Switch Theme:

Weis/Hickman to sue WoTC over alleged contract breach regarding new Dragonlance material.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, while I've never played D&D, I've read a lot of the lore and I distinctly remember Spelljammer Helm references in multiple settings.

It's also mentioned on the FR wiki.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Spelljamming_helm

Also, I think Spelljammers feature prominently in BG3. I know I saw one in the trailer. Aren't Ilithids always essentially space aliens in every setting?

This kind of emphasizes what I don't get about D&D. Eberron is clearly its own universe and operates differently than FR, but a lot of other settings seem to heavily overlap with FR and I think a few have been rolled into over the years. From what I've read it looks like technically everything can exist in the same universe by being on different planets or planes of existence.

Literally the only notable thing I know of to come out of the Planescape setting aside from the original book was Planescape: Torment. I did some cursory research and it looks like the setting hasn't been touched since the 90s.

The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy 
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




Les Etats Unis

BrianDavion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Flipsiders wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
 Flipsiders wrote:
 trexmeyer wrote:
What sets Planescape apart from the extraplanar elements present in Forgotten Realms?


I haven't ever been too invested in the FR lore as opposed to general/Greyhawk stuff, but I believe the Planescape setting uses the latter cosmology rather than the former. The FR setting and Planescape mostly have the same planes (Heaven, Elysium, Hell, the Abyss, etc. etc.), but Planescape/Greyhawk has a bunch of extra minor ones such as Pandemonium and the Beastlands, and they're all arranged in a massive alignment-based wheel with the Planescape "home base" in the middle. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that the Realms use an orrery for their planar model? I'm unsure.

However, there was also some old canon that Faerun and the Greyhawk and Dragonlance planets are all in the same galaxy, which throws a massive wrench in the whole thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the guys writing the older editions cared more about "rule of cool" than setting consistency.


As I recall according to Planescape all the other settings were different subplanes in (mostly) the Prime Material with some exceptions like Ravenloft. Some of those just got their cosmology wrong, one of the reasons Primes were considered backwards yokels by most Planars.


Now that you mention it, that does sound familiar. I do seem to remember something about Faerun being in some sort of "planar bubble" which was supposed to explain why no one ever drove over there with Spelljammers, although I may be recalling it incorrectly. However, even that explanation still leaves a lot of questions, such as why everyone who dies in the FR setting has a meet-and-greet with the soul DMV and Wall of Atheists after they die, whereas if you bite the dust on Greyhawk or Athas you just wake up wherever you're supposed to be without the paperwork session.


you do remember wrong, Faerun was involved with spelljamming, and "Realmspace" was a common port of call.

As for faerun's death etc stuff well.. thats because it's the laws of that partiuclar prime plane.


I did some research, and as it turns out, you're entirely correct. There's a whole bunch of 2e stuff about Spelljammer and FR. I could have sworn that they errata'd something about Toril being separated from either the rest of the Material Plane or Planescape in 3.0/3.5, but as it turns out, even the FR core rulebook for 3.0 has a referential comment about mysterious pirates coming down from the sky and raiding villages every once in a while. Now I want to figure out where my misconception came from; I could have sworn it was from the Planar Handbook, but they don't talk about other planets in there at all. It's really rather odd.

Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Dysartes wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Spelljammer right. Spelljammer and planescape are basically the same setting with dfiferrent modes of getting around the planes.

There is no reason not to make the two one and the same (Spellscape? Planejammer?) and lets all hope it's one of the 3 settings being released next year.


What a surprise - a 40k Consolidationist trying to apply that philosophy to a different game.

No, Jack, there were far more elements distinct between the two than just the method of travel.


I post in this part of the forum to NOT talk about that crap game. Can we please keep it up there?

Yes, there were more elements that were distinct. But both "settings" were actually macro settings that encompassed all the other settings. Therefore they both actually encompass each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 trexmeyer wrote:
Yeah, while I've never played D&D, I've read a lot of the lore and I distinctly remember Spelljammer Helm references in multiple settings.

