Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The D&D thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I do think 3E is a bad game, but you're right. Let's not start an edition war in here. I'm sorry for bringing it up in the first place; I was just disheartened by yet another attempt of mine to criticize 5E being rebuffed with a "the game's popular, so it's clearly superior" argument on another forum.

    Comment


    • Is it okay to say that a particular system uses poorly thought out math? I mean, I don't want to be just trashing on a particular version of the game as "bad" because I know people have a lot of fun with it (and I've even managed some fun with it myself, in the past), but it seems like there could be a useful discussion of the particular design details that lead to counter-productive results.

      By that I mean things like the design intention being to reduce the number of spells available to spell casters, but actually causing an overall increase once all is said and done, and particularly increases in some important areas. Or keeping spell effects as they were when higher-level creatures/characters were likely to have better than even odds at passing a saving throw, but re-doing the saving throw system in a way that enables casters to make their spells extremely unlikely to be saved against. Or creating such large gulfs between the typical attack bonuses of various classes that an enemy's AC is either low enough the "medium combatants" have decent accuracy and the "full combatants" almost never miss, or the AC is high enough only the "full combatants" have more than outside chance of hitting so every other character feels like they are better off not even making the attempt.


      Not so noble anymore.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AnubisXy View Post

        I don't think he was lying but, "growing the brand" is a really, really vague phrase. Did he mean actual monetary income? Did he mean product sold and moved? Did he mean profit? Did he mean something more abstract, that had nothing to do with money, like continuing to grow the brand in terms of general recognition of the D&D brand?

        ...

        By most accounts, 4th edition was simply not considered a success due to the fact that Pathfinder was outselling it (rather badly). That's why D&D returned to a lot of those earlier roots in 5th edition, because they realized 4th edition just wasn't able to compete with Pathfinder - and they were right, 5th edition has been an amazing success by any measure. That's not to say that 4th edition is a bad game - I think it's a good game for what it sets out to do. Unfortunately it just wasn't what a lot of D&D players wanted to do.
        Agree, "growing the brand" is rather nebulous. However, I think Charlaquin is saying something with the online subscriptions. And there are the miniatures, which I could imagine sold better under 4e. Also, I think a lot of people bought the 4e core books, then went back to playing 3.5, or over to PF. There are just too many options and not enough data. I have nothing against Mearls, I just think he told the company line there, because there's not a world they'd say that yeah, a whole edition, something still a lot of fans liked, was a flap. Just look back at the ire the WW guys got when they said "NWoD didn't sold".

        Also, it's telling that even now, more than twice as much people are playing 3.5 (not PF) on Fantasy Grounds, than 4e (source: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content...!#.WlGJKjdG1pg). It's also telling what Charlaquin said, that she had a hard time finding groups for 4e in college city, when 4e was still fresh, because everyone wanted to play 3.5e/PF.

        Originally posted by Morty View Post
        5E's success made me lose a lot of hope I had in the tabletop RPG industry, really. It's not a bad game, like 3E or PF are,
        Agree with the others, let's not do edition warring, because that's silly. Let's say, I'd strongly, but politely disagree.


        but it's still inherently reactionary and a repackaging of the same, familiar thing. The fact that it was a smashing success proves that innovation, good ideas and pushing the boundaries do not matter and aren't a good strategy. To succeed, you need to have a huge brand and give people the old and familiar thing, wrapped in a neat little bow. I guess PF had already been proving that for years, but 5E confirmed it.
        Well. On one side, I'm agreeing with you, at least partially, on this. That is something that particularly irks me, regarding pop-culture and big entertainment companies nowadays. That they want to play safe so much they're leaving all the invention and new ideas to the indie and crowd-sourced side of the industry and just repackaging the same-old-same-old (I'd stress, in my eyes it's different to using old IPs with respect). I also think that yes, 5e is a quite good example of that, but the rules are the least of it. My problem is, they don't really going forward with anything, not even FR, they're mostly selling nostalgia-driven stuff. It's just totally the other side of the horse, compared to 4e.

