D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Klaus]

That's one thing TSR/WotC has never really done, which is create and truly push "official characters" of D&D. This was made explicit to us when they were trying to create the Wrath of Ashardalon boardgame and they talked about how they didn't actually have a named dragon beyond Tiamat that was an obvious choice for the game... and they had to go back through their products to find one (which turned out to be Ash, although I'm sure many of us like myself had never actually heard of him.)

The only sort of "known" or "famous" characters from D&D that have actually images we might recognize are the Realms ones in and around Elminster and Drizzt... and the D&D cartoon. Which from a marketing and merchandizing perspective isn't that great.

Heck... as weird as it is to think... there's probably more people who would recognize the Acquisitions Inc. characters than pretty much any other character from D&D. And that's because the characters have actually been used several times over in "marketing" (i.e. the PA/PvP/Wheaton podcasts), plus they're owned and drawn by a pair or artists. It might behoove WotC in 5E to maybe do a couple more "celebrity D&D" marketing games to create even more "known" characters with which they could then own and market.

The Robot Chicken guys again... maybe The Nerdist group... the folks from The Guild, etc. etc.

Oh, D&D has had iconics before:

 

[RangerWickett]

I think you forgot someone:

 

[DEFCON 1]

But that's something D&D and almost all pen and paper games I know was never about. It's a franchise of tools, not one of stories. There are some adventurers that have made their adversaries become iconic NPCs, but the protagonists have always been the creation of the players.
Except Dragonlance, which is quite controversial because of this.

That's true... but it has shrunk their merchandising potential because of it. Not that the's necessarily a bad thing... but I'm sure there have been people who have wanted 'D&D' branded stuff but just never had a chance to get it (since there was never enough specific iconic imagery to become the 'face' of D&D.) The words 'Dungeons & Dragons' can get you part of the way there... but without a face or logo like Batman, you can't really cover the market (at least not as well).

 

[steeldragons]

LMAO.

[MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION], I would HAPPIILY forget those "inconics" existing...guess I have to get back to forgetting them now. lol.

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION]...I'm not quite sure what to say. lolol. Ya know....It might be a cute nod to nostalgia to have those characters, updated as "REAL D&D Characters" as opposed to "real world people in a D&D world." Like, what level are they now?

But all in all, I have to give my two coppers that the idea of having iconic characters of any background would be a great thing to incorporate into 5e.

Specifically, if the proposed "3 columns" of PCs "building" (I MUCH prefer the term creating/creation and think "builds" ought to be excised from the vernacular. But Iconics as examples of "this is the 'Combat'" icon, this is the "Exploration" icon, and this is the "Interaction icon" would be brilliant. For each class...that'd be...ummmm <doing math in his head> roughly 36 icons. lol.

--SD

 

[Kaodi]

I have never been a big fan of Ashardalon being the iconic dragon. Because he is not a pure dragon at all, but a dragon with a demon instead of a heart. A truly iconic dragon should be all dragon. Dragotha has the same problem. He was a dragon, but now he is a dracolich, which is a little different.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Great feedback on the crunch = engagement question.

I'm the RP (role-player) in the term RPG. Crunch has little appeal to me...even when I'm doing the DM thing. I'm about story...

Even in the characters I create, you can see that. I'm the kind of guy that picks and "intent" for my characters and lives it to the hilt. Example - I have a burly half-orc barbarian in my 3E game. The guiding principle about this guy was he was all about hitting. Period. Every choice I made for powers, equipment, story centered around hitting - hitting harder, faster, more often. I could care less about defense and never backed down from anything. Even my choices in armor centered around - how it allowed me to hit.

As you can guess, the personality that developed around this guy was one about rash decisions and dealing with the consequences that came about from them.

Now, while I ended up having to create an excel spread sheet to help me deal with the math of all the add-ons and temporary effects - I could care less about the min/maxing of the character. So much so, that I had to run around with a cleric in my hip pocket to deal with my inability to hold onto hit points for very long.

