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

[Tony Vargas]

So you're talking about people who have a familiarity with armor but who don't understand that a sword can bounce off one time but hit where the armor doesn't protect as well the next?

Both types of people, yes. Those who know enough about armor to realize that it reduces damage, and those who might infer from a weapon 'bouncing off' that it confers flat immunity. Two different types of people drawing reasonable-seeming expectations that the game will defy.

Some editions of the Legend of Zelda have sold 6 million copies. That's the D&D style of dungeon crawling, right there.

That's what, almost 1 person in a thousand?

Everyone who plays a character with dailies is going to be forced to make complicated tactical decisions.

Not arguing that dailies aren't a questionable mechanic from a lot of perspectives.

But, if you're going to have them, having few of them, having them work consistently, avoiding making them a source of rampant class imbalances, and introducing them early, and in a non-critical way (if you don't get around to trying them out, you're not completely hosed), is preferable.

Not having them, at all, would obviously be even better.

Unless you choose a character without dailies... which systems with Vancian magic generally do have.

And, if you choose a party full of such characters, you have no healing, and all die. Plus, you have to learn the system, in the first place, to make that choice. So, no /very/ bad for new players, that.

Better for new players: every character has enough innate healing to get through a basic advenure, even if they don't happen to choose the "right" mix of classes.

Also better: desire to play an archetype isn't frustrated by the system.

And a group of players can't have easy to play characters for the new players and people who don't want to deal with it and complex characters for people who do want to deal with it, if the classes are all mechanical copies of each other.

No class, in any edition, has been a 'mechanical copy' of another. Some have been consistent about using similar mechanics for similar things, others inconsistent, even to the point of using arbitrarily different mechanics for the same things for no reason. The former is preferable when it comes to learning the system. Consistency and clarity are big plusses for the new player.

 

[pkt77242]

There's a bit of a built in fan base, but I wouldn't lean on that too much. From the combined catalogs of LibraryThing members, Harry Potter is the 1st through 7th most common books, and the Hobbit is 8th. Game of Thrones wasn't nearly so high, but it was still 167 before the TV series started. Dragons of Autumn Twilight is about 1,500. It's currently 11th in Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Gaming > Dungeons & Dragons, behind the 3.5, 4 and 5e PHBs. Its fan base is not going to float it on its own.

I agree that the fan base won't carry the movie on it's own. Having said that, it is the only novel in the top 20 sellers for Dungeons and Dragons, so it would be the best bet of the D&D novels and the real key is to get people to watch the movies/show that hadn't read the book as well. For example, I own the books but I would take my wife to the movie or watch the show with me as well as it would need to get good reviews (need to get quality actors) to draw in more people. I am not saying that it would make anything on the scale of Iron Man but there isn't any reason that it couldn't be a commercial success.

 

[Haffrung]

The value of the Marvel IP is characters that have a profile in pop culture (or at least geek culture). Hollywood can come up with its own stories and action sequences. What it needs is the recognition that Spider-Man, Iron-Man, Wolverine, or Thor can offer a film franchise.

D&D does not have that. With the possible exception of Drizz't, there are no D&D characters with a profile in geek culture, let alone pop culture. That's why D&D isn't an especially attractive property for the movie industry.

 

[prosfilaes]

Both types of people, yes. Those who know enough about armor to realize that it reduces damage

It doesn't. If you fire a blowdart at a person in plate mail, if it hits the plate mail, it will bounce off. I'm sure that a mace versus chainmail is a different matter but that goes back to what I said about armor systems with one number, not a table.

That's what, almost 1 person in a thousand?

So you're going to claim that the 60,000 members of SCA--that is, the people who actually know how armor works--is more important to D&D sales then the 6 million people who bought a new copy of Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess? Not to mention, as I said, that Zelda does not stand alone; the number of games that have in some way aped the D&D dungeon experience is huge. Diablo III alone sold 15 million copies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It doesn't. If you fire a blowdart at a person in plate mail, if it hits the plate mail, it will bounce off.

Reducing the damage to 0, yes. What's your point?

I'm sure that a mace versus chainmail is a different matter but that goes back to what I said about armor systems with one number, not a table.

Maces do more damage than blowgun darts, chainmail, presumably absorbs less damage...

An example of a system that handles armor differently, consider the old RuneQuest game (RQI c1978). Armor reduces damage. No tables or anything, tougher armor just reduces damage by more. You can have armors that are basically impenetrable to a given weapon. But, a really good attack roll (low on percentile dice, is always a good roll in RQ), could result in an 'impale' that does extra damage, so might puch through armor, or a 'critical' which bypasses it, entirely (hitting an unarmored area, since no armor has perfect overage).

