"Finally?" I thought the whole history of D&D was defined by lawsuit happy owners asserting their right to be paid for every mention of a thought they'd shared, from pre-history to perpetuity.
Which is hilarious, because 1st edition was basically a giant pastiche of the pulps and Tolkien, when it wasn’t outright copying Moorcock.
And it was awesome. Reminds me of the old days of MUDs where you could murderhobo your way from Sesame Street on to Xanth and then from Camelot to the literal Zodiac. I miss that spirit of building a common cultural mythology that corporate “monetization” has strangled.
Fwiw, that stuff is definitely still out there, you've just got to find it. A lot of stuff in the OSR scene tends to go in weird directions, of particular note is probably Troika!, a fairly simple game set in a sort of dumping-ground universe for all sorts of wacky creatures and people. The system is based loosely on the underlying system behind the Fighting Fantasy books, and there are lots of hacks and variations, including (for a time, now sold out) one where you play as the characters from Seinfeld.
Is Troika! popular? I had a 1-on-1 session of Troika! and I really enjoyed the vibe, but I found it hard to find people interested in this particular style of play.
In comparison to D&D 5e, unfortunately not so much, but I think that's true of most games, outside perhaps Pathfinder and some regional favourites. I've mainly had success using it for occasional one shots between other games with an existing group.
If you're willing to play online, I believe there are a few discord groups where you can find people specifically interested in particular games.
I always thought that last attempt to limit 3rd party open content was because it was taking off with Stranger Things and also knowing this upcoming movie is going to continue that.
Watched the film today, thought it was great. Never really played the game (only once) so don’t know if it was true to the universe or not but throughly enjoyed the film. Definitely had a Marvel vibe to it though (theres even some scenes that could be take for take from the first avengers movie just swapped for a fantasy setting) so if you don’t like the marvel movies then stay away.
There isn't really "the universe", but a handful of official universes and all the universes created by innumerable running and finished campaigns. D&D isn't a game, and doesn't have a single canonical universe. It's a game engine with a bunch of assets for making a game and universe.
That said, the movie takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting. No idea how faithful it is to that.
There really is in that the explicit default setting for D&D/5e is the Forgotten Realms, though other settings are supported.
There also really is in that all of the official D&D settings are part of a single connected multiverse (with interactions between them in the canon.)
> D&D isn’t a game, and doesn’t have a single canonical universe.
Yes it is, and yes, it has a single canonical multiverse. (It can also be used outside of canonical settings, and frequently is.)
> It’s a game engine with a bunch of assets for making a game and universe.
There are published TTRPG systems that take that approach in the core (GURPS, HERO system, FATE, FUDGE, …the list is actually quite long.) D&D, however, isn’t one of them in its current edition. Some versions have had a genre-tied core without an explicit default setting [0], but the current version isn’t one of them.
[0] At least, on the level that the Forgotten Realms is for 5e. I think every version since AD&D/1e has had an official description of the multiverse, including the canonical inner and outer planes (the latter being the domains of the gods, etc.), so in that sense have had a “default setting” on the grandest level.
No I’ve not. I went through a board game phase a few years ago so watched an episode or two of critical role and pretty much every episode of Tabletop. Played a lot of console games growing up and some warhammer so it’s always been something I’m aware of and kind of adjacent to my interests but I’ve never really delved into it much outside of downloading a few dnd pdfs and skimming through them. Oh and the monster madness board game which is great.
While we’re recommending D&D media, I’m really enjoying Worlds Beyond Number. It just started last month with three episodes so far (every other Tuesday), available wherever you get your podcasts.
Website is a bit out of date with the podcast having started, still reads as prerelease marketing but you get the idea: https://worldsbeyondnumber.com/
You make a lot of assumptions about me. No one can play their role better than I can read it. I have aphantasia, so tv offers something over books, mainly how things and people look. Plays don't.
I went and checked out Vox Machine because of your comments and absolutely loved it, binged it all in about 3 days and now I'm watching the Critical Role Vox Machina campaign from the beginning on YouTube. Thanks!
I watched the 2000 D&D film before watching the 2023 film.
TBH, the 2023 film isn't that much better than the 2000 film. The special FX are better but the dialogue and acting is just as campy in the second film as it was in the first. It's just that our tastes have changed. The 2000 film reflects the way D&D was played 2 decades ago, i.e., more as high fantasy; the 2023 film reflects that D&D today is played more as action comedy.
