JeffB
Legend
It is my understanding that Nebin and Kerwin both lost their jobs at WOTC for inappropriate buckleage on days besides Casual Friday. Most certainly Hennet was among that particular Xmas layoff as well.
Draogn's Eye View 7/31: Transmedia Experience
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
It is my understanding that Nebin and Kerwin both lost their jobs at WOTC for inappropriate buckleage on days besides Casual Friday. Most certainly Hennet was among that particular Xmas layoff as well.
KidSnide
Adventurer
I thought the different looks given to Detrilizzi's Planescape or Brom's Dark Sun were one of the strengths of 2e. Yeah, sure, the market can't sustain different worlds as complete product lines that continue indefinitely, but the whole point of developing a new game world is to provide a new experience and a new look is a part of that. Dark Sun monsters should look different from Forgotten Realms monsters. Likewise Planescape and Dragonlance should maintain the design aesthetics that drive those games.
I played 4e for most of its run, but its homogenized cartoon look was hardly a plus.
-KS
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
JeffB said:
I hear the core of your complaint, but I think this might be over-stating it a bit.
There will likely be only a few traits that your typical D&D Orc must have to be a consistent experience (things like, I dunno, using axes or having geen skin). Aspects of the orcs that are not those gracenotes can change.
It's also possible that, when the selling point of a product is "take Typical D&D Expectations and tweak them," that this product will be able to. Like, Dark Sun tweaks elves and halflings.
It's still getting the thing pretty wrong (there's few Typical D&D Expectations to begin with!), and it will still encourage bland homogenization, and it is still a Bad Idea, but I don't think it'll be exactly monolithic.
Remalthilis said:
Don't really agree. When I play D&D with Group A, my goblins might look like this. When I play D&D with Group B, my goblins might look like that. When I play D&D with the group that loves WoW, my goblins are a lot like that. When I play D&D with the group that loves Pathfinder, my goblins are a lot like that.
Never exactly. Because they aren't PF goblins or WoW goblins, they're My Tuesday Night Group's Gobilins, or The Goblins for My Post-Apocalyptic Campaign.
And that's just within what one person does, let alone how my goblins and your goblins are different.
D&D's strength is not that there is One Consistent D&D Goblin. It is that there are infinite, inconsistent D&D goblins, that range over everything you can imagine a goblin to be, and everything you ever NEED a goblin to be.
Last edited:
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Can't XP you again yet -- well stated.
I was going to say this but you said it sooner and better.
Remathilis
Legend
That's great for an individual DM. Its hell on the art department though.
As a DM, can say anything. If I want gnomes to be 12 feet tall and eat nothing but tar, so be it. But the baseline MUST be established. You can't just put any picture of a goblin on a T-shirt or in an MMO and call it a D&D goblin. By that logic, all of these are D&D goblins:
A consistent idea of what they look like should be encouraged from a MEDIA standpoint. Let individual DMs tailor them later if they want.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
The first paragraph is immediately wrong. D&D is not a single story, though it is certainly suited to multiple forms of media.
His second paragraph contradicts his first at first, then attempts to get back on topic, but only makes it worse. The fact that the D&D-verse is so di-verse makes it completely contradictory to singular transmedia storytelling, and when an attempt is made, we get Drizzt. Pretty much a parody of everything most folks will regard as D&D and quite frankly an experience that is NOT representative of the D&D brand. The "band of adventurers" story in the initial D&D comics is probably more on-par.
And my ark prophecies are furfilled as he immediately references Drizzt as the "star" name of this transmedia experience. Let me repeat DRIZZT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE D&D EXPERIENCE.
Some stories within D&D may make for great transmedia products, no argument there. But D&D as a WHOLE is not just Drizzt, it is far more, and there is no way that it can be represented with a lone, counter-culture drow.
D&D doesn't need "heroes", it's not a big-budget movie that needs the highest paid stars to make it famous. D&D is best told from the diverse perspectives of a band of adventurers ala LOTR or the "group" D&D comic by IDW. That is the closest D&D as a brand gets to transmedia, not one, singular hero-centric story, but a diverse, multi-character adventure.