        However. On the other hand, 4e, and NWoD too, was just an example of someone thinking "Wouldn't it be awesome to sell all these people pears???? Pears are awesome and they would be a refreshing change after decades of apples!". It just didn't work, because, well, while some people really liked pears better (pears are good, nothing's wrong with them), and some new people even came in because it was pears, the majority actually liked their apples and wanted to continue eating apples, just shinier, tastier and better-packaged apples, or apples, using some interesting new recipes. But they wanted apples and they got pears.


        Originally posted by LostLight View Post
        I would not call 3e/PF "bad" games. Heck, unless there is some really big problem in the game's nature and themes, I won't call it "bad". I don't like 4e, but I won't say it is a bad game- only that I, personally, dislike the system. If people like PF and 5e, it is because those games are good for them, and they help them make the stories and worlds they want to make and play in. It is ok to disagree about which systems you like and why, but outright calling some edition as "bad" (in an objective sense) feels like going a bit too far. If people buy the old and familiar thing, maybe it is because the old and familiar thing works for them, and they don't feel a need for a change. It is not about "innovation" and "pushing the boundaries" being a bad strategy. It is about trying to force a captive audience to play a game they don't want to play.
        Absolutely agree. Calling a game "bad", because I personally don't like it's implementation, or concepts are... dunno, a tad a over the fence. It also implies that the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fans liking that game are stupid, which is insulting and leads nowhere. I prefer PF over 5e, but I might prefer 5e over 3.5 and I prefer all three over 4e, but that's just my personal taste.

        If 4e would be "re-released" as a new game, similarly to how it was done for WoD, I don't think that reaction would be as negative as it was in its release.
        Wasn't that 13th AGE? Also, yes, OPP did the best with both WoD's community of allowing both lines to exist side-by-side. I understand WotC didn't wanting that, they want one D&D on the market and PF is already a thing, but still. Also, a lot of critiques could be laid on the WW folks' feet, but that they allowed CofD to go on (after the name change which was also a good step, IMO) was a good step. I'd have hated seeing the CofD crowd getting the same treatment as WoD fans got back then, just pulling the rugs out under their feet.

        On the flipside, things I did like in D&D 4e:

        - Some core system simplifications. Yes, even I'd admit that 3.5 is clunky. I like some of that (like different critical zones on weapons), but there is a lot of stuff to learn and a lot of it is superficial.
        -The attempt at balancing the classes, even if I don't actually like the results (the power system). Essentials were better, though.
        - Actually pretty cool take on the races. I even liked dragonborn and tieflings as a core race (but never understood Eladrin as a separate race... and I like elves).
        - That everyone could learn ritual casting. Always missed that from other editions.
        - The Nentir Vale setting. I didn't like what they did with FR, but I had no problems with that.
        - The art direction. When it wasn't laser blades, oversized shoulder-pads and glowing gems on every doorknob. Essentially, when it didn't try to look like a WoW concept book, it was actually the best-looking D&D so far, IMO (not counting PF).
        Last edited by PMárk; 01-06-2018, 11:33 PM.


        If nothing worked, then let's think!

        Comment


        • On the subject of 5e falling back on nostalgia because it’s a better business strategy than taking risks... Yes and no. That is the route 5e took, but I don’t think it’s success is proof that playing it safe is the best strategy. It’s a safe strategy, and frankly 5e owes its success more to external factors like the rise of streaming games than to its regressive design.

          The thing is, humans are good at recognizing what we like or don’t like when we see it, but bad at recognizing why we like or dislike things, and that makes us bad at predicting if we will like something. The closest we can come is knowing “I liked [thing], so I will probably like stuff that is similar to [thing].” This makes nostalgia a powerful marketing tool because it sells you products on the basis of promising that they will be similar to things you already know you like.

