've been looking at the exact same data.

So that leaves my wondering whether Pathfinder overtaking 4E is what caused Essentials, in an attempt by WotC to take the market back from Paizo, and the subsequent decline of 4E, to happen. Or if Essentials (a.k.a., "4.5E" or "the watered down version") was just a coincidental horrible miscalculation that solidified Paizo's lead.

I liked 4E (ran a campaign all the way to 30, even), and felt it had finally hit its stride in 2010, with MM3, Demonomicon, Planes Above, and Dark Sun. We were finally getting well designed monsters! We were getting skill challenges that were actually fun! Dark Sun was looking to be Advanced 4E! And then Essentials happened, along with the D&D Insider tools shenanigans. Essentials killed the game for my group, while the Insider shenanigans killed my desire to ever give WotC another dollar.

So from my perspective, WotC actually deliberately wrecked 4E right around the time the system got good. (Even though that presumably wasn't the outcome WotC was actually after.) If that's actually their own fault and not the result of Hasbro's meddling, then okay.

That just leaves me even more leery of 5E's future.

D&D itself will still be around; whether there'll happen to be a current TTRPG bearing the name that's worth playing is another matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie

* ahem* :D


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
amethal wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
And sometimes they do. When was the last time you asked for a facial tissue, instead of asking for a Kleenex? Or a cotton swab instead of a Q-tip?
I've never asked for a Kleenex, and I've never even seen a Q-tip.
I should have specified that those question were directed towards those with.some degree of personal hygiene. :P

You may want to consider that some terms are specific to particular countries. I din't even know what a Q-Tip was (I had to look it up) and it's a very American usage. And while I recognise Kleenex, it's just another brand. I imagine you might being puzzled at being asked to pass the sellotape, which is both a particular brand and a generic term.


Tacticslion wrote:
knightnday wrote:
pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie
* ahem* :D

hah! No, no, I meant real movies that people will want to see. Those were .. not good. I'd almost say they would make people NOT want to buy things related with D&D. Now I'm going to have to get these images out of my head ... :)


knightnday wrote:

I don't think Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D nor do they want to. If the brand started ailing for whatever reason, they could shelve it for a few years before bringing back a retooled edition on an anniversary date to appeal to the nostalgia crowd. They seem to do this sort of thing all the time .. look at Operation, for example. It probably has ok sales, maybe around Christmas but nothing special. Then every once in a while they will release a "new" version with Doc McStuffins or Planes and it pops the sales numbers again.

I have doubts that Hasbro is twirling a mustache and demanding that D&D make material come out slowly just to stymie players. Their edicts are probably more along the lines of "Go make money and try not to screw up. Have some new products for X time period if you could." Then they go back to swimming in gold doubloons.

I would expect that their minds are on things making a little more money for them, like GI Joe, Jurassic Park (new movie coming out, get your toys now!), Star Wars (same), and so forth. I don't have any insider knowledge of this, mind you. I just know that I'd certainly pay more attention to the properties about to blow up for a movie than one of the dozens of others that are trudging along doing fine. They have people (WOTC) to worry about the day to day.

Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem. They see less product as less money they have to spend. They have a tiny design team because it's less money they have to pay people.

Their minds are on other things besides the TTRPG but they have a bog problem with tunnel vision. They have their hearts set on making a blockbuster movie and I bet you here and now that it won't happen. They seem to believe they can repeat what Marvel has done and that idea is dead in the water I'm afraid.

Instead of focusing on everything, they tend to focus on one thing and it ain't RPGs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhangar wrote:

@ Tacticslion - Pathfinder sales overtaking 4E around the time that Essentials launched is fascinating. Because WotC obviously would've been looking at the exact same data.

So that leaves my wondering whether Pathfinder overtaking 4E is what caused Essentials, in an attempt by WotC to take the market back from Paizo, and the subsequent decline of 4E, to happen. Or if Essentials (a.k.a., "4.5E" or "the watered down version") was just a coincidental horrible miscalculation that solidified Paizo's lead.

