D&D General What D&D reflects today, media wise...

[DarkCrisis]

I agree with this, but in a weird way that is "supers stuff". That's precisely the kind of thing that made Marvel comics great back in the day – you didn't just have the superhero awesomeness, but also personal moments. And it's the personal moments that make us care about the big things.

I’ve been reading the original Spider-man, F4, and Daredevil.
Classic Peter is just amazing, I see why Spidy took off. And classic MJ is a trip.
To bad popular media doesn’t portray her as the “party girl” she originally was.

And Karen in Daredevil, uugghh. The “romance” between her and Matt is just awful.

and don’t get me started on Namor and Sue in F4.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It does seem, however, that people forget how weird the S&S fantasy of the Moorcock, Leiber, Vance, etc. era was. In many respects, OD&D or even 1e D&D is quite tame in comparison with the weirdness of S&S fantasy from this era.

note to self, read some of the old crazy stuff for ideas.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

They are very odd choices and tell you a bit about the poster. Specifically in both cases they're kind "off-brand". The big MOBA with significant multimedia success (rather than merely aspirations) is League of Legends. Not only is it bigger than DotA 2 (and likely DotA) ever has been, it's actually been successful with things like Arcane (whereas the DOTA anime, also Netflix, is not particularly popular or noteworthy). Further, the massive fanbase of LoL crosses over more with tabletop RPG players, I would suggest, and it shares far more of its central aesthetic with MtG and modern D&D than DotA 2 does.

The Witcher as a TV series is popular but obviously not Game of Thrones or LotR popular. As a videogame it's also popular, but not The Elder Scrolls or League of Legends popular, let alone World of Warcraft popular (over the last 15 years). As books they're even less popular in the West (if much discussed).

Anyway yes even if looking at specific games/TV shows/etc. there's a pretty long list to go through in terms of being influential on modern D&D before you'd get to either DotA or the Witcher. Also I think it's worth noting that even just focusing on games, TV shows, etc. is outdated - I suspect Critical Role and its audience will be more influential on future D&D aesthetic and design decisions than most games/TV.


It's not just an issue in fantasy writing, either (though it certainly is happening there to a degree), but also in fantasy art. There's been a sort of drift towards almost a "shared aesthetic" among a lot of fantasy art over the last few years, one which is sort of exemplified by Arcane (the Netflix show based on League of Legends) and can also, I would argue, be seen in Critical Role products and increasingly in D&D (indeed the 5E PHB was already heading that way) and MtG. I think MtG was in many ways responsible for starting this trend. There's still tons of art that doesn't really fit it, or is only a branch of the family tree, but we're talking about sort of slightly exaggerated aesthetic with its roots as much in comic books and graphic design than fine art (even if fine art techniques are used to create it), with a lot of bright colours and warm metals, inevitable steampunk/magitech devices, clothing trending towards the stylish and quasi-modern rather than the realistic or historical, and generally a trend away from quasi-realism, but also away from the more extreme stylization of earlier decades. It's kind of becoming an overly safe and standard aesthetic if you ask me, and needs shaking up (and not merely by attempting to revert to some earlier approach).

Are you kidding me? Just going by the Animes,, DOTA 2: Dragons Blood central plot is about Dragons, it has Elves, Orcs, etc..., I spent the time thinking what characters would be what D&D class. Lina Sorcerer, Merci Monk, Devon Eldritch Knight multiclassed with Red Dragon Sorcerer, that Australian sounding Elf Arcane Trickster, Invoker Wizard, Bran Eldrich Knight (and other Dragon Knight), etc...

 

[HammerMan]

I think D&D long ago reached the point where it is perpetually referencing itself. Especially in 5th edition, even more so than 4th, 3rd, and 2nd.
Looking at what is around for D&D today, it seems to be near exclusively things that had been well established since AD&D.

yeah, D&D (in my experience 2e+) took Conan and LotR and a few others and threw them in a blended and made there own. then other media (I will say WoW but really warcraft before the world) so we got a bunch of video games, other RPGs card games and even novels and movies that took inspiration from D&D and made changes.
then D&D took those changes as new inspiration and made changes. This loop went on for at least the last 30 years (maybe all 50) and created new loops inthemselves.

 

[HammerMan]

D&D having elves standing next to dragon-men and devil-people, because players genuinely think those things are just fun to do. Perhaps some will call that "anime" (though anime that feature humanoid dragons, even lizardfolk, are relatively rare; usually you have catgirls or fox-/wolf-people or the like).

yeah that always comes off more of "this thing I don't like I will compare to this other thing I don't like even if they are not the same."

 

[Micah Sweet]

They weren’t in the first player’s handbook, but 4e explicitly didn’t distinguish between “core” and “non-core.”

Many players at the time certainly did though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D has a hard time recognizing it's own identity. It has always modeled itself after other sources and trying to appeal to the largest spectrum of audiences. If you look back to its creators and influencers, you'll see bits and pieces taken from specific works like Vance's Dying Earth, Moorcock's Elric saga, and Leiber's Lankhmar.

In this current day where fantasy and geek have become more mainstream and chic, it's not surprising to see a wider range of influences like Pokemon and Harry Potter. Even D&D has become it's own influencers by tapping into the nostalgia factor to recycle old materials and ideas that have long outgrown their relevance in modern social norms.

This is something where 4th edition really stands out. Monsters didn't just fill up a space on the page. The authors took a lot of thought and care to give every creature a place and a reason in the newly designed cosmos. It was the first time that D&D felt like it's own universe and not just borrowed bits of existing ideas and literature. This is something a lot of people seem to have missed, even though a lot of it was quietly carried over.

See, I actually saw that as a bug (one of many, for me). While I really liked the Nerath setting and found its assumptions interesting, I strongly objected to the "one true way to play D&D" that it implied. 4th ed tried to make all the messy variety collapse into a single identity they controlled, when one of the games greatest strengths was its diversity of setting and tone, and its openess to homebrew.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

See, I actually saw that as a bug (one of many, for me). While I really liked the Nerath setting and found its assumptions interesting, I strongly objected to the "one true way to play D&D" that it implied. 4th ed tried to make all the messy variety collapse into a single identity they controlled, when one of the games greatest strengths was its diversity of setting and tone, and its openess to homebrew.

The thing is, it wasn't a "one true way". There was still room for Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun, and Eberron to have their own settings with their own cosmologies and lore. Granted, some of the changes were forced to fit with the new rules and not really appreciated (even by me). But the idea was that Nerath was, specifically, the world of the D&D game. The rest were just worlds that you could play D&D in.

Now, as far as diversity and openness, etc... well, you can see the mess that it creates daily when brought up in a public forum.

 

[Aldarc]

The thing is, it wasn't a "one true way". There was still room for Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun, and Eberron to have their own settings with their own cosmologies and lore. Granted, some of the changes were forced to fit with the new rules and not really appreciated (even by me). But the idea was that Nerath was, specifically, the world of the D&D game. The rest were just worlds that you could play D&D in.

Now, as far as diversity and openness, etc... well, you can see the mess that it creates daily when brought up in a public forum.

Even then, I'm not sure if Nerath was intended to be "the world of the D&D game." It kind of grew and evolved from what felt like an initial starting point of "here is a sample basic setting to get you started." It was built with the conceits and such of 4e in mind - much like Eberron was with 3e or Greyhawk was with 1e - but I agree that Nerath wasn't really ever THE "one true way" to play 4e D&D or even D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

Many players at the time certainly did though.

Many players do lots of things that are counter to design intent, but the negative side-effects of those things are not the fault of the design.