          However, innovation, when it works can be far more successful than nostalgia. Hell, the success of 3e and by extension Pathfinder is a testament to that - at one time, it was the big innovation to 2e’s more familiar, comfortable offering. 4e took similar risks, and unfortunately they didn’t pay off, so 5e bounced back to playing it safe. But the pendulum will swing back the other way eventually. At least, that’s my hope.

          On the subject of 4e’s potential if it had been released as a separate thing to D&D, I don’t think 13th age is that game. 13th age is a pretty good game, but it’s not the Pathfinder to 4e like it’s often made out to be. It followed up on some of the good ideas of 4e, but it also moved away from some of the others.

          The Angry GM wrote an article around a year ago that perfectly sums up my own thoughts about 4e and its unfulfilled potential. Reading it just makes me mourn for the loss of the game that could have come from a refinement of 4e’s best ideas. I’d be tempted to write that game myself if I had the time and energy to do it right and thought I could get anyone to play it.

          http://theangrygm.com/in-with-the-ol...ster-building/

          EDIT: Actually looking back, it was two articles. The one above and this one:

          http://theangrygm.com/reflecting-on-dd-4e/

          I kind of merged elements of both in my memory. But between the two of them, you can get a pretty good feel for my own thoughts around 4e.
          Last edited by Charlaquin; 01-07-2018, 01:13 AM.


          Onyx Path Forum Moderator

          My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

          Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
            On the subject of 5e falling back on nostalgia because it’s a better business strategy than taking risks... Yes and no. That is the route 5e took, but I don’t think it’s success is proof that playing it safe is the best strategy.
            I agree. Let's look at all the big IPs that companies are mining today, they were all quite revolutionary in their beginning days. However, "better" is controversial. Which is better? The thing that might be a huge success, but it's risky (high risk-high reward), or the thing that you know will generate a very big income reliably, just because it's a big brand already? That's why there's no much revolutionary things in the upper echelons of entertainment today, because on that level, it just not worth it. I don' like it and I sincerely believe it'd end up, not in a spectacular crash, but drying away and we're already seeing this. Though, it doesn't change that we're sadly living in the time of remakes and sequels.

            It’s a safe strategy, and frankly 5e owes its success more to external factors like the rise of streaming games than to its regressive design.
            Agree too. 5e is this successful, not because it's the Holy grail of rpgs, but because it's good enough for most fans and because it's a hype now and because it's reasonably easy to approach for new gamers. It'll end and it'll be interesting to see how it, or the new edition will change, since 5e's business strategy is strongly targeted at those new and casual gamers, not long-term fans.

            The thing is, humans are good at recognizing what we like or don’t like when we see it, but bad at recognizing why we like or dislike things, and that makes us bad at predicting if we will like something. The closest we can come is knowing “I liked [thing], so I will probably like stuff that is similar to [thing].” This makes nostalgia a powerful marketing tool because it sells you products on the basis of promising that they will be similar to things you already know you like.
            Again, agree, but I won't necessarily call that nostalgia. Nostalgia is being wistful for the past. An old player, yearning for the good 'ol times of 1e, who didn't play for a long time is nostalgic. The OSR movement is nostalgia. Someone, who played WoD during the '90s and has good memories and will buy V5 because of that is nostalgic. V20 is a nostalgia product. D&D 5e isbuilding on nostalgia a lot of the times. However, 3e wasn't a nostalgia product, neither PF, nor V5 will be, because those games were built upon the foundation of their immediate and late predecessors, but they went/will go forward, created new things, introduced new concepts, story, etc. I won't call 5e a nostalgia edition, just by the rules, it's just more traditional as a D&D edition than 4e was. I'm calling it nostalgic, because of everything else. Also, for new gamers, who are encountering those games (and rpgs in general) the first time those aren't nostalgic either.

            All in all, what I want to say, sticking to what you like isn't necessarily nostalgia, if it's a continuity and not looking back at something in the past through rose-tinted glasses.

