Draogn's Eye View 7/31: Transmedia Experience

[Klaus]

What Jon is saying is not that the experience will be the same, but that you will be able to experience D&D in multiple forms (wearing D&D apparel, playing with D&D toys, using D&D mobile apps, watching a D&D movie, etc). For that to happen, you need some things to remain consntant.

Look at how 3e radically changed Strahd Von Zarovich's look in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. Was that even recognizable as Strahd? When he appeared in 4e (in Open Grave), he was back to his classical (i.e. iconic) look. If you see a Strahd Kre-O figure, it'll probably look more like that iconic look than the 3e make-over.

Another example is Dragonlance. Back in the 80s, there were Dragonlance RPGs, computer games, calendars, novels, etc, and the look for the characters was consistent throughout. The DL art team even went so far as to create new looks for Krynn's dragons, so that you'd know it was a Krynn dragon, not a generic dragon. It's the same thing.

No need for fire and pitchforks, folks.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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:

Yes, all of those things are and can be (and have been!) D&D goblins.

The issue with the art department is solvable, but they need to stop thinking about D&D as having a goblin that has a consistent look, and start thinking more about how The Forgotten Realms (aka: magical High Fantasy) has a goblin that has a consistent look, and Greyhawk (aka: Sword & Sorcery Pulpishness) has a different goblin with a different look and Dragonlance (aka: epic storytelling fantasy) has a goblin with a different look, and Ravenloft (aka: Gothic horror fantasy) has a goblin with a different look, and that all of these different looks and styles are under the umbrella of a D&D goblin.

That sells more D&D because then D&D goblins are any goblin you can imagine, and you can include the FR goblin or the Greyhawk goblin or the DL goblin or the Ravenloft goblin (or all of them!) in your own game, depending on how your group wants goblins, depending on how you need goblins to be for your purposes as a DM. D&D thus gets closely identified with creativity, personalization, and unique story creation and storytelling, much like how HBO is closely identified with innovative drama, or how NBC was at least at one time known as a place to go for comedy shows or how Apple is known for product design. D&D becomes a platform, a network, hub that means This Is Fantasy Role-Playing.

Because if D&D says, "Well, our goblins are this one thing" in an effort to deliver a consistent experience across media, then anyone who wants to use a goblin that isn't this particular one thing isn't going to go to D&D, in ANY media. They consistently won't experience D&D, because D&D's consistent brand is irrelevant to them.

If D&D instead says, "With this, you can play with any type of goblin you can imagine. And here's a gothic horror goblin and here's a high fantasy goblin and here's a sword and sorcery goblin, and these are just examples, go wild!"....that's better for the D&D experience than one consistent world would be.

And when someone comes to WotC pitching a videogame or a movie, part of the discussion that should occur is: "What KIND of D&D is this?", to help determine which of the "goblin" bibles they'll be using as a baseline. It's fine if most are generic high fantasy FR goblins. But we shouldn't confuse those with The D&D Goblin, because they're just one flavor of tiny, menacing ice cream.

Look at how 3e radically changed Strahd Von Zarovich's look in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. Was that even recognizable as Strahd? When he appeared in 4e (in Open Grave), he was back to his classical (i.e. iconic) look. If you see a Strahd Kre-O figure, it'll probably look more like that iconic look than the 3e make-over.

Another example is Dragonlance. Back in the 80s, there were Dragonlance RPGs, computer games, calendars, novels, etc, and the look for the characters was consistent throughout. The DL art team even went so far as to create new looks for Krynn's dragons, so that you'd know it was a Krynn dragon, not a generic dragon. It's the same thing.

I think this is all fine, because it's all specific to a particular Strahd or a particular dragon or a particular setting.

Where things start getting all pitchfork-y is when the message from D&D's designers is that D&D itself is going to have a particular vampire or a particular dragon (or a particular cosmology...). That goes against the Maker-like ethos of historical D&D in a big way.