It's also mentioned on the FR wiki.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Spelljamming_helm

Also, I think Spelljammers feature prominently in BG3. I know I saw one in the trailer. Aren't Ilithids always essentially space aliens in every setting?

This kind of emphasizes what I don't get about D&D. Eberron is clearly its own universe and operates differently than FR, but a lot of other settings seem to heavily overlap with FR and I think a few have been rolled into over the years. From what I've read it looks like technically everything can exist in the same universe by being on different planets or planes of existence.

Literally the only notable thing I know of to come out of the Planescape setting aside from the original book was Planescape: Torment. I did some cursory research and it looks like the setting hasn't been touched since the 90s.


So yeah, Eberron is pretty different from the way most DnD cosmologies are set up. BUT, the way Spell Jammer explains it is that each set of realities exists basically inside a bubble. Within that bubble is not only the planet that is the material plane, it's sun, other planets etc etc... but also the planes that it is connected to. So the entire Forgotten realms cosmology exists within a singular "bubble" These bubbles all exist within a mass of material that has a flow or current to it.

Spell Jammers are capable of breaching the bubble and getting into the flow and traveling from one bubble to another. Not just going through planar travel but to different realities as though it was a space ship traveling to different solar systems.

So while Eberron is pretty far removed from settings like Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, etc etc... it is still possible to reach it via Spelljammer.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/10/31 00:07:54



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Flipsiders wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Spoiler:
 Flipsiders wrote:
Bran Dawri wrote:
 Flipsiders wrote:
 trexmeyer wrote:
What sets Planescape apart from the extraplanar elements present in Forgotten Realms?


I haven't ever been too invested in the FR lore as opposed to general/Greyhawk stuff, but I believe the Planescape setting uses the latter cosmology rather than the former. The FR setting and Planescape mostly have the same planes (Heaven, Elysium, Hell, the Abyss, etc. etc.), but Planescape/Greyhawk has a bunch of extra minor ones such as Pandemonium and the Beastlands, and they're all arranged in a massive alignment-based wheel with the Planescape "home base" in the middle. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure that the Realms use an orrery for their planar model? I'm unsure.

However, there was also some old canon that Faerun and the Greyhawk and Dragonlance planets are all in the same galaxy, which throws a massive wrench in the whole thing. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that the guys writing the older editions cared more about "rule of cool" than setting consistency.


As I recall according to Planescape all the other settings were different subplanes in (mostly) the Prime Material with some exceptions like Ravenloft. Some of those just got their cosmology wrong, one of the reasons Primes were considered backwards yokels by most Planars.


Now that you mention it, that does sound familiar. I do seem to remember something about Faerun being in some sort of "planar bubble" which was supposed to explain why no one ever drove over there with Spelljammers, although I may be recalling it incorrectly. However, even that explanation still leaves a lot of questions, such as why everyone who dies in the FR setting has a meet-and-greet with the soul DMV and Wall of Atheists after they die, whereas if you bite the dust on Greyhawk or Athas you just wake up wherever you're supposed to be without the paperwork session.


you do remember wrong, Faerun was involved with spelljamming, and "Realmspace" was a common port of call.

As for faerun's death etc stuff well.. thats because it's the laws of that partiuclar prime plane.


I did some research, and as it turns out, you're entirely correct. There's a whole bunch of 2e stuff about Spelljammer and FR. I could have sworn that they errata'd something about Toril being separated from either the rest of the Material Plane or Planescape in 3.0/3.5, but as it turns out, even the FR core rulebook for 3.0 has a referential comment about mysterious pirates coming down from the sky and raiding villages every once in a while. Now I want to figure out where my misconception came from; I could have sworn it was from the Planar Handbook, but they don't talk about other planets in there at all. It's really rather odd.


Dark Sun was the isolated one, because characters were on a 5-20 attribute scale rather than 3-18 (and yadda yadda setting reasons).
I mean, you could manage it through planar travel, but when Spelljammer existed as a setting, the focus was on Realmspace, Grey(hawk)space and Krynnspace (Dragonlance). Maybe vaguely Mystara as well when they did the Red Steel region and sorta-kinda brought it back from the depths of the BECMI boxed sets after they tried to bury it.
Eberron was much later and they didn't bother to make it backwards compatible with a dead setting.

