WotC WotC Asks What Makes YOU Play Dungeons and Dragons?



Rotten DM
The AL part of DM survey needed work. It was a binary choice. I have DMed all the season x-01 modules for various cons. I also discovered I only ran a pc 4 times this year. Um not maybe 6.


For my favorite D&D books ever? I had to say two.

• Love psionics. The 3e Expanded Psionic Handbook − that book meant that D&D was evolving. Vancian was dead.

• The 4e Rules Compendium − so much goodness, so well presented.


Have you noticed warlord as class also? This may mean they are working in some project about mas battles or a RTS videogame, I suppose.

* In the last year my April's fool was telling Hasbro bought GW. Of course I was kidding, but a part of me thinks they would dare to do it. If they have bought Entertainment One then they can buy more companies.
That is ... an interesting leap of logic there. :erm: What do warlords have to do with mass battles or an RTS videogame?


A good warlord to save Nature-lover ewoks and na'vis against the menace of Skynet and its army of terminators robots.

Birthright is the best setting for a D&D RTS, or a Musou ARPG like the comingsoon "Under the fire II".



Thought it was neat that EN World was singled out as a place to talk about D&D on the internet.

I think it was the only forum specifically listed (unless we're counting Reddit).

I hope they publish the results of the survey. I love thinking about demographics.



No, it isn’t. It’s...completely different in every meaningful way. Not a single theme or dynamic in common that isn’t a theme or dynamic of nearly all fantasy settings.

They...are about as similar as Eberron and Dragonlance.
The whole Dawn War mythos, which is the meaningful part of the nebulous Mentor Vale, is the basis for Exandria.


It's a bit worrying that one of the questions was:

Have you ever played Dungeons & Dragons tabletop RPG (played with pencil, paper, dice, etc.)? :D


It's a bit worrying that one of the questions was:

Have you ever played Dungeons & Dragons tabletop RPG (played with pencil, paper, dice, etc.)? :D
Not really, there are people who have just played video games, etc. They wanted some deep dive details on people's experience.


I assume this survey is going out on all channels, which includes players of video games and the like. As wide a catchment as possible, I'd guess.
Agreed. I got the feeling it was aimed at the D&D Online crowd etc.

It just surprised me - I'm an old fossil! :D


Jewel of the North
The whole Dawn War mythos, which is the meaningful part of the nebulous Mentor Vale, is the basis for Exandria.
I dont care much for Critical Role, but as a big fan of Nentir Vale, I would be satisfied enough with the ancient land of Nerath, at the crossroad of the old empires of Bael Turath and Arkosia being based in Exandria. Most of the continents of the setting are unexplored as of now. In fact Wildemount, with its remnant of a dragonborn nation and a nation full of tieflings would have been close enough, but the more recent adventures of tne Mighty Nein showed us a continent that doesnt fit the feel of the Vale. Still there's enough blank space in the setting to develop a little 100 x 100 miles region if need be.

The whole ''Nerath'' setting was only developped as part of a board game, so most of it could be ignored or retconed.


Principalities of Glantri. Quite possibly the most messed up fantasy Nation ever written just because it's so dysfunctional and the only thing that keeps them together is they hate everyone else more than they hate each other.
I put this down as well since it was the first D&D product I had purchased (not acquired). Absolutely loved the detail that went into this book.

It was tough choice because the 2e Monsterous Manual, the Rules Cyclopedia and The Complete Fighter's Handbook were all a close 2nd. :)
It's not my criticism, it's one I've heard and sort-of understand considering D&D came out first and you can see the influences on WHFB. It definitely has original stuff, chiefly being the Empire's Holy Roman influence, the Lizardmen, Skaven, and Chaos armies. But the three elf races, orcs, dwarves, and Bretonnia lack some originality.
It's a terrible criticism made by ignorant people who you shouldn't be listening to because now they've embarrassed you by having you repeat it.

D&D is the exactly same thing - a synthesis of various fantasy elements in a somewhat clumsy way. Also, Warhammer is far, far less derivative from D&D than you seem to think. It's separately derivative from similar sources - it takes far more from Michael Moorcock, and takes stuff directly from Tolkien, rather than filtering it through a D&D lens. A good example are the Orcs, which are derivative of Tolkien's Orcs, not D&D's modified Orcs and later became their own wildly wacky almost-sci-fi thing. They're vastly better developed and more original than anything D&D has ever done with orcs or goblins (though Eberron's goblins are pretty great). I mean, they develop from spores for god's sake. They're sentient fungus. And you're claiming they derive from D&D's grey-skinned pig-men orcs from the 1970s? No. Just no. They're smarter than those, too, more like Tolkien's Orcs again.

Bretonnia isn't derivative of D&D, and you're ignorance about the origins of Bretonnia is showing here. When it was first added, it was basically "France immediately before the Revolution", with poncy 18th-century-style Aristos and a rebellious underclass. Later they retcon'd into into a darkside version of the whole King Arthur deal, with a strong French flavour. There's nothing in D&D particularly like it, and it's not derivative of D&D.

In terms of Elves and Dwarves, D&D is in many cases derivative of Warhammer. But both are directly pulling from Tolkien. Still, a lot of the visual design D&D post-1990 has used for Elves and Dwarves is in fact derivative of Warhammer. Warhammer certainly isn't derivative of D&D here - their Elves and Dwarves have far darker, more Silmarillion-esque histories, and neither is "Lawful Good".

None of it is "truly original" (even all the Chaos stuff is inspired by Michael Moorcock's books, albeit really heavily developed - Moorcock is also why D&D has Lawful and Chaotic alignments, note, and the planar structure it does), but the idea that it derives from D&D is laughable (spurred to exist by D&D becoming popular, perhaps, but that's different), and the idea that that criticism makes any sense in the context of D&D, which is exactly the same mish-mash of this and that, is just bizarre.

Orc-wise, let's talk who is derivative of who:

Orc, D&D, 1977 - Orc (Dungeons & Dragons) - Wikipedia

Quite clearly pig-men, which they are still described as in 2E, and depicted as, and have grey skin.

Orc, Warhammer, 1986 - Blood Bowl - Wikipedia

Already by 1986 Warhammer Orcs (seen left) are the classic short-nosed, musclebound, green-skinned orcs we are used to in various things.

Orc, D&D, 1993 - 2e d&d | Tumblr - The image on the left, from Iuz The Evil, 1993. Still with the pig-men.

Warhammer Orcs haven't changed since the 1986 image, not significantly (and indeed looked like that earlier in the 1980s, but I wanted an image with a hard and undeniable date)

Yet let's see how D&D Orcs looked later:

Wow even better they show 1E/2E/3E/4E/5E progression (the 2E one is from 1994, note, when the change to copy Warhammer Orcs had begun). You can quite clearly see that D&D Orcs are derivative of Warhammer Orcs, not vice-versa.
Last edited:


It's a terrible criticism made by ignorant people who you shouldn't be listening to because now they've embarrassed you by having you repeat it.
I guess we will just have to disagree a bit here. The original WFB and the second with "Harry the Hammer" boxed editions called the game a mass battle and roleplaying game. They included the Roleplaying in the title because D&D was a huge hit at the time. According to Priestly, et al many parts of WFB deliberately borrowed from D&D.

I love WFB and WFRP and they certainly went in new directions with those games, but they also owe a debt to D&D.

In Our Store!


Latest threads