Referring to RPG box sets as "board games" is neither new nor original to WotC. It's been going on for the better part of the last decade and coincides with retailers like Walmart and Target starting to pick up said box sets, because they sell board games but not roleplaying games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It demonstrates lack of faith in the material. They are their own thing.
It’s a tiny bit of boilerplate to make the products more accessible under search engines from places like Target and Amazon. This is not some grand conspiracy to change the paradigm of D&D, it’s just a marketing move to increase visibility.
It demonstrates lack of faith in the material. They are their own thing.
I still remember back in the 80's when the books were available very widespread. Not only a LOT more game stores, but department stores and regular book stores carried them too.
But then with each new version, they would get stuck with the old version inventory, which became very hard to sell. There are purchasing agents who remember those days, too. Board games are much more stand alone. They don't really have that problem. So... to the extent you are marketing to such 3rd party distributors (which is actually arguably the best way to lure in new players, i.e. those who are less likely to think to look for WotC's site directly), it is those purchasing agents you are marketing directly to.
All this 'principle' muck only really matters if it actually gets more sales.
Not crazy about the newest product descriptions using the word "Board Game." First noticed it with the Borderlands Boxed Set, now this Stranger Things tie-in. Maybe I've just never noticed it before, but it sure seems to me that Hasbro's boardgame division is trying to push synergy on the D&D marketing folks. I think it's a mistake, if only because it strips what is unique about roleplaying games - the fact that you don't need much to play other than paper, dice and a pen (yeah, and three books, don't come at me.) WotC/Hasbro, come on now. You've been building a strong community and customer base for over a decade now. Why ruin it with this? Embrace the differences, stop trying to homogenize something that thrives in its uniqueness as a storytelling medium.
I'd say it's more competing with the recent Daggerheart product that contains cards etc. WOTC is a trading card company, as well as the D&D book publisher, so they're probably seeing an opportunity to expand.
Part of the "Franchise Model" of putting all the assets in the one place maybe.
My hot take is that they've neutered all the narrative edge from DND settings and are going to suffer for it. Everything feels very superficial and safe, now. Normally, the prospect of more Ravenloft or Forgotten Realms content would delight me. Unfortunately I can already tell whatever we get will be milquetoast garbage from my pov.
For example, the change to make Purple Dragon Knights amethyst dragon fighters? Meh, just another indication to me that they don't care about the setting and have no interest in maintaining any sense of grittiness. Larian got it spot on with BG3, which was both high fantasy but also contained plenty of adult themes. Coercion, mental domination, murder... you literally wake up covered in blood having murdered an innocent woman in one of the main playthrough options. The point is it ISN'T GLORIFIED, it's a BAD THING in the story. It's an extremely dark game and literally NONE of that has a place in how WoTC portrays Forgotten Realms these days, imo. Only third party efforts actually see it and realise that's where the money is. I am so convinced that these FR books are going to be boring and super safe. Bloody hell, I'll be amazed if a single half-elf appears in it, now that we've decided they're offensive.
Moreover, making Ravenloft a place of P.G. horror, rather than a setting of gothic horror themes and genuine human darkness? Meh. Bigotry, racism, sexism, slavery, ablism and every other horrible thing that you could find has a fundamental place in that setting. It's a domain of ignorance, that's almost the point. Removing all of it because you're worried people will slam you for it is an over-correction, and a really damaging one at that. Is 40k suffering despite maintaining it's hyper grimdark setting? No, it's thriving. Is there anything wrong with making ugly portrayals from the past tidier and less offensive? Not at all. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Show us how these prejudices exist and affect the setting, and let the stories demonstrate how wrong and unfair they are. **That's** the point!
I also think that they've crippled class identity. Most Cleric players barely even PICK a deity now, never mind make an attempt to follow its strictures (which you need to find ancient books to learn about OOC.) "Oh, players would be upset if they lost their powers due to upsetting their deity of choice, so we won't even include rules or reference to that." This goes for Paladins too. What's wrong with consequences? I genuinely think this erosion of narrative in favour of casual-friendliness is hurting the game.
I also think WOTC were too late to join the cheery Critical Role/MCU esque bandwagon, and now that the zeitgeist is starting to move back to unsafe territory, they're going to have the opposite problem.
I want them to licence out their settings to third parties. Let's bring back -multiple- setting books. Where is the book of religions and deities? The book on fiends? Where can I get more than a paragraph of lore for what the Church of Ezra actually is, or how the Realms have changed since 5e? There's a market and desire for this stuff, WOTC. One setting book for Eberron, Planescape, Ravenloft, and Forgotten Realms etc (plus one or two adventures) in the entirety of 5e was an absolute joke. Look at what Paizo puts out, by comparison.
Let people invest in your worlds, even if you have to license them out.
Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
That is how I feel about Bards. Just make them a Rogue subclass.
Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
That is how I feel about Bards. Just make them a Rogue subclass.
Bards used to require:
5th level Fighter
Dual-class into 5th Level Thief
Dual-class into Bard under the tutelage of a Druid (who they had to find in game).
Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
That is how I feel about Bards. Just make them a Rogue subclass.
Bards used to require:
5th level Fighter
Dual-class into 5th Level Thief
Dual-class into Bard under the tutelage of a Druid (who they had to find in game).