Don't remember if any Spelljammer/Birthright interactions ever came up, but Birthright is unlikely to ever resurface. There are a lot of troublesome concepts lingering around that one (bloodlines (including power farming by having and murdering kids), divine right, cursed blood, real-world human ethnicities, etc)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/10/31 01:40:12


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

And then you also have the demiplane that the Ravenloft setting exists in, which somehow touches all other settings as it likes to yoink people from them at random for its own dark amusement.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




Woops. quoted instead of edited

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/10/31 01:39:37


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




To briefly return to the original topic, I've seen quite a few legal opinions (from actual lawyers, not randoms on the internet) that seem to suggest unless there's something very factually wrong in the submission from Weis/Hickman it seems pretty open-and-shut in their favour. If true, I genuinely can't understand WotC's thinking here. Regardless of what you think about the quality of the Dragonlance novels, they will be popular and make money for the company. I don' get what their problem is, other than their continued ability to shoot themselves in the foot.

One interesting point about the lawsuit is that, on top of the $10m, Weis and Hickman are asking for the contract to be honoured so the new trilogy can be published. So if they were to win the new trilogy should eventually be published. That's pretty cool of them - they could have just sued for the money and called it a day but demanding the novels get published also means the fans get to read them at some point.
   
Made in au
Anti-Armour Swiss Guard






Newcastle, OZ

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 chromedog wrote:
You do realise it's Hasbro at the top, right?

Hasbro owns D&D, and MTG. Their interest is in making craploads of moola from nerds, by owning all the stuff that nerds obsess over.



Indeed but if the money flow stops or costly legal hijinx occur I'd imagine WOTC will have a rude awakening to Daddy Hasbro indulgence tap running dry


Not going to lie. If it comes time to say "bye bye" to WOTC, I'll be the first to tell them not to let the door hit 'em on the way out, and good riddance. Yes, I'm a gaming snob who loathes the ccg market. Get over it.

I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.

That is not dead which can eternal lie ...

... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

Slipspace wrote:
To briefly return to the original topic, I've seen quite a few legal opinions (from actual lawyers, not randoms on the internet) that seem to suggest unless there's something very factually wrong in the submission from Weis/Hickman it seems pretty open-and-shut in their favour. If true, I genuinely can't understand WotC's thinking here. Regardless of what you think about the quality of the Dragonlance novels, they will be popular and make money for the company. I don' get what their problem is, other than their continued ability to shoot themselves in the foot.


There are a lot of unknowns, and I haven't really kept up on this since the initial coverage over on the MTG subreddit. Given WotC's recent issues with Magic and D&D, they may have decided that Dragonlance is not a setting worth pursuing right now. Dragonlance traditionally relied on inherently evil races (draconians and chromatic dragons), and that's something they're trying to move beyond now. Some of the coverage on this mentioned that WotC had requested something like 70 pages of rewrites from the authors. Whether that was 70 full pages, or one word being corrected on 70 different pages, I don't know.

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




If morality is relative than doesn't render the description of certain races as 'evil' only relevant to the perspective of the protagonists or 'non-evil' races?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 02:32:24


The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy 
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




Les Etats Unis

 trexmeyer wrote:
If morality is relative than doesn't render the description of certain races as 'evil' only relevant to the perspective of the protagonists or 'non-evil' races?


Unfortunately, in most D&D settings (with Eberron as a possible exception), morality is not relative.

Also, there's been a lot of hubbub in MtG circles about how Hasbro is "expecting," otherwise known as demanding, Wizards to double their profits in the next two years or so. Cancelling this series might be part of that decision. Books cost money to print, after all, and the Dragonlance market isn't exactly massive.

Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






In DnD it's not morality that is in question but good versus evil as tangible real things. Good and evil are real. There are entities that are elemental evil. For that matter so is law and chaos.