So as you can guess, I get "engaged" by the stuff that brings the game to life for me. Like you guys have said, everyone gets engaged in a different manner, and by different things. This was very valuable information for me, and helps me cast off a few preconceived perceptions.

Thanks!!

Right, I don't care a lot about crunch in any kind of min/maxing kind of sense, but that isn't the only sense in which crunch can be engaging. The 1e DMG is a nice illustration. For instance there's an insanity table. This table basically has no specific defined use in AD&D. There are a few things that might, at the DM's whim, lead to insanity, but in effect it is a pure detached little piece of crunch. Generations of gamers have engaged with that table. Crunch engages by being enabling, or it can limit engagement by discouraging or overly defining things.

Good crunch will give you generalized structures to build on and tie into fluff so that you can see how to build engaging stories and situations in you game. Large pure fluff tracts with no real way to relate them back to the action at the table can be fun stories and interesting reading, but they have lower overall value to me because they're not really different from things I can read outside of game materials, nor am I likely to go back and look at them again. They can be inspiring, but I'd see engagement as something that keeps bringing you back. Again, the old 1e DMG was a work of genius in this respect. Practically every one of its little sections both tells you what you could do, AND how you could do it (the how is often pretty rough, but still).

At least for me if 5e is going to be really engaging it has to provide support for what I want to do, and provide ideas for tying it into the game. 4e was great at the core structure part. It also has a lot of really good articles on story ideas, etc. It generally doesn't bring the two together really well. Class and Race descriptions being one exception.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But that's something D&D and almost all pen and paper games I know was never about. It's a franchise of tools, not one of stories. There are some adventurers that have made their adversaries become iconic NPCs, but the protagonists have always been the creation of the players.
Except Dragonlance, which is quite controversial because of this.

Yeah, at a certain point iconic characters can become a barrier to creativity. Look at the ranger, the drow, and the whole Drizzz't thing. At a certain point the game can start to become service for its icons if you're not careful. D&D never quite went overboard with that, but you do want it to be about making your own characters, not playing or emulating the iconic ones.

OTOH maybe its overblown. Superhero games certainly manage.

 

[Kaodi]

Biggest problem of course with dragons are the names. Names are hard.

Phlogan Novex, the Red Prince ?

 

[Klaus]

LMAO.

[MENTION=63]RangerWickett[/MENTION], I would HAPPIILY forget those "inconics" existing...guess I have to get back to forgetting them now. lol.

[MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION]...I'm not quite sure what to say. lolol. Ya know....It might be a cute nod to nostalgia to have those characters, updated as "REAL D&D Characters" as opposed to "real world people in a D&D world." Like, what level are they now?

But all in all, I have to give my two coppers that the idea of having iconic characters of any background would be a great thing to incorporate into 5e.

Specifically, if the proposed "3 columns" of PCs "building" (I MUCH prefer the term creating/creation and think "builds" ought to be excised from the vernacular. But Iconics as examples of "this is the 'Combat'" icon, this is the "Exploration" icon, and this is the "Interaction icon" would be brilliant. For each class...that'd be...ummmm <doing math in his head> roughly 36 icons. lol.

--SD

There's a reason people are still making custom toys and paintings of the kids from the D&D cartoon, more than 20 years after it was discontinued. The cartoon still airs in Brazil, to great ratings. Last Thursday, when I went to see "John Carter", the clerks at the theater cafeteria were talking about the supposed "final episode" of the D&D cartoon. And none of the five young men and women talking about were over 20.

 

[steeldragons]

There's a reason people are still making custom toys and paintings of the kids from the D&D cartoon, more than 20 years after it was discontinued. The cartoon still airs in Brazil, to great ratings. Last Thursday, when I went to see "John Carter", the clerks at the theater cafeteria were talking about the supposed "final episode" of the D&D cartoon. And none of the five young men and women talking about were over 20.

Oh! Don't get me wrong, I LOVED the cartoon...I forced myself to get up Sat. mornings for it. LOVED it! But for today's day and age, I'm thinking the new cartoon should be straight out new characters or "those guys" (Hank, Sheila, Bobby & Diana...Presto and Eric can really just die...they were boring) grown up.