EDIT: see, for example, Stranger Things, in which D&D is played a straight high fantasy. The 2000 has comedic relief (D&D isn't Warhammer), but it's first and foremost a high fantasy. The new film is an action comedy with a few serious moments, like Vox Machina or any of the dozens of D&D gaming podcasts.
Anime D&D games from the 80s and 90s were "Record of Lodross War" (serious), and "The Slayers" (action-comedy).
My 00s group was more of action-comedy. "The Gamers: Dorkness Rising" (2008 low-budget movie), was more in the spirit of how we did things.
---------
There's always a play between drama vs comedy. It depends on the group, personalities, and even emotions on the day-to-day. Generally speaking, do what the group wants and try to keep a feel of the overall atmosphere everyone's vibing with.
Slayers isn't D&D. It's maybe inspired by it in some ways, but the world setting is its own. The mechanics are also not D&D.
Which I think actually goes to show why WOTC trying to be grabby with the property was a horrible idea. The general concept of it is easy to imitate in a way that would owe nothing to WOTC. You can even replicate the feel substantially while keeping none of the setting.
D&D is a set of rules and high fantasy / pulp fiction that meshes together.
The "settings" are called Greyhawk, or Balckmoor, or Forgotten Realms (In the case of this movie: its in the Forgotten Realms). Or Pathfinder, if we're going 3rd party. But the idea was that anyone could craft their own world using the D&D rules as a baseline. (Or alternatively, use a pre-made world if you're not feeling too creative).
> The mechanics are also not D&D.
I don't think the D&D Movie from year 2000 followed the mechanics either.
----------
My understanding is that in the 80s, a bunch of anime-writers managed to play a translated version of D&D, and that served as the basis of anime high fantasy anime for a good bit. Record of Lodoss War is the most obvious, but Slayers looks to be part of that trend.
Both Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are allegedly part of the D&D trend as well... at least when they started. Its a bit more obvious in Dragon Quest (today, Final Fantasy has changed dramatically from its roots).
> I dont think slayers engaged with DND at the same level.
While I agree on this point, The Slayers seems to be comparable to say... the 2000 Dungeons and Dragons movie (or this 2023 version).
No one is seriously going to suggest that "Honor Among Thieves" is how you actually play DnD in practice. The "gamey" bits, like choosing spells at the beginning of the day, will give way to more freeform storytelling.
I'd call that more "RPG inspired", than D&D in any way.
What part of D&D is reflected in the show? It's not the setting. It's not the monsters (except for stuff present everywhere like dragons). It's not the spells (except for stuff present everywhere like fireballs). It's not the classes. It's not the power scaling.
> It's not the monsters (except for stuff present everywhere like dragons).
And Trolls that regenerate except when hit by fire or acid. And giant Golems made out of various magic metals.
And evil priests/clerics who follow under Gods of chaos (Rezo the Red Priest)
> It's not the spells (except for stuff present everywhere like fireballs). It's not the classes.
The Priestess/Cleric Sylphiel does healing spells. Lina, the sorcerer cannot heal as per the rules of DnD. Gourry is strictly a fighter with a magic weapon.
Lina not only has access to the DnD spell fireball, but also regularly casts Levetate (which is locked to the sorcerer class)
Clerics like Sylphiel have healing, scrying, flame "arrow" (likely a custom spell based off of Flame Strike + Japanese Miko-archer archetype?).
> It's not the power scaling.
Magical artifacts like the Philosophers stone that have literal connections with the gods is exactly the kind of adventure that DnD was designed to be about.
--------
The year is 1990. There are very few tabletops that have been translated to Japanese. And we here have a novel about trolls, dragons, magic weapons, sorcerors vs clerics and different spell lists for them that line up with DnD spell lists. The party of Lina, Goury, and Amelia/Sylphiel line up with the original DnD 1st edition (1974) Wizard, Fighter, Cleric (Rogue wasn't invented yet). This also happens to be the edition that was translated into Japanese in 1985.
Most of these concepts (trolls, western dragons, fireball spells, philosopher stone) are Western lore and have no history in Japanese folklore.
The similarities are uncanny. It's clearly not just inspired by 'some tabletop system's
, but by DnD itself. Yeah, there's custom spells like Dragon Slave or whatever. But custom spells and custom magic items were part of DnD from the start.