 

[Klaus]

Where things start getting all pitchfork-y is when the message from D&D's designers is that D&D itself is going to have a particular vampire or a particular dragon (or a particular cosmology...). That goes against the Maker-like ethos of historical D&D in a big way.

Not really. If you go back to the early days, D&D dragons had a specific look. You can check your 1e MM, the D&D cartoon, and interior artwork from adventures and see that blue, green, white and black dragons looked pretty much the same for years (red is a different matter, because few products used the "dangling tentacle beard" of the 1e MM). Pit Fiends, mariliths, bulettes, umber hulks, mind flayers, beholders, etc, are also pretty consistent throughout decades of D&D. None of what Jon mentioned is a particularly new idea, and has been done since the beginnings of D&D (art style aside, the beholder in the cover of OD&D is to the modern beholder in the same way that 1938 Superman is to modern Superman).

 

[DEFCON 1]

What this article says to me is directly tied to the differences between people on the inside of Dungeons & Dragons and the outside of Dungeons & Dragons. And truth be told... the people on the outside are the ones who are going to win this battle.

Those of us on the inside of D&D know deep down in our hearts that every game and every campaign world is different. My game isn't your game isn't his game isn't her game. Every single aspect is different or can be made different if you so choose. Each of our games is the ultimate form of "special snowflake" syndrome. That's D&D's strength-- I can make the game into ANYTHING I want... and up through the 80s, that mantra held true. Campaign settings up the wazoo, changing anything and everything.

But guess what? We don't live in that world anymore. And all of our "special snowflake" ideals don't make money for people anymore in a "transmedia" world.

Why? Because like it or not... for the people outside our world... "Dungeons & Dragons" *is* ONE THING. Just like World of Warcraft is one thing. Just like Harry Potter is one thing. Just like Game of Thrones is one thing. Nobody on the outside realizes, knows, or cares that D&D can be anything and everything to any one of us. We might think Forgotten Realms is millions of miles away from Eberron, which is millions of miles away from Dragonlance, which is millions of miles away from Nentir Vale... but to everybody else? No. They're all "D&D". THAT'S the brand. That's what they have to sell. They can't market and sell Forgotten Realms *and* Eberron *and* Dragonlance *and* Nentir Vale *and* each DM's individual personal world. It's not possible. WotC can't sell our individual "special snowflake" worlds, because that's just a nebulous talking point to people who are on the outside. They NEED to bring some cohesion to the game so that saying something is "Dungeons & Dragons" actually MEANS something.

That might seem like an anathema to those of us on the inside... that they want to strip our individuality from our games and put us all into one giant group called "D&D players"... but in this day and age that HAS to happen if they want to be able to make the brand accessible to people.

I mean hell... Paizo markets everything through their Golarion lens. Pathfinder is Golarion, Golarion is Pathfinder. And they do that because they know that the idea that "Pathfinder can be anything you want it to be!" doesn't work anymore. Not in this day and age.

Dungeons & Dragons is the brand. Just like Transformers is the brand. Just like the WWE is the brand. One unifying vision that allows people on the outside to look at something and say immediately "that's a D&D product!"... rather than look at something and have us hope against hope they could possibly identify it as "that's a Dark Sun product!" or "that's a Ravenloft product!"

But gods knows... the likeliness of THAT actually happening for anyone on the outside of our tight little circle is practically nil. We might not like it... but we have to just suck it up that we can't remain special snowflakes and now have to be a part of group.

D&D players.

 

[Umbran]

Since when did D&D have a consistent experience? My game is different to your game. As it should be - my brain is not your brain.

There are differences, sure. But there are more similarities - or else how could someone else who knows the base game drop by and be able to pick up a character and start playing in your game?

 

[Morrus]

There are differences, sure. But there are more similarities - or else how could someone else who knows the base game drop by and be able to pick up a character and start playing in your game?