Traditionally the chromatic dragons are evil and the metalics are good. It's inherent in their species. Chromatic dragons are vain, cruel, petty and savage in ways that goes beyond morality.

In Eberron they simply change that piece of the lore. Dragons are not inherently anything. A Siver dragon could be as cruel as a red traditionally is. A Green dragon could be as magnanimous as a Gold. The inherent elemental forces of good and evil are still present. They just don't manifest in the creatures that inhabit the world nearly as much.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 trexmeyer wrote:
If morality is relative than doesn't render the description of certain races as 'evil' only relevant to the perspective of the protagonists or 'non-evil' races?


I think you underestimate the amount of 'derp' currently hitting the TTG scene from certain parties.

A literal argument I've seen;

-'Races' are racist
-Yeah. I like Origins from Pathfinder 2nd Ed. more.
-That's just races by another name. It's still racist.
-They should use cultures instead.
-That'll just lead to cultural stereotyping, which isn't necessarily racist but still offensive.
-This is why I play Call of Cthulu. No races. Everyone is just some schmuck from the 20s.
-Lovecraft was racist and everything based on him is equally racist.
-Yeah. We don't need Lovecraft anymore. Why can't we just tell stories about completely inhuman horrors without him? Barron Laird is better.

So on and so forth. It was really dumb, really shallow, and reeked of a bunch of college freshmen who just took their introductory courses, memorized all the basic concepts, but have no real idea how to translate that knowledge into something practical. Plus a complete lack of nuance or self-awarness.

Barron Laird started his career writing straight up Lovecraftian horror (in strong emulation of Lovecraft's style, including undercurrents of racism). The measure of offensive being used is so broad it's hard to define anything as inoffensive. Sure the use of 'races' in many RPGs could be considered something a relic, but I'm utterly baffled what the supposed alternative to races is that isn't racist. Do people not want to play Elves and Orcs and Trolls and what not and have there be meaningful distinctions in how those characters work? I don't think they do, but it's sure hard to tell sometimes with the way all the armchair nerds are trying to nerdsplain things. I've watched someone try to explain how Ironsworn is racist against Scandinavians and couldn't even think of a response to how nonsensical that statement is, least of all because I have no idea how someone would get that idea without a thought process that looks something like; contains cultural pastiche -> super racist.

It's all just really well meaning, but mostly stupid and I've been seeing it all over the place for much of the last year.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/02 03:01:00


   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Agree Hats.

My only contention with the word "race" is that it's incorrect. They are different species. Each species could have distinct races and cultures or there can be mixed race/species cultures (mostly thats what it is in dnd).

Becoming aware that they have been using the wrong word for the last 50 years is just that. Correcting the semantics.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

 Lance845 wrote:
Agree Hats.

My only contention with the word "race" is that it's incorrect. They are different species. Each species could have distinct races and cultures or there can be mixed race/species cultures (mostly thats what it is in dnd).

Becoming aware that they have been using the wrong word for the last 50 years is just that. Correcting the semantics.


I honestly like the idea of using Cultures or Origins as an alternative term. I think it meshes better with the mechanics of what 'races' often are in RPGs and also allows for games to take broader looks at their fantasy civilizations.

I find the whole debate over the alignment system to be dumb. The alignment system has no mechanical use anymore. It's only on character sheets as a legacy for flavor or for people who are anal retentive about what paladins can or can't do. WoC was already abandoning all that even before people started being fussy about it and the campaign and setting books are full of characters who don't align to their race's presumed default alignments and I've rarely seen anyone who cares that much who actually plays the game.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/02 03:49:17


   
Made in us
Norn Queen






DnD is almost entirely legacy mechanics for legacy sake. Spell slots and levels. Attributes and attribute modifers. AC and DC. Even the class and level system. It's all pretty damn outdated and only exists because it existed before.

I would LOVE for dnd to move beyond those mechanics.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 Flipsiders wrote:
 trexmeyer wrote:
If morality is relative than doesn't render the description of certain races as 'evil' only relevant to the perspective of the protagonists or 'non-evil' races?