            However, innovation, when it works can be far more successful than nostalgia. Hell, the success of 3e and by extension Pathfinder is a testament to that - at one time, it was the big innovation to 2e’s more familiar, comfortable offering. 4e took similar risks, and unfortunately they didn’t pay off, so 5e bounced back to playing it safe. But the pendulum will swing back the other way eventually. At least, that’s my hope.
            I think too, that they'll take more risks eventually. Or not, because they have demands from Hasbro...

            On the subject of 4e’s potential if it had been released as a separate thing to D&D, I don’t think 13th age is that game. 13th age is a pretty good game, but it’s not the Pathfinder to 4e like it’s often made out to be. It followed up on some of the good ideas of 4e, but it also moved away from some of the others.
            I dunno, never looked at 13th Age, I just got the impression from here and there that it was basically that.

            The Angry GM wrote an article around a year ago that perfectly sums up my own thoughts about 4e and its unfulfilled potential. Reading it just makes me mourn for the loss of the game that could have come from a refinement of 4e’s best ideas. I’d be tempted to write that game myself if I had the time and energy to do it right and thought I could get anyone to play it.

            http://theangrygm.com/in-with-the-ol...ster-building/
            Wow, that's a pretty long article, but thanks it seems to be a worthy reading!

            This:

            And it was. But 3E did not begin by throwing away bunches of assumptions from previous editions. Instead, it sought a way to mechanically streamline and build upon the assumptions of the past. 4E was closer to a teardown and rebuild.
            really sums it up perfectly, as you said. That was the problem for a lot of fans. Innovation and new ideas and evolution aren't bad, most people will like those, or will come around. It's "bad" when it's meaning throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You might want to change and renovate some things on your house, maybe completely re-building parts of it, converting the attic into a gym, etc., but mostly, you don't want to bulldoze it to the ground and build an entirely new and different one, because you liked your old house, considering everything. It was cozy, lived-in, full of past, good memories and perks that gave it character. A lot of the times it's even true for people who didn't live in it , but coming in for the first time. The shiny new one might be a good house (and would accumulate all those things, given time) but there's a chance that you'll mourn the old one forever, despite that, but it's gone.
            Last edited by PMárk; 01-07-2018, 01:51 AM.


            If nothing worked, then let's think!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              I agree. Let's look at all the big IPs that companies are mining today, they were all quite revolutionary in their beginning days. However, "better" is controversial. Which is better? The thing that might be a huge success, but it's risky (high risk-high reward), or the thing that you know will generate a very big income reliably, just because it's a big brand already? That's why there's no much revolutionary things in the upper echelons of entertainment today, because on that level, it just not worth it. I don' like it and I sincerely believe it'd end up, not in a spectacular crash, but drying away and we're already seeing this. Though, it doesn't change that we're sadly living in the time of remakes and sequels.

              Agree too. 5e is this successful, not because it's the Holy grail of rpgs, but because it's good enough for most fans and because it's a hype now and because it's reasonably easy to approach for new gamers. It'll end and it'll be interesting to see how it, or the new edition will change, since 5e's business strategy is strongly targeted at those new and casual gamers, not long-term fans.
              Not much to say here, other than that I'm glad we seem to be on the same page.

              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              Again, agree, but I won't necessarily call that nostalgia. Nostalgia is being wistful for the past. An old player, yearning for the good 'ol times of 1e, who didn't play for a long time is nostalgic. The OSR movement is nostalgia. Someone, who played WoD during the '90s and has good memories and will buy V5 because of that is nostalgic. V20 is a nostalgia product. D&D 5e isbuilding on nostalgia a lot of the times. However, 3e wasn't a nostalgia product, neither PF, nor V5 will be, because those games were built upon the foundation of their immediate and late predecessors, but they went/will go forward, created new things, introduced new concepts, story, etc. I won't call 5e a nostalgia edition, just by the rules, it's just more traditional as a D&D edition than 4e was. I'm calling it nostalgic, because of everything else. Also, for new gamers, who are encountering those games (and rpgs in general) the first time those aren't nostalgic either.