I liked 4E (ran a campaign all the way to 30, even), and felt it had finally hit its stride in 2010, with MM3, Demonomicon, Planes Above, and Dark Sun. We were finally getting well designed monsters! We were getting skill challenges that were actually fun! Dark Sun was looking to be Advanced 4E! And then Essentials happened, along with the D&D Insider tools shenanigans. Essentials killed the game for my group, while the Insider shenanigans killed my desire to ever give WotC another dollar.

So from my perspective, WotC actually deliberately wrecked 4E right around the time the system got good. (Even though that presumably wasn't the outcome WotC was actually after.) If that's actually their own fault and not the result of Hasbro's meddling, then okay.

That just leaves me even more leery of 5E's future.

D&D itself will still be around; whether there'll happen to be a current TTRPG bearing the name that's worth playing is another matter.

Apparently the essentials stuff is from early playtest materials for 4E and they probably decided to release it 2009 or so.

I think 4E sales tanked after the initial 1st year bump. Paizos income in 2009 via PF was only around 4 million (4.4 IIRC) and in 2009 was around 8 million climbing to 12.7 by 2012.

Ryan Dancey did supply figures saying D&D was worth around 25-30 million a year circa 2006. kind of matches up with Cooks claim the D&D playerbase was only around 1/3rd the size it was in 2014.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

So, no one is going to comment on this? No one at all? Come on, guys! I spent, like, an hour finding everything and writing it all out! I had links and everything!

Also fun factoid: Pathfinder is grouped with D&D on Wikipedia.

Its buried through multiple threads on ENworlds and several interviews.

I did say the numbers were unreliable but Paizos income through to 2012 was revealed. I can dig up the videos but I will have to search them out later as I am going to work ATM. The Jeremey Crawford interview was recents as in the last month, you could try googling Morrus interview with Monte Cook/Ryan Dancey 2014 and they are on youtube.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:

Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem. They see less product as less money they have to spend. They have a tiny design team because it's less money they have to pay people.

Their minds are on other things besides the TTRPG but they have a bog problem with tunnel vision. They have their hearts set on making a blockbuster movie and I bet you here and now that it won't happen. They seem to believe they can repeat what Marvel has done and that idea is dead in the water I'm afraid.

Instead of focusing on everything, they tend to focus on one thing and it ain't RPGs.

I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.) And yes, they and everyone else on the planet would like to replicate Marvel's success with movies right now. That isn't much of a surprise; that said, without the clout of Disney they will probably find it as hard as everyone else.

I'm not sure I buy that Hasbro or a large corporation is the bane of RPG games. Hasbro certainly gives D&D a little more push into certain markets like Toys R Us for example (at least around here). I think that the worry that a megacorporation (is this Shadowrunesque fear of the megas here?) is going to somehow ruin the game is unfounded. I lived through all the TSR years and the WOTC years and those small companies were able to do well and do poorly by the brand over that time.

If Hasbro somehow, someway, utterly destroyed D&D as a brand tomorrow there is enough material out there to play any of the previous editions for decades if not longer.

Worry less about the evils of Hasbro and worry more about playing and having fun.


knightnday wrote:
I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.)

But... they're actively waging a lawsuit re: the rights to make new films with Warner Brothers (who is banging down SweetPea's door in order to make Chainmail, it seems) v. Universal (who seems to be backing Hasbro's claim).

That's... a pretty solid statement without words.

Forever Slayer wrote:
Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem.

This is, generally speaking, true. That said, whether or not it's best for the actual game, they're going to do their darndest to make the brand a smashing success.


knightnday wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:

Hasbro is going to do what makes them the most money, even if it's not whats best for the actual game and that is the problem. They see less product as less money they have to spend. They have a tiny design team because it's less money they have to pay people.