D&D didn't even have a (main product line) sorcerer class until 3rd edition. What Lina's doing throughout the series has no connection to Vancian magic which was overwhelmingly the D&D magical mode at the time. (Her powers actually best align with Druid or some of the other shamanic classes which were... a long ways off, in D&D at least. She can in fact heal.)
Your underestimation of Japanese knowledge of English/European fantasy is verging on offensive.
Sure, D&D inspired Slayers, but so did other stuff. It's no obvious system-specific replay like Lodoss War.
You mean early D&D where there's an invisible moon with cat samurais, gnomes have a flying city, and there's a giant robot somewhere. (I.E. everything in the Mystara setting)
There was always comdey action in D&D. Just like there was always horror genere in d&d and survival.
Comedy was definitely a regular component of D&D and other RPGs way before 2000. I don’t think the 2000 film was particularly targeted towards people who actually played RPGs.
Really depends what the group wants out of it. My group has always been joking and riffing, both in game and out. Most groups of friends I've been a part of really like making each other laugh regularly, and that will carry naturally into gameplay and role playing.
D&D is a really bad game for playing straight, gritty, serious. Older editions like 2e are good at it, but 3.5,4,5e are all really bad. Its much better to play like Runequest, Mythras, Warhammer, Mork Mork or any number of games that actually support that play.
> D&D is a really bad game for playing straight, gritty, serious.
Compared to the best non-D&D TTRPGs for that mode, sure.
> Older editions like 2e are good at it, but 3.5,4,5e are all really bad.
If I was going to run straight, gritty, serious out of the core books with no house rules but only rules options in the core, 5e would by far be my choice, whereas 2e would probably be the last choice (though, if I broadened it to all official first-party sourcebooks, 2e might move up to second place, with some of the historical sourcebooks and, IIRC, some options in the late 2e era DM’s Option and Player’s Option rulebooks.)
(In 5e, the combination of the longer-time options for short/long rest plus not underusing exhaustion is a big push, mechanically, toward gritty play.)
I mean, I’d prefer to just use GURPS for that, but its easier to find players (even for that style) for D&D.
> The 2000 film reflects the way D&D was played 2 decades ago, i.e., more as high fantasy; the 2023 film reflects that D&D today is played more as action comedy.
Having played D&D for over 40 years, I wouldn’t agree that that’s how dominant playstyles have changed between 2000 and now. It might have been something WotC wanted to try to shift the brand image toward at the time of the 2000 film (its not a coincidence that the film and the first edition of the rules done at WotC after acquiring TSR were released in the same year), though.
> see, for example, Stranger Things, in which D&D is played a straight high fantasy.
As someone who played in the 80s & early 90s, my experience was that it was much more of a low fantasy game than the contemporary way it is played. If the Stranger Things crew were playing a high fantasy game, that may not be as realistic to the time period.
Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks and Wizards of the Coast CEO Cynthia Williams are looking to grow the future of Dungeons & Dragons through “the type of recurrent spending you see in digital games.”
I don't see that working out as well as they imagine. The big thing is that folks use D&D as a form of structured play whether it's online or offline. It's that interaction and the freedom of both the players and the GMs to figure out how to structure it. Unless Hasbro accepts that they must limit their 'recurring payment' model to make that less painful for players then I suspect that D&D the brand will decline in relevance with competing TTRPGs replacing them.
I’m all for powering up the consumerist engines but they keep making really generically bad enthusiast collectibles like ‘the wand of orcus.’ They keep just missing the demographic of the lucrative rich middle aged adult looking for escape.
I think there is a fundamental monetization problem in that D&D players in my experience tend to be people who broadly gravitate towards anti-consumerist and anti-corporate tendencies in general. I think this is somewhat inherent in the design of D&D, which puts a high emphasis on low tech, imagination, and DIY. The game itself is not much more than a set of basic mechanics and rules, all of which are negotiable to some extent, or can be easily modified to suit various gameplay needs. It's basically a more organized version of telling stories around the campfire.
Trying to monetize something like that with movies and restrictive content licenses, given the kinds of people who are drawn to it especially in the 2020s, seems like a fundamentally doomed effort.
You can sell new campaigns and sourcebooks, rulebooks for new editions, dice, software subscriptions for VTTs and platforms like D&D Beyond, and branded merchandise like posters, t-shirts, Funko Pop dolls, etc. That seems like a good enough situation to me, but I expect that there are few enough dedicated players, and fewer still who are likely to be repeat customers, that a large corporation like Hasbro might it feel like it's an unsatisfactory revenue source. Personally I think they would do much better by just trying to sell more D&D related stuff, but there are apparently some real knuckleheads working at Hasbro who have no idea how to market to this audience.