Not since 2nd Edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Here's one of my mildest: Rangers have no real reason to exist in a game that already includes Rogues and Fighters. Most unique things Rangers currently do could be converted into subclasses for one of those without much difficulty.
That is how I feel about Bards. Just make them a Rogue subclass.
Bards used to require:
5th level Fighter
Dual-class into 5th Level Thief
Dual-class into Bard under the tutelage of a Druid (who they had to find in game).
Yes, but that was back in the day when Elf was a class.
Not quite. Bard was AD&D, Elf was Basic. Bard has probably had the most schizophrenic history, though, as it changed pretty dramatically every edition, whereas it's pretty easy to recognize other classes from edition to edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Referring to RPG box sets as "board games" is neither new nor original to WotC. It's been going on for the better part of the last decade and coincides with retailers like Walmart and Target starting to pick up said box sets, because they sell board games but not roleplaying games.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It demonstrates lack of faith in the material. They are their own thing.
It’s a tiny bit of boilerplate to make the products more accessible under search engines from places like Target and Amazon. This is not some grand conspiracy to change the paradigm of D&D, it’s just a marketing move to increase visibility.
I still remember back in the 80's when the books were available very widespread. Not only a LOT more game stores, but department stores and regular book stores carried them too.
But then with each new version, they would get stuck with the old version inventory, which became very hard to sell. There are purchasing agents who remember those days, too. Board games are much more stand alone. They don't really have that problem. So... to the extent you are marketing to such 3rd party distributors (which is actually arguably the best way to lure in new players, i.e. those who are less likely to think to look for WotC's site directly), it is those purchasing agents you are marketing directly to.
All this 'principle' muck only really matters if it actually gets more sales.
Getting two of the largest retailers in the world to start carrying your material IS having faith in the material.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'd say it's more competing with the recent Daggerheart product that contains cards etc. WOTC is a trading card company, as well as the D&D book publisher, so they're probably seeing an opportunity to expand.
Part of the "Franchise Model" of putting all the assets in the one place maybe.
My hot take is that they've neutered all the narrative edge from DND settings and are going to suffer for it. Everything feels very superficial and safe, now. Normally, the prospect of more Ravenloft or Forgotten Realms content would delight me. Unfortunately I can already tell whatever we get will be milquetoast garbage from my pov.
For example, the change to make Purple Dragon Knights amethyst dragon fighters? Meh, just another indication to me that they don't care about the setting and have no interest in maintaining any sense of grittiness. Larian got it spot on with BG3, which was both high fantasy but also contained plenty of adult themes. Coercion, mental domination, murder... you literally wake up covered in blood having murdered an innocent woman in one of the main playthrough options. The point is it ISN'T GLORIFIED, it's a BAD THING in the story. It's an extremely dark game and literally NONE of that has a place in how WoTC portrays Forgotten Realms these days, imo. Only third party efforts actually see it and realise that's where the money is. I am so convinced that these FR books are going to be boring and super safe. Bloody hell, I'll be amazed if a single half-elf appears in it, now that we've decided they're offensive.
Moreover, making Ravenloft a place of P.G. horror, rather than a setting of gothic horror themes and genuine human darkness? Meh. Bigotry, racism, sexism, slavery, ablism and every other horrible thing that you could find has a fundamental place in that setting. It's a domain of ignorance, that's almost the point. Removing all of it because you're worried people will slam you for it is an over-correction, and a really damaging one at that. Is 40k suffering despite maintaining it's hyper grimdark setting? No, it's thriving. Is there anything wrong with making ugly portrayals from the past tidier and less offensive? Not at all. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Show us how these prejudices exist and affect the setting, and let the stories demonstrate how wrong and unfair they are. **That's** the point!
I also think that they've crippled class identity. Most Cleric players barely even PICK a deity now, never mind make an attempt to follow its strictures (which you need to find ancient books to learn about OOC.) "Oh, players would be upset if they lost their powers due to upsetting their deity of choice, so we won't even include rules or reference to that." This goes for Paladins too. What's wrong with consequences? I genuinely think this erosion of narrative in favour of casual-friendliness is hurting the game.
I also think WOTC were too late to join the cheery Critical Role/MCU esque bandwagon, and now that the zeitgeist is starting to move back to unsafe territory, they're going to have the opposite problem.
I want them to licence out their settings to third parties. Let's bring back -multiple- setting books. Where is the book of religions and deities? The book on fiends? Where can I get more than a paragraph of lore for what the Church of Ezra actually is, or how the Realms have changed since 5e? There's a market and desire for this stuff, WOTC. One setting book for Eberron, Planescape, Ravenloft, and Forgotten Realms etc (plus one or two adventures) in the entirety of 5e was an absolute joke. Look at what Paizo puts out, by comparison.
Let people invest in your worlds, even if you have to license them out.
That is how I feel about Bards. Just make them a Rogue subclass.
Bards used to require:
Not since 2nd Edition.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yes. I was referring to 1st/Basic.
Yes, but that was back in the day when Elf was a class.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not quite. Bard was AD&D, Elf was Basic. Bard has probably had the most schizophrenic history, though, as it changed pretty dramatically every edition, whereas it's pretty easy to recognize other classes from edition to edition.