Unfortunately, in most D&D settings (with Eberron as a possible exception), morality is not relative.

Also, there's been a lot of hubbub in MtG circles about how Hasbro is "expecting," otherwise known as demanding, Wizards to double their profits in the next two years or so. Cancelling this series might be part of that decision. Books cost money to print, after all, and the Dragonlance market isn't exactly massive.


The weird thing is, WotC outright cancelled their novel lines several years ago (mid 4th edition D&D). They've done I think one or two Drizzt novels since as part of an anniversary thing.

Hasbro's expectations are... interesting, and it becomes odd because to Hasbro (and they've been pretty explicit about it in yearly financial reports), WotC is functionally two divisions.
First is Magic, which they love, because it brings in profits along the lines of Monopoly and other board game staples. Its a Prime Property (or whatever their term is) for IPs that bring in millions of dollars over a certain threshold.

D&D on the other hand, is -one- legacy property (alongside Axis and Allies and a couple Avalon Hill games) that they don't really care about because it doesn't bring in the kind of money they notice at Hasbro HQ. According to one of the (ex-)heads of the D&D division, 4e was partially an attempt to rank up and achieve Prime status for D&D. It failed, badly, despite a ridiculously excessive release schedule. Badly enough that for the entire existence of 4e, the Christmas holidays involved multiple layoffs of D&D people.
Hasbro expectations were low enough that they barely mention it in the financial report for the year it launched.

Current D&D staff is about ~10 people? They do maybe 4-5 books in a year (several have been outsourced- like the 5e Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide for Forgotten Realms was actually mostly a Green Ronin book, with the WotC imprint alongside theirs).
I doubt Hasbro has serious expectations for the D&D line. They don't produce much money, but they don't cost much either.
At this point, I expect they're mostly looking for licensing money and cycling the IP to keep it current.

Lance845 wrote:DnD is almost entirely legacy mechanics for legacy sake. Spell slots and levels. Attributes and attribute modifers. AC and DC. Even the class and level system. It's all pretty damn outdated and only exists because it existed before.

I would LOVE for dnd to move beyond those mechanics.

Problem is, when they do surveys and playtests (and they starting doing a lot of those during the second half of 4e), the ideas of dropping those legacy mechanics are rejected violently by their customer base.
It was clear enough during the DnDNext playtest (which was 12 iterations that had very few relationships to each other, and only occasional similarity to 5e), that their customers would complete the exodus to Pathfinder rather than stick with a D&D that slaughtered the sacred cows that hold it back.

Which makes Pathfinder 2 extra ironic, but that's wandering a bit off topic.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/02 05:43:08


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau




USA

I think things for the DnD environment changed a lot with the release of Stranger Things and the popularity boom the game enjoyed in its wake. New players are less attached to the older/useless mechanics that are just kind of clutter in the game.

It's pretty clear Hasbro values DnD more as an IP that can be expanded than as a particular game. Kind of like Legend of the Five Rings over at FFG I think, it's mostly a labor of love for the people working on it that the company lets them have. Hasbro does seem to want to expand DnD though, but in video games and movies rather than as an RPG.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 06:17:26


   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Flipsiders wrote:
 trexmeyer wrote:
If morality is relative than doesn't render the description of certain races as 'evil' only relevant to the perspective of the protagonists or 'non-evil' races?


Also, there's been a lot of hubbub in MtG circles about how Hasbro is "expecting," otherwise known as demanding, Wizards to double their profits in the next two years or so. Cancelling this series might be part of that decision. Books cost money to print, after all, and the Dragonlance market isn't exactly massive.


That logic doesn't make sense though as that's not how the contract works. Weis and Hickman were assuming the risks of publishing and all the associated costs. WotC literally just got paid a percentage of all profits since they're just licensing out the IP and get a slice of all money made. They were not fronting any money at all as I understand it. Their only costs were intangibles like staff time to review the drafts (presumably these are existing staff members, not new hires for this project) and potential reputational damage, I guess. I agree the Dragonlance novels are probably not going to sell massive numbers of copies but I would expect them to be fairly successful within the niche they occupy.