One stat for the armor, damage dice for the weapon much like D&D, and one attack roll - oh, and a hit location, different parts of your body can be differently-armored.

Not that I'm holding up RQII as a paragon of easy-to-learn (far from it). Just that it handles armor in a less hinky way.

 

[Raith5]

I don't see why the the DragonLance Chronicles couldn't be made into a good profitable movie or 3+ season show on a channel like HBO or Showtime. Back when the books came out there were many things that would have gotten in the way but advancements in CGI should help overcome many of the issues..

It would be good to see a DL film or series. I think the dark fantasy genre like GOT translates better to a wider audience than the high fantasy options like DL, but if the Shannara books can be optioned there is hope.

 

[Beleriphon]

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.

I always though that Drizzt and Co would make an exciting movie. There's plenty of awesome actin sequences, and I hate to say it but Drizzt despite being perceived as kind of whiny is also a pretty complex character and would make for an a perfectly suitable protagonist. D&D should make an awesome movie, it really, really should. The problem has always been a lack of vision I think.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you fire a blowdart at a person in plate mail, if it hits the plate mail, it will bounce off.

Depends on the mass & design of the dart, the range to target, who is doing the blowing, and the angle of impact. I personally imbedded a blowgun dart 1/2" deep into a concrete wall at a surf shop at @20'. It wasn't one of those little ones that look like a needle with an Afro- it was more like a scaled-down version of a throwing dart. And, of course, I hit it square on- much less likely given the curvature of armor.

 

[prosfilaes]

Reducing the damage to 0, yes. What's your point?

That it doesn't reduce the damage at all if you hit an unarmored leg. Plate mail makes it primarily harder for a blowdart to hit the person inside the armor. A shield reduces the damage of sword coming from the back or the side not at all. Consider another game that did things differently: GURPS 3rd Edition. Their intuitive understanding of armor forced them to have armors have both DR and PD, the latter helping the person not get hit.

In any case, I seriously doubt that many people have any intuitive understanding of how armor works, and I stand fast in my position that once you've boiled armor down to one number, AC is a perfectly fine approximation.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heh. Selling to a fraction of the market is selling to a fraction of the market. Doesn't mean a small company can't be successful doing so, just that, with the resources to cater to the whole market, they could be more successful. And, it's not like Paizo's thick 'ulitmate' books weren't aimed square at players, either. So, no, I don't think it's news to them. Nor to WotC.

Rather, I think the news is that demand is flagging as the target market ages.

Your belief is at odds both with the system itself, and with my experience introducing new players to both versions of AD&D, 3.0, 3.5, 4e & Essentials. 4e was /much/ easier for new players to learn. It was often perplexing to longtime or returning players, as a result, but for new players it was quite accessible. It was more successful at retaining new players than I've ever seen. Quite impressive, really.

The things that appeal to long-time players - counter-intuitive sacred cows like Vancian casting, armor that deflects hits, clerical healing, dungeon-crawling, and a host of others - do, indeed, make it hard for new players to 'get' the game. Conversely, hated 4e-isms, like common class structures, clearly/consistently-presented powers, balanced classes, high hps & non-magical healing, and workable encounter guidelines make the game much easier to run (even for new DMs), more likely to deliver positive first-play experiences and much easier for new players to assimilate.

More traditional is the opposite of more accessible. It may /seem/ like the traditional game is 'simple,' if you played it for 10 or 20 years. But that's a jaundiced viewpoint. D&D is really quite counter-intuitive and complicated, even in it's more "rules-lite" forms. 5e is no different, and really depends on an experienced/skilled DM to shield new players from the oddities and complexities of the system, initially. Omitting concrete things like maps & minis actually makes it /harder/ on new players.

And d20 based retroclones are even easier to teach to new players than 4E. Castles and Crusades or Basic Fantasy for example. Vancian is somewhat simple to teach to new players as well although they may not know what the good spells and combinations are. 4E adds a level of complexity and buries newbs in options bloat. BECMI pick a class, AD&D pick a class and race, 3rd ed pick class, race, feats and skills, 4E pick class, race, feats, skills and powers. Game went from 1 step to pick 5 steps and there are literally millions of options with 4th ed at level 1.

Probably why in the starter set you have 5 options to pick from. 4E was horrible on multiple fronts except really for a subset of hard core D&D players and it seems it sold less than every version of D&D apart from OD&D. Mein gott the healing surges, grid based nature of it and powers made the game a boring grind fest and that is before you ask yourself "is this what I want from D&D".