              All in all, what I want to say, sticking to what you like isn't necessarily nostalgia, if it's a continuity and not looking back at something in the past through rose-tinted glasses.
              I should note, I didn't mean to suggest 3e was a nostalgia product. Quite the contrary, it was innovative in its time. But yeah, I agree. Building on what has worked before isn't necessarily playing on nostalgia. But nostalgia is absolutely what 5e is built on, and it's a powerful tool for selling things that build on what people already know they like.

              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              I think too, that they'll take more risks eventually. Or not, because they have demands from Hasbro...
              I think they'll have to try new things eventually, it might just take a while. Eventually, 5e will become "the same old thing" and people eventually get tired of "the same old thing." But playing on people's pre-existing preferences is a pretty sustainable practice, so I do think it will be a long time before we see the pendulum swing back.

              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              I dunno, never looked at 13th Age, I just got the impression from here and there that it was basically that.
              Not in my opinion. It's designed by folks who worked on 4e, and it has some things in common with it. But not the right things. At least not for me.

              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              Wow, that's a pretty long article, but thanks it seems to be a worthy reading!
              Haha, yeah, Angry doesn't do brevity, but his writing is worth the length. Best RPG advice on the internet if you ask me, though it is very focused on D&D.

              Originally posted by PMárk View Post
              This:

              really sums it up perfectly, as you said. That was the problem for a lot of fans. Innovation and new ideas and evolution aren't bad, most people will like those, or will come around. It's "bad" when it's meaning throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You might want to change and renovate some things on your house, maybe completely re-building parts of it, converting the attic into a gym, etc., but mostly, you don't want to bulldoze it to the ground and build an entirely new and different one, because you liked your old house, considering everything. It was cozy, lived-in, full of past, good memories and perks that gave it character. The shiny new one might be a good house (and would accumulate all those things, given time) but there's a chance that you'll mourn the old one forever, despite that, but it's gone.
              You should check out the second Angry article I posted, cause it contains the other half of the story. Point is, I don't think they actually threw the baby out with the bathwater with 4e. Or rather, they recognized that the baby was missing and put it back in. If Angry's claims of having been involved in closed 4e playtesting are to be believed, the earliest drafts were completely unrecognizable as D&D, and they realized that they had taken the rebilding a bit too far and pulled back. And you can see from how the design of 4e improved over time that they were honing in on the right balance. It was just too little too late. I wonder where we would be today if WotC had sat on 4e for another few years. Really refined it, so that they came out of the gate with Essentials, instead of it being a last-ditch attempt to salvage 4e. I think it would have done much better.


              Onyx Path Forum Moderator

              My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

              Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

              Comment


              • Essentials... on the one hand, a lot of it seems like an attempt to cater to the point of view that martial characters should just hit things and get passive or random powers. On the other, well, it is a major point of view when it comes to D&D. Many players simply want it. And at least in 4E, it's an option, not the be-all, end-all of martial classes. And it is an example of how 4E's skeleton doesn't have to make all classes work exactly the same.

                I've heard that early versions of 4E were even more divorced from earlier D&D editions. For instance, daily powers only went in because it's D&D, so they've got to be there. I'm not sure what to think about it. I feel like moving further away would've been better... but that's because I don't like a lot of what makes D&D what it is. My biases aside, though, we've discussed how 4E sort of sits on the fence between being its own thing and keeping the trappings of D&D.

                One thing I've heard about is that daily powers were only added because they're traditional. Which was a shame, because they're not a very good idea to begin with and they came with the extra problem of people finding daily martial powers hard to swallow. Though I do wonder why barbarian rage has been immune to it.