When D&D took off in the in 1970s, they published novels set in the D&D world, which made them a lot of money. Their problem with the novels was that they refused to pay their top talent enough to keep them.
The fundamental monetization problem of the TTRP is pretty well understood, even by Hasbro. 80% of the audience are players and have little to no reason to buy more than the Player's Handbook. 20% of the audience are DMs who drive most of the sourcebook and accessory revenue.
They've explicitly said to monetize they have to find better ways to exploit players on the same level as DMs.
I am in that demographic and have spent hundreds of dollars on official D&D stuff (maybe $600?). I'm into five digits when you look at my entire expenditure on table top gaming.
I generally enjoy books and accessories for playing the game. I would consider paying extra for things like first edition books or limited run artwork. I am particularly drawn to anything rich in lore.
I've spent easily twice that amount on third-party D&D related activities. Dice sets. Hiring artist to create visual representations of my personal characters. Buying Table Top Simulator. Going to D&D events. Bribing a DM with food/beer.
That being said, the majority of the value I get from D&D are fan made given and shared for free. Custom campaigns my friends have ran. Stories about campaigns we tell each other. Bouncing around ideas for settings or NPCs. Artwork that gets passed around the internet. Min-Max and theory crafting builds that are posted in places like reddit. Without this I would have very minimal interest in D&D.
More immersive escape. The skull wand replica idea is fine but an adult needs to be able to mentally role play that it’s a real thing. Think adults who go to Disneyland regularly or pay for the Star Wars resort thing.
I have been longing to play a DND game for many years but aside from CRPG experience I don't quite enjoy playing with a group.
ChatGPT solved the problem overnight and I'm happily playing a Ravenloft ADND 2e adventure "The Awakening" with it. It has been a couple of nights and I progress slowly, but the experience has been very good so far. I can bargain with it; I can ask it to drop in a companion from nowhere. It understands everything I said; It follows my set of DM rules; It keeps a journal for me. I'm very happy to pay 20 bucks about it although I think maybe 3.5 is good enough.
I gave it a set of DM rules (for example do not make decisions for me; do not cheat for me, etc.) but other than that I just asked it to DM the module for me. TBH I'm not really sure whether it is following the module, but at least it is following the undead theme.
It's a good question though. I know the gist of the story so I assume I'm still in the hook. The game went slowly as I don't have much time for it.
Something like: Prompt GPT4 with basic rules (in several batches) and have it create JSONL prompt-completion pairs to use as fine-tuning for GPT3. Freeze that model then continue fine-tuning it with a new set of prompt-completion pairs for each adventure module.
Saw the film with friends today, we thought it was a B (pretty meh, by the numbers plot and humour, a bit overlong, but I appreciated the namedrops of Icewind, Neverwinter, Underdark, Baldurs Gate). I wouldn't be surprised to see it spawn a franchise, given D&D's general rise in recent years.
It seems to work in the short term, for generic adventures, but it has no sense of place. What I mean is it doesn’t understand geography, or the layout of a city, or factions, or metaplot. It’s not creative in that way. If you ask it to create factions for a city it will do it, or a city with particular history and culture it will do that, but if you ask it to run a city adventure, it doesn’t know it needs to do those things first. So you’d need to hand hold it through generating a specific setting, and then you’d hit the token window limit.
If you ask to set it in the forgotten realms it reuses existing factions without using tokens! With gpt4 it’s amazing! It is better than my actual human dm!
1. I openly question gpt's ability to generate compelling narratives. Perhaps modules could be feed into it to provide enough background for it go off of, but I would consider this a weakness to GPT compared to humans.
2. Current GPT based DMs allow the player to do basically anything they want. Human DMs offer more control over the game, and will follow closer to tradition and unwritten roles than GPT allows. There's also a fun part of the game for the player in which they convince the DM to allow an action they wouldn't otherwise.
3. D&D's low tech nature is a draw for a lot of players. Some books, some paper, pencils, dice, a table. Simple stuff. I think many players would push back on screens and other high tech.
A domain specific LLM trained on fantasy, science fiction, role playing etc, embedded into a hardware speaker / mask. Something you can prop up at the table, and have disconnected from the internets.