The other weird thing is it's not like Dragonlance or the authors are an unknown quantity. Perhaps some elements of the plot weren't compatible with the new WotC values, requiring rewrites. That's not uncommon, especially when dealing with an existing IP. The previous novels haven't come in for any major criticism for any kind of sensitive content, as far as I can tell. I'm struggling to envisage a scenario where the drafts were so far from what WotC expected as to require the contract to be cancelled. They accepted the final draft of novel 1 as well, so i think it would be difficult to argue it contained generally objectionable content. Even if that were the case they would have been able to cancel the contract the "correct" way rather than doing what they did, which was effectively to declare they were not going to honour the terms of the contract.
   
Made in gb
Moustache-twirling Princeps




United Kingdom

Possibly related - Dungeons & Dragons Live-Action TV Show Is in Development at Hasbro - MovieWeb. I wonder if Hasbro want to take it in a different direction...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 10:06:24


 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?


And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




Les Etats Unis

 Lance845 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?


And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.


I would like to respectfully disagree with the assertion that D&D's complexities are never an important part of the game. I grew up playing 3rd and haven't stopped since (although I've admittedly moved to Pathfinder, which is pretty much the same thing), and one of my favorite parts about the edition is how customizable it is. A 3.5 character or campaign can be pretty much anything you want it to and still have concrete systems attached, which means most mechanics have a reason to exist. For example, having "strength 2" instead of "strength 13" is great if you're using point-buy systems, but if you want to roll 3d6 for your stats for a challenge, it's extremely hard to do with such a system. Even talking in a fairy room has rules in 3.0 and its variants, whether it's a simple diplomacy check or opening you copy of Pathfinder's Ultimate Intrigue and initiating a verbal duel.

Obviously, the big downside here is that 3.x rules are a labyrinth to put it lightly, which is an aspect 5e definitely improved on. In fact, I would agree with you that modern D&D tries to straddle the line between being mechanically deep and being open-ended and roleplay friendly, which is far from an optimized system. But personally, if the only two systems were one where I couldn't play an Umber Hulk within the rules at all and one where I could play an Umber Hulk by just saying "I'm an Umber Hulk, guys," I would find each of them equally boring.

Dudeface wrote:
 Eldarain wrote:
Is there another game where players consistently blame each other for the failings of the creator?

If you want to get existential, life for some.
 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 Lance845 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?


And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.


then you go play that, and let those of us who like D&D play that.


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






We discussed the rolling for attributes thing before. Roll 3d4 take the highest. Or 2d4. Or whatever.

I did not say don't have rules for things. I am saying that the mechanics that make up D20 are 50 years old and game design has moved forward in that time. These mechanics are outdated and bad. It's like having the breaking system on the Model T car and then saying there is no reason to invent a new breaking system for modern cars because we already have a breaking system that BASICALLY works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But to the subject of this thread, I wonder if the lawsuit will cause any disruption in potential plans. 3 new setting books are supposed to be released next year. Major contenders include dragonlance and spelljammer/planescape. Could this lawsuit jeopardize a Dragonlance release? I hope not, but probably.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 13:32:03



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Dipping With Wood Stain






 Flipsiders wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
the spell system, being level based is kinda what D&D is. if you don't wanna play a level based Fantasy RPG with a spell slots system well.. maybe go play one of the countless other fantasy RPGs out there?


And I do. Or have written my own (wink wink). That doesn't mean I am incapable of discussing the mechanics of DnD. DnD as a property is not it's mechanics like you claim though. As many argued when they made press releases for 4th and talked about how "dnd is not about talking in fairy rings, it's about killing monsters" and people were upset and said things like "I spent my entire last game session talking in a fairy ring", DnD is actually a series of settings that follow a set of shared tropes in collective storytelling. The mechanics that fuel that can be anything. They can ditch the my str 13 means I have +2 modifier and just say you have strength 2. It amounts to the same thing. And the only reason they don't is legacy.