                Angry GM also brings up a major problem with 4E, in that it doubles down on the already restrictive nature of 3E. Classes are restricted in what sort of weapons and attributes they can use and the feeling of "you can only do it if a power/feat tells you that you can" is even stronger. Later sourcebooks alleviate that problem by providing alternate class features and powers that broaden the choice... but it shouldn't be needed. 4E fighter finally has a concrete job - it's a defender. And it's apparently still the best one, even with all the other content. But that means if you want a more aggressive melee martial character... well, better buckle up and accept the baggage of either the rogue or the ranger. Which in core rules means either fighting with a light blade or dual-wielding.
                Last edited by Morty; 01-08-2018, 05:39 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
                  I should note, I didn't mean to suggest 3e was a nostalgia product. Quite the contrary, it was innovative in its time. But yeah, I agree. Building on what has worked before isn't necessarily playing on nostalgia. But nostalgia is absolutely what 5e is built on, and it's a powerful tool for selling things that build on what people already know they like.
                  5th edition was very clearly a deliberate attempt to bring back all of the old D&D players who stopped buying the company's products during 4th edition. It really is, "Hey, here's the D&D you know and love! It's back!"

                  Originally posted by Morty View Post
                  Angry GM also brings up a major problem with 4E, in that it doubles down on the already restrictive nature of 3E. Classes are restricted in what sort of weapons and attributes they can use and the feeling of "you can only do it if a power/feat tells you that you can" is even stronger. Later sourcebooks alleviate that problem by providing alternate class features and powers that broaden the choice... but it shouldn't be needed. 4E fighter finally has a concrete job - it's a defender. And it's apparently still the best one, even with all the other content. But that means if you want a more aggressive melee martial character... well, better buckle up and accept the baggage of either the rogue or the ranger. Which in core rules means either fighting with a light blade or dual-wielding.
                  3rd edition was much less restrictive than 2nd or 1st edition were, but in some respects 4th edition was even more restrictive than 2nd edition was. The way that 4th edition ran off of video game logic was definitely one of my biggest complaints with it. There were later books, as you said, that started to make that less of an issue, but for me it was mostly a matter of too-little-too-late. I found that 4th edition really made you conscious of, and constantly drew your attention to, the fact that you were playing a game which always managed to break the verisimilitude of the setting (which for me is a pretty big deal).

                  Comment


                  • I keep watching this over and over, trying to mentally twist it into a trailer for Dragonlance.


                    CofD booklists:
                    Beast I Changeling | Geist l Hunter l Mage | Mummy | Promethean | Vampire

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Second Chances View Post
                      I keep watching this over and over, trying to mentally twist it into a trailer for Dragonlance.
                      Getting Dragonlance movie/tv show could be the fulfillment of all of my dream or my biggest nightmare, depending on how it would turn out. I think that a tv show would be the best, considering that DL is such a big world and could potentially be explored through all kinds of angles and characters. As DL has already canonized the principles of alternatives timelines and universes, I may even accept certain changes made in such "cinematic universe" as simply another split of the River, so it may include minor characters which do not show up in the books themselves but do show up in the game models, in order to expand the diversity of characters or something like that.

                      just for the record, the way that I imagine the order of the "cinematic universe" (based on my reading order) would be, more or less, as the follows (italics is for optional)-

                      -Legend of Huma
                      - Kaz the Minotaur
                      - Vampire of the Mists (you know why it's here)
                      - Kingpriest Trilogy
                      - Renegade Wizards
                      - Raistlin Chronicles
                      - Dragons of Autumn Twilight
                      - Dragons of Dwarven Depths
                      - Dragons of Winter Night
                      - Dragons of Highlord's Skies
                      - Dragons of Spring Dawning
                      - Dragons of Hourglass Mage
                      - The Sellsword
                      - Legends Trilogy
                      - Knight of the Black Rose (that's why)
                      - Second Generation
                      - Specter of the Black Rose
                      - Dragons of Summer Flame
                      - Last Thane
                      - Tears of the Night Sky

                      - Doom Brigade
                      - Spirit of the Wind
                      - Silver Stair

                      - Dawning of a New Age
                      - Legacy of Steel
                      - Lioness
                      - Day of the Tempest
                      - Eve of the Maