D&D 5E I think we can safely say that 5E is a success, but will it lead to a new Golden Era?

Mercurius

Legend
A creative and community success, that is. I know, it is early, but the feedback on the Starter Set, Basic Rules, and Player's Handbook has been overwhelmingly positive, so much so that the negative views really stand out. We still need to see more reviews and give the community a couple months with the Player's Handbook, but so far I think 5E is quite a success with the fan base, and I just can't imagine anything like the debacle that we had with 4E.

Here's the "but" from the thread title (which is really more of a "What if"). What if it is a roaring success with the existing fan-base but isn't a massive financial one? In other words, what if the Mearls Plan doesn't succeed and the brand doesn't blow up with a massive new generation of players storming the gates to roll their first d20? What if none or few of the legendary "20 million" D&D boomers from the 80s doesn't come back?

I would imagine that D&D would continue as is indefinitely, although wouldn't expand in any way. We'd see a more moderate roll out of products, perhaps akin to the first few years of Pathfinder - a new hardcover two or three times a year, a new adventure once a month or two with the occasional setting supplement. In other words, business as usual and what one would have expected with 5E, but without the fulfillment of the promised vision of a new golden era of a diversified D&D brand. D&D would remain what it has been since the end of the 80s boom, a niche hobby with moderate ups and downs in creativity and financial success.

I don't have a problem with that and, in a way, think creative vitality is better retained with a smaller, or moderate sized pie. In other words, while it isn't an absolute rule, there seems to be a common inverse relationship between financial success and creative vitality in many artistic domains.

That said, I would still be curious what a new, golden era of D&D would be like.

So how could that work? I think the key is movies. It is the only media format that reaches beyond the "geek ghetto." Take my very non-geek wife. She has no idea what World of Warcraft is, who Drizzt or Elminster are, or what a d20 is. But she could probably name a half a dozen X-Men, knows what a Jedi Knight is, and which franchise the starship Enterprise is from.

Imagine if there could be D&D movies with similar production and creative values as the Marvel universe or Star Wars or Star Trek movies. The few D&D movies we've seen so far have done nothing to enrich the brand; if anything, they have turned some potential players away (I remember seeing the first one in the theater back when it came out in 2000. One of the guys I went with, a very hipster artist who used to play D&D in high school, was so embarassed that I think it snuffed out any thought of him ever playing again). But I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that "D&D" and "live action movie" is inherently doomed to artistic limbo.

I think the best chance D&D has of a creative movie is something epic, a Big Story. What comes most immediately to mind is the Dragonlance Chronicles. Another could be Icewind Dale (I hate to say it, but if done well Drizzt could make an impact on the big screen). Or perhaps something new.

This post is admittedly meandering - I just had some thoughts that I am hoping will encourage conversation. Take whatever element of the above, or whatever comes to you, and run with it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SigmaOne

First Post
I think you hit the nail on the head exactly. What we've seen of D&D media so far has ranged from noble (but failed) attempts to outright disasters. And you're absolutely right that this has been a net negative for the game itself. There's no reason something cannot be made with the same level of quality as the Hobbit movies or Marvel movies. It seems the first step might have been taken already by wresting control of the movie rights from that company. It would be a huge investment to make a proper movie (or movie trilogy). You're right that Chronicles would be a great place to start, since that has a ton of caché outside the gaming community. Possibly even more than Drizzt. They'd still have to be super careful, though. For example, that John Carter movie turned out to be a flop --- they overestimated how many people had any idea what those books were. Also, they already tried the Chronicles animated movie, which went over rather poorly. If there's a new D&D movie, it either has to be a critical or box office success; and frankly if they try and fail again, it might just be time to give up the ghost. I hope they try and succeed though... having a successful D&D movie has been a dream for me.
 

Very interesting thread! I can't help but think, as least as far as I'm concerned (and I'm what you would call a 'grognard' or 'OSR acolyte') -- that D&D IS BACK!!

LOTS of speculation/personal opinion to follow; you have been warned. :)

My grog friends (the ones I know and game with) seem to agree with me, thought there are LOTS of us from the original "boom" that just see this as 3e with different window dressing (i.e., many posters over at Dragonsfoot). (Personally, I don't agree and think that 5e is probably as close to an actual evolution from 1/2e as we have seen yet without the anime/MMO-ness of later editions).

The best D&D movies were not official D&D products: Conan The Barbarian, The Dark Crystal, Willow, Beastmaster, et al -- but were part of that sword & sorcery resurgence of the early 80s just prior to the witch hunts.

If WotC could come up with something like Conan -- heck, just blatantly "borrow" the plot -- I really think that in tandem w social media and Youtube, they could have a healthy franchise on their hands.

Even a monthly Youtube episodic movie would be a great success, I think.

So, yeah, I will say it: D&D is back, better than ever in my opinion, and I am looking forward to the next 2 core releases with baited breath.

After that ... I don't know if I will follow WotC on the 'splat book express train' if they do decide to go that route. When Pathfinder first came out, I was excited at how evocative the setting and rules were in terms of creating the character YOU want to play ... but after a couple of years, the sheer amount of work required ground me right down and I went back to 1e with my group and we have stayed there ... 5e allows even greater configurability without the weeks or months of planning and leg work.
 

Stalker0

Legend
For example, that John Carter movie turned out to be a flop --- they overestimated how many people had any idea what those books were.

I agree there is a careful marketing aspect. I liked John Carter myself and had never heard of the stories, and the movie itself I thought was decent. So I was surprised it did so poorly as it did.


If we look at a character like Drizzt...he probably has as much name recognition as Iron Man did before the movies...which in the public arena was almost none. You just have to find the right hook and make a good movie around it.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I don't thinkit will be a new golden era and it may be struggling to even get a silver era (3.0 of D&D). Reception has been better than 4E but it is to early to call it one way or another.
 

Mercurius

Legend
If there's a new D&D movie, it either has to be a critical or box office success; and frankly if they try and fail again, it might just be time to give up the ghost.

I think you're right, but there really is no really a D&D movie couldn't be successful. I think one key is to limit, if not eradicate, the wink-wink geek jokes. Make it a movie for anyone who enjoys adventure and fantasy, not just the nerdier of D&D players.

My grog friends (the ones I know and game with) seem to agree with me, thought there are LOTS of us from the original "boom" that just see this as 3e with different window dressing (i.e., many posters over at Dragonsfoot). (Personally, I don't agree and think that 5e is probably as close to an actual evolution from 1/2e as we have seen yet without the anime/MMO-ness of later editions).

I think you're both right - that 5E is an evolution from AD&D, but also in a way what 3E "should" have been - with a simpler core game that can be complexified, but doesn't have to be.

While 3.X was very successful and a great game in its own right, it seemingly forgot that by fusing BECMI and AD&D it had to provide options for both approaches, a simpler and more complex version of the game. What it did instead was create what turned about to be even more complex than AD&D.

After that ... I don't know if I will follow WotC on the 'splat book express train' if they do decide to go that route. When Pathfinder first came out, I was excited at how evocative the setting and rules were in terms of creating the character YOU want to play ... but after a couple of years, the sheer amount of work required ground me right down and I went back to 1e with my group and we have stayed there ... 5e allows even greater configurability without the weeks or months of planning and leg work.

Well hopefully they've learned from the "everything is core" approach that only the core should be core, and everything else is optional. I think this is how Mearls sees it, so I feel hopeful.

That said, we are going to see splats - just not as much as in 3.X and 4E. But I think the idea is that everyone will play D&D, but the splats won't as much be more D&D to layer on, but specific avenues (or modules) to choose from to customize rather than complicate and inundate your game (unless that's your gig).

I agree there is a careful marketing aspect. I liked John Carter myself and had never heard of the stories, and the movie itself I thought was decent. So I was surprised it did so poorly as it did.

I thought it was decent enough, although not great - certainly better than its reception, though, and comparable in quality to more popular films like Prince of Persia.


I think there are two reasons it wasn't more popular. One is that Burroughs just isn't that well known anymore and his work a bit dated. The other is actually in the name: "John Carter" doesn't evoke anything, it could be a lawroom or crime film. "Warrior of Mars" or something to that effect would have been more descriptive.

I don't thinkit will be a new golden era and it may be struggling to even get a silver era (3.0 of D&D). Reception has been better than 4E but it is to early to call it one way or another.

I agree, although think that 5E has a bit more broad appeal than 3E because it is less intrinsically complex. We shall see, though.
 

Psyga315

Explorer
I like to use the analogy of 5E being a lot like Pokemon X and Y.

A new game for a new generation while making heavy throw backs to the original generation, thus unifying two target demographics into one instead of alienating one or the other.
 


reiella

Explorer
I thought it was decent enough, although not great - certainly better than its reception, though, and comparable in quality to more popular films like Prince of Persia.


I think there are two reasons it wasn't more popular. One is that Burroughs just isn't that well known anymore and his work a bit dated. The other is actually in the name: "John Carter" doesn't evoke anything, it could be a lawroom or crime film. "Warrior of Mars" or something to that effect would have been more descriptive.

The name was actually changed to John Carter from Princess of Mars due to some initial focus testing. However, it should be noted that a big thing that hit John Carter in contrast to Prince of Persia was the final set of focus groups just absolutely did not like it, so Disney cut their advertising budget.

On topic of 5e. I don't know. Some of the things that people are really happy about are some of the things I'm not too happy about. Which is fine, people can have different tastes. Before I pass judgement, I really do want to wait until after the 3 books are out and try a few games to determine my opinion.
 


Remove ads

Top