Obviously. If you thought I was saying that there are no similarities at all between two different D&D games, I apologise for being unclear. That would be a very silly thing to say!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Those of us on the inside of D&D know deep down in our hearts that every game and every campaign world is different. My game isn't your game isn't his game isn't her game. Every single aspect is different or can be made different if you so choose. Each of our games is the ultimate form of "special snowflake" syndrome. That's D&D's strength-- I can make the game into ANYTHING I want... and up through the 80s, that mantra held true. Campaign settings up the wazoo, changing anything and everything.

Perhaps it's just the era I started playing in, but that's never been my assumption. My assumption has always been that all D&D games take place in the same universe just on different worlds. Since Goblins were created by the gods(or perhaps before them), they are the same in all D&D worlds.

The map of the individual worlds was different, the culture different, sometimes the history of the world changed the way magic worked in this particular world or made goblins evolve red skin over time based on where they lived. However, they all came from the same place.

I always assume going into games that since I'm playing D&D that 90% of D&D assumptions will be true. I feel that a DM changes TOO much it isn't really D&D anymore. Though I know a lot of people feel this idea is heretical.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Perhaps it's just the era I started playing in, but that's never been my assumption. My assumption has always been that all D&D games take place in the same universe just on different worlds. Since Goblins were created by the gods(or perhaps before them), they are the same in all D&D worlds.

The map of the individual worlds was different, the culture different, sometimes the history of the world changed the way magic worked in this particular world or made goblins evolve red skin over time based on where they lived. However, they all came from the same place.

I always assume going into games that since I'm playing D&D that 90% of D&D assumptions will be true. I feel that a DM changes TOO much it isn't really D&D anymore. Though I know a lot of people feel this idea is heretical.

Your feelings I think are indeed shared by a good percentage of people on the "inside" of D&D. I happen to be one of those people too... which is why even though the Forgotten Realms 'halfling', Dark Sun 'halfling', and Eberron 'halfling' are all widely different in culture, look and attitude... I still all see them through a universal lens of D&D halfling in my head. So for D&D to use a particular halfling as their identifier for transmedia doesn't realy bother me too much.

Sure, I can intellectualize the idea that Dark Sun halflings are cannibals and Eberron halflings are nomadic dinosaur riders (and all the differences that come with that)... but I also don't feel like I'm being short-changed if underneath those basic conceptual changes there is a standard "D&D halfling" used as a foundation. Personally, I'm fine with that. And if it helps with the branding of D&D that there is a determined "default" halfling... upon which you can layer different cultures and attitudes for any particular campaign setting on top of it... then WotC can knock themselves out.

But to want to deny or refuse to accept a foundational "D&D halfling" because it intrudes upon the idea that D&D is supposed to be anything and everything to each individual player (with no foundations at all)... doesn't seem at all realistic in this day and age of transmedia, marketing, and branding.

 

[Jon Schindehette]

As if you were reading my mind....

What Jon is saying is not that the experience will be the same, but that you will be able to experience D&D in multiple forms (wearing D&D apparel, playing with D&D toys, using D&D mobile apps, watching a D&D movie, etc). For that to happen, you need some things to remain consntant.

Look at how 3e radically changed Strahd Von Zarovich's look in Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. Was that even recognizable as Strahd? When he appeared in 4e (in Open Grave), he was back to his classical (i.e. iconic) look. If you see a Strahd Kre-O figure, it'll probably look more like that iconic look than the 3e make-over.

Another example is Dragonlance. Back in the 80s, there were Dragonlance RPGs, computer games, calendars, novels, etc, and the look for the characters was consistent throughout. The DL art team even went so far as to create new looks for Krynn's dragons, so that you'd know it was a Krynn dragon, not a generic dragon. It's the same thing.

No need for fire and pitchforks, folks.

 

[SkidAce]

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:

[snipped images]

A consistent idea of what they look like should be encouraged from a MEDIA standpoint. Let individual DMs tailor them later if they want.

You are correct...they are all goblins.