Their minds are on other things besides the TTRPG but they have a bog problem with tunnel vision. They have their hearts set on making a blockbuster movie and I bet you here and now that it won't happen. They seem to believe they can repeat what Marvel has done and that idea is dead in the water I'm afraid.

Instead of focusing on everything, they tend to focus on one thing and it ain't RPGs.

I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.) And yes, they and everyone else on the planet would like to replicate Marvel's success with movies right now. That isn't much of a surprise; that said, without the clout of Disney they will probably find it as hard as everyone else.

I'm not sure I buy that Hasbro or a large corporation is the bane of RPG games. Hasbro certainly gives D&D a little more push into certain markets like Toys R Us for example (at least around here). I think that the worry that a megacorporation (is this Shadowrunesque fear of the megas here?) is going to somehow ruin the game is unfounded. I lived through all the TSR years and the WOTC years and those small companies were able to do well and do poorly by the brand over that time.

If Hasbro somehow, someway, utterly destroyed D&D as a brand tomorrow there is enough material out there to play any of the previous editions for decades if not longer.

Worry less about the evils of Hasbro and worry more about playing and having fun.

I would recommend you do a little research then.


Tacticslion wrote:
knightnday wrote:
I haven't seen any statements about them wanting a D&D movie (although I don't follow their every word.)

But... they're actively waging a lawsuit re: the rights to make new films with Warner Brothers (who is banging down SweetPea's door in order to make Chainmail, it seems) v. Universal (who seems to be backing Hasbro's claim).

That's... a pretty solid statement without words.

Hm, interesting. Still, it's a long way from fighting this out in court and making a movie that isn't an embarrassment to movies and the brand in general. They need to do better than staple the name D&D to something and hope the money comes in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:


I would recommend you do a little research then.

On what, Hasbro? Oh no doubt they are "evil" in a way that all corporations are: they want money. That doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things. Little corporations want money. Big corporations want money. Downsizing the size of the company putting the game out doesn't guarantee anything.

What does sabotaging their own product get them, exactly? That is assuming that making a movie, t shirts, cups or other products is sabotaging the brand, of course.

Being able to concentrate on multiple projects doesn't mean they are somehow neglecting the game, nor does a light production schedule.


I think you're not getting the scope.

The original film, despite whatever budget it might have had, it was done by SweetPea (the owners), Silver Pictures (related to Warner), and "Behaviour Wordwide" (who the heck?!).

Movie two is by Sci Fi Pictures 'Syfy' and Warner Home Video.

Movie three is by "Zinc Entertainment Inc."

Outside of Silver Pictures... who the heck?!

This is rather directly taken on by Universal Studio and Warner rather directly. While the latter may well have had a hand in the 2000 film, they are well aware of the shortcomings, having lost 22 million dollars on the thing.

Unless they are extremely interested in "getting it right" there is no reason to try and haggle over the name.

I think they won't automatically get it right, but automatically getting it wrong? They're going to bend over backwards not to make the same mistakes as before.

Shadow Lodge

The D&D movies are downright Oscar-worthy when compared to the Dragonlance abomination.


Kthulhu wrote:
The D&D movies are downright Oscar-worthy when compared to the Dragonlance abomination.

They had a hoard of great actors. What the hell happened?!


... everything.

EDIT: The Sad Proof.


Kthulhu wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Joe Hex wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I liked the DMG. Monster books rarely interest me, so I dont really know - it seems pretty easy to use.
Obligatory "Monster Books" interest no one- you just need them to play the game.
Heh. That's not the impression I get. Good to know I'm not alone though.
Of all "pure rulebooks", the monster books are really the ONLY ones that interest me.

It's just the first one of a new edition, that kinda burns me- because, for the most part, it's the same critters, updated for the new edition- so it does feel like buying the same book again, more so than the other new CBs.

When the monsters are all-new, I really enjoy them. PF Bestiary 4, is probably in my top-5 all time favorite RPG books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I admit the Bestiaries are what got me back into Pathfinder, and still are my favorite hardcover rulebooks, along with the Campaign setting hardbacks

But yeah, Bestiary 3 and 4 are my favorites, mostly because they are not simply redoing the same monsters we have seen time and time again.


Joe Hex wrote:

It's just the first one of a new edition, that kinda burns me- because, for the most part, it's the same critters, updated for the new edition- so it does feel like buying the same book again, more so than the other new CBs.

When the monsters are all-new, I really enjoy them. PF Bestiary 4, is probably in my top-5 all time favorite RPG books.

Gonna beg to differ with you on that, particularly for the 5e Monster Manual. There's enough interesting content there that I'm inspired about some old monsters again. Best MM in years.

I like some new monsters too, but eventually things just get overwhelming. I like to revisit old classics from time to time with fresh perspectives.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

This thread prompted me to go look at my bestiaries - I realised it was the first time I'd opened my Bestiary 3. :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
This thread prompted me to go look at my bestiaries - I realised it was the first time I'd opened my Bestiary 3. :o

You should have some fun with it- it's a good one!


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
knightnday wrote:
They need to do better than staple the name D&D to something and hope the money comes in.

Why? It worked* with Starship Troopers... To use a (very relevant) example, considering the way the first movie was produced.

And, no, I don't think Starship Troopers was that good of a movie. It definitely wasn't a good adaptation of the book.

*- Sort of (estimated $105 million budget vs. $121 million worldwide gross); enough to make a couple sequels, at least.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Joe Hex wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
This thread prompted me to go look at my bestiaries - I realised it was the first time I'd opened my Bestiary 3. :o
You should have some fun with it- it's a good one!

I dont really like new monsters. I prefer the old favorites from the Monster Manual/Fiend Folio days.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonchess Player wrote:
knightnday wrote:
They need to do better than staple the name D&D to something and hope the money comes in.

Why? It worked* with Starship Troopers... To use a (very relevant) example, considering the way the first movie was produced.

And, no, I don't think Starship Troopers was that good of a movie. It definitely wasn't a good adaptation of the book.

*- Sort of (estimated $105 million budget vs. $121 million worldwide gross); enough to make a couple sequels, at least.

It was a bad adaptation because the director set out intentionally to try to torpedo Heinlein because he thought Heinlein was somehow 'fascist' which shows Mr. Verhoeven's got reading comprehension issues...

The problem with a D&D movie is the paradox that basically shoestrung the first one.

We need to make a D&D Movie!
Planner 1: But it has to be relatable by a wide market!
Planner 2: But has to appeal to the fans.

And, we get D&D 1 (And Super Mario Bros. And Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within). Where attempts to do both meet neither.


The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.

Sovereign Court

They really would just have to do something recognizable, as you all put it. You could pick any setting, and it would have so much to offer. The shame of it all is that so many good D&D-esque movies were already made in the 80's, but none of them were actually attached to the license.

Sovereign Court

Bill Dunn wrote:

Gonna beg to differ with you on that, particularly for the 5e Monster Manual. There's enough interesting content there that I'm inspired about some old monsters again. Best MM in years.

I like some new monsters too, but eventually things just get overwhelming. I like to revisit old classics from time to time with fresh perspectives.

My curiosity is piqued. What examples of new spins on old monsters would you consider to have gotten your attention?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

If they are to remake a "DnD" movie, they should look at APs or modules and use those for a script.
The night below would make an awesome movie. OR series of movies.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.

I think they should forget the "instantly recognizable as a D&D movie" bit. Just make a genuinely good fantasy movie and the rest will take care of itself.


bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.

I think they should forget the "instantly recognizable as a D&D movie" bit. Just make a genuinely good fantasy movie and the rest will take care of itself.

Then there's no point in using the property.