Eventually, this article basically turns into a "this is how we're going to sell Drizzt", which just disgusts me. I dream of the day when Drizzt is no longer the "face" of D&D.
I am not against transmedia stuff, as I said I think the "adventure group" comics worked out quite well. But I certainly don't thing they're taking it in the right direction.
His second paragraph contradicts his first at first, then attempts to get back on topic, but only makes it worse. The fact that the D&D-verse is so di-verse makes it completely contradictory to singular transmedia storytelling, and when an attempt is made, we get Drizzt. Pretty much a parody of everything most folks will regard as D&D and quite frankly an experience that is NOT representative of the D&D brand. The "band of adventurers" story in the initial D&D comics is probably more on-par.
And my ark prophecies are furfilled as he immediately references Drizzt as the "star" name of this transmedia experience. Let me repeat DRIZZT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE D&D EXPERIENCE.
Some stories within D&D may make for great transmedia products, no argument there. But D&D as a WHOLE is not just Drizzt, it is far more, and there is no way that it can be represented with a lone, counter-culture drow.
Who?
D&D doesn't need "heroes", it's not a big-budget movie that needs the highest paid stars to make it famous. D&D is best told from the diverse perspectives of a band of adventurers ala LOTR or the "group" D&D comic by IDW. That is the closest D&D as a brand gets to transmedia, not one, singular hero-centric story, but a diverse, multi-character adventure.
Eventually, this article basically turns into a "this is how we're going to sell Drizzt", which just disgusts me. I dream of the day when Drizzt is no longer the "face" of D&D.
I am not against transmedia stuff, as I said I think the "adventure group" comics worked out quite well. But I certainly don't thing they're taking it in the right direction.
Last edited:
Iosue
Legend
Yes, this is where I am as well.
heptat
Explorer
I actually don't know who Drizzt is. I think I missed something...
I'm sure there are people at WotC/Hasbro who would be perfectly happy if everyone played exactly the same D&D if that means making more money.
They're not bringing out a new version of D&D to make you (or me) happy. They are doing it to make more money.
I'm sure there are people at WotC/Hasbro who would be perfectly happy if everyone played exactly the same D&D if that means making more money.
They're not bringing out a new version of D&D to make you (or me) happy. They are doing it to make more money.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
Stick a fork in D&D, it's done.
What drew a lot of people to D&D was the ability to imagine, and imagine differently. Now they want to homoginize the experience - didn't we do that dance in 4E?
Sure, it's a great idea to keep Drizzt looking and acting pretty consistantly in whatever media he is depicted - that's a single character and he should be kept pretty recognizable.
Does anyone remember the variety of beholders for Spelljammer? That they deliberately took various design concepts and said "these are ALL ways to depict beholders in Spelljammer"? That sort of thing was great. Likewise during the time of 2E we saw world-specific depictions of monsters without forcing them to look and act alike (look at goblin depictions of Dragonlance's Lord Toade hobgoblin vs. Ken Frank's Greyhawk Orcs vs. Mystara's Orcs & goblins vs. Diterrizelli's MM goblins, for example).
Slapping a (C) or a (R) on your depiction of an orc is NOT what D&D is about. What a way to blow it, Jon.
What drew a lot of people to D&D was the ability to imagine, and imagine differently. Now they want to homoginize the experience - didn't we do that dance in 4E?
Sure, it's a great idea to keep Drizzt looking and acting pretty consistantly in whatever media he is depicted - that's a single character and he should be kept pretty recognizable.
Does anyone remember the variety of beholders for Spelljammer? That they deliberately took various design concepts and said "these are ALL ways to depict beholders in Spelljammer"? That sort of thing was great. Likewise during the time of 2E we saw world-specific depictions of monsters without forcing them to look and act alike (look at goblin depictions of Dragonlance's Lord Toade hobgoblin vs. Ken Frank's Greyhawk Orcs vs. Mystara's Orcs & goblins vs. Diterrizelli's MM goblins, for example).
Slapping a (C) or a (R) on your depiction of an orc is NOT what D&D is about. What a way to blow it, Jon.
Similar Threads