I would like to respectfully disagree with the assertion that D&D's complexities are never an important part of the game. I grew up playing 3rd and haven't stopped since (although I've admittedly moved to Pathfinder, which is pretty much the same thing), and one of my favorite parts about the edition is how customizable it is. A 3.5 character or campaign can be pretty much anything you want it to and still have concrete systems attached, which means most mechanics have a reason to exist. For example, having "strength 2" instead of "strength 13" is great if you're using point-buy systems, but if you want to roll 3d6 for your stats for a challenge, it's extremely hard to do with such a system. Even talking in a fairy room has rules in 3.0 and its variants, whether it's a simple diplomacy check or opening you copy of Pathfinder's Ultimate Intrigue and initiating a verbal duel.

Obviously, the big downside here is that 3.x rules are a labyrinth to put it lightly, which is an aspect 5e definitely improved on. In fact, I would agree with you that modern D&D tries to straddle the line between being mechanically deep and being open-ended and roleplay friendly, which is far from an optimized system. But personally, if the only two systems were one where I couldn't play an Umber Hulk within the rules at all and one where I could play an Umber Hulk by just saying "I'm an Umber Hulk, guys," I would find each of them equally boring.


5th edition is just a rehashed version of 2nd edition.
The only really new things are - proficiencies, how AC works, and Advantage/Disadvantage.
Otherwise it’s a carbon copy of 2nd.
5th feels to me like an apologetic, ‘So sorry for 3rd and 4th edition, here’s your old game back.’
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




Slipspace wrote:


The other weird thing is it's not like Dragonlance or the authors are an unknown quantity. Perhaps some elements of the plot weren't compatible with the new WotC values, requiring rewrites. That's not uncommon, especially when dealing with an existing IP. The previous novels haven't come in for any major criticism for any kind of sensitive content, as far as I can tell.


On the unknown quantity: they kind of are. Its been decades since a Weis and Hickman book, and its hard to judge how it would go over in the current book market beyond nostalgia buys.
And if you go back to 1995 and Dragons of Summer Flame, their last big Dragonlance book wasn't all that well received. It sold enough, but reviews are blah, and the setting nonsense (more jank with the gods and setting changes)
The did another DL novel in 2006, Dragons of the Dwarven Depths, and that's barely remembered as even existing.


As for sensitive content, there's actually quite a bit, and you can find it on D&D related message boards.
1) Always evil races [something big that WotC's dealing with for a variety of reasons], but which is baked into the DL setting.
2) mentally ill races (always thieves kender; the gully dwarves which are basically walking stereotypes for people with mental challenges, and slightly less offensive tinker gnomes)
3) Damsel-ification of female characters. (Even Kitiara at the end, for all her skill and bravado is reduced to begging for help against the Evil Man in Lord Soth. Laurana gets about half a book to shine, then just gets captured, swoons (literally) and rescued as the 'goal' of the last arc of the series)

There's also some talk of coercive breeding via love potion (not sure about the details, this might be for the new book, or might be an older bit on saving the 'Irda' (the 'good ogres')
And the whole Cataclysm setting element, and atrocities in the name of Good (the Kingpriest trilogy is basically an apologia for this), and the Good gods basically mass-murdering innocents in response.

None of those are things WotC wants in a flagship series right now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 14:37:22


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Lance845 wrote:

But to the subject of this thread, I wonder if the lawsuit will cause any disruption in potential plans. 3 new setting books are supposed to be released next year. Major contenders include dragonlance and spelljammer/planescape. Could this lawsuit jeopardize a Dragonlance release? I hope not, but probably.