"I think they should just make a good fantasy movie" is good advice for a movie studio, but it doesn't leave Hasbro with a product to sell.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

thejefff, D&D is a fantasy game. Make a good fantasy movie with the fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric combo working as a group to overthrow evil. Throw in some recognizable D&D monsters. That's it, all you need to slap "D&D" on it and make it a D&D movie. The general non-nerd raging public doesn't care how "accurately" any movie portrays any source material, and they're the ones that make movies profitable. Let's look at some other Hasbro owned properties that made a ton of money at the movies, GI Joe and Transformers. The only people crying about those two movies (all of which made lot of money, by the way) were people upset that the movies deviated from the Hasbro licensed thirty minute commercials they produced to sell action figures like hotcakes. Complaining about the accuracy of something based on a cartoon used to sell toys. The general public doesn't CARE.

See, the ONLY issue is what's good advice for a studio, as Hasbro will make all of their money on the licensing of the brand name. Hasbro does't sell movies. They sell toys. A movie isn't going to instantly revive the gaming hobby, there is a current edition that Hasbro is selling, so I guess I don't understand your perspective.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd imagine that Conan the Barbarian and Beastmaster, among others, sparked some interest in the game, but that's not based on any solid evidence.


houstonderek wrote:

thejefff, D&D is a fantasy game. Make a good fantasy movie with the fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric combo working as a group to overthrow evil. Throw in some recognizable D&D monsters. That's it, all you need to slap "D&D" on it and make it a D&D movie. The general non-nerd raging public doesn't care how "accurately" any movie portrays any source material, and they're the ones that make movies profitable. Let's look at some other Hasbro owned properties that made a ton of money at the movies, GI Joe and Transformers. The only people crying about those two movies (all of which made lot of money, by the way) were people upset that the movies deviated from the Hasbro licensed thirty minute commercials they produced to sell action figures like hotcakes. Complaining about the accuracy of something based on a cartoon used to sell toys. The general public doesn't CARE.

See, the ONLY issue is what's good advice for a studio, as Hasbro will make all of their money on the licensing of the brand name. Hasbro does't sell movies. They sell toys. A movie isn't going to instantly revive the gaming hobby, there is a current edition that Hasbro is selling, so I guess I don't understand your perspective.

I'm not saying "accurately follow the rules" or "will revitalize the gaming hobby" or anything like that.

I just think in order to profitably license the thing Hasbro needs more than just the name. They need something to sell. The D&D brand isn't strong enough to convince a studio that slapping it on an otherwise generic fantasy movie will bring in enough more viewers to justify paying Hasbro big bucks for it.
"You should make a really good fantasy movie, then pay us to call it a D&D movie" is not a good elevator pitch.

Which is why I suggested they'd be better off pitching Dragonlance or D'rzzt or some kind of actual content.


thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:

The problem with a D&D movie is simple: there's no story or even characters to adapt. Therefore, for it to be recognizably a D&D movie, it's got to use the tropes attached to D&D, which are adapted to a game, participatory style, not a narrative one. And generally don't work all that well when turned into narrative form.

Probably best to base it on one of the existing narrative properties - Dragonlance could work and I'd really prefer it. D'rizzt might be more likely.

I think they should forget the "instantly recognizable as a D&D movie" bit. Just make a genuinely good fantasy movie and the rest will take care of itself.

Then there's no point in using the property.

"I think they should just make a good fantasy movie" is good advice for a movie studio, but it doesn't leave Hasbro with a product to sell.

You use the creative IP of the material, like Forgotten realms, or beholders, or the various races, etc.

or you adapt the novels

I don't think most of the modules and APs would adapt well. As RPG materials, the most important elements of the story (The characters) are intentionally left a blank slate. You could certainly use elements of modules, but it might be easier to just start from scratch.


What if they adopted the cartoon into a live action movie, nostalgia sells

201 to 250 of 384 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / I believe Hasbro will be the downfall of D&D. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.