Technically this lawsuit doesn't jeopardize a Dragonlance setting book. WotC own the IP to Dragonlance so they can continue to produce whatever they want using that IP - setting books, movies, comic books, etc. Given the generally negative response to their conduct WotC might find a lot of fans aren't too receptive to the new material, though. There's also the possibility that the original plan was to tie-in some new D&D material with the new Dragonlance novels, which now won't happen within the original timeframes, which could delay or even cancel any project that was looking at producing new Dragonlance material.
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






Yeah I wasnt worried about wizards ability to produce a dragonlance book. I am more concerned that hasbro wont let them to spite the lawsuit

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/02 14:50:38



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Voss wrote:
Slipspace wrote:


The other weird thing is it's not like Dragonlance or the authors are an unknown quantity. Perhaps some elements of the plot weren't compatible with the new WotC values, requiring rewrites. That's not uncommon, especially when dealing with an existing IP. The previous novels haven't come in for any major criticism for any kind of sensitive content, as far as I can tell.


On the unknown quantity: they kind of are. Its been decades since a Weis and Hickman book, and its hard to judge how it would go over in the current book market beyond nostalgia buys.
And if you go back to 1995 and Dragons of Summer Flame, their last big Dragonlance book wasn't all that well received. It sold enough, but reviews are blah, and the setting nonsense (more jank with the gods and setting changes)
The did another DL novel in 2006, Dragons of the Dwarven Depths, and that's barely remembered as even existing.


That's fair - what quality there is, is pretty much in Chronicles and Legends. But my point was more about them being authors with a proven ability to actually write, so we can rule out the submitted drafts being just bad, especially considering the final draft of the first novel was originally approved by WotC according to the legal filing.


As for sensitive content, there's actually quite a bit, and you can find it on D&D related message boards.
1) Always evil races [something big that WotC's dealing with for a variety of reasons], but which is baked into the DL setting.
2) mentally ill races (always thieves kender; the gully dwarves which are basically walking stereotypes for people with mental challenges, and slightly less offensive tinker gnomes)
3) Damsel-ification of female characters. (Even Kitiara at the end, for all her skill and bravado is reduced to begging for help against the Evil Man in Lord Soth. Laurana gets about half a book to shine, then just gets captured, swoons (literally) and rescued as the 'goal' of the last arc of the series)

There's also some talk of coercive breeding via love potion (not sure about the details, this might be for the new book, or might be an older bit on saving the 'Irda' (the 'good ogres')


See, those points just seem either extremely reductionist or way overblown to me. The love potion issue was with the new trilogy and I think it's implied that was at the heart of the 70-page re-write.

1. The "fixed" disposition of the races is indeed a feature of lots of fantasy settings, most notably Middle Earth, as well as DL. Not sure how that's some sensitivity issue. It's not great as far as creating compelling narratives go but that's a different issue.
2. Yeah, the gully dwarves are kind of tough to justify, for sure. I think kender aren't quite so one-note as all just being thieves. They're more an example of the amoral Good race, which probably suffered a bit from not being well-developed outside of one rather overused character. The gnomes just come across as a little outdated now because of the one-note racial identity but I'd call that bad writing rather than offensive.
3. That just seems extremely reductionist to me at best, and disingenuous at worst. It's been a while since I read the novels but I do recall Kitiara's demise as being the result of her own evil machinations and the moment she begs for help is right before she's taken by Soth, which isn't any sort of damsel-in-distress moment, it's purely the horrifying realisation that she's about to get her comeuppance for all her evil deeds and hits home all the more effectively because it's the first time you see her do anything like that. Similarly, while rescuing Laurana is Tanis's goal, the ending shows this to be his mistake and of all the characters in the Chronicles I would argue her and Raistlin probably have the most complete arcs and biggest changes in character. I'm not saying there aren't elements of damsel-ification in any of these stories but I think you need to be pretty hyper-sensitive to take them purely as that.


And the whole Cataclysm setting element, and atrocities in the name of Good (the Kingpriest trilogy is basically an apologia for this), and the Good gods basically mass-murdering innocents in response.

None of those are things WotC wants in a flagship series right now.


I guess I must just be out of touch if these are the kinds of things considered taboo nowadays (note there's no sarcasm there - I probably am). The Cataclysm was always problematic to me because of how little damn sense it made, rather than the idea that the gods of Good could be capricious and genocidal.
   
 
Forum Index » Geek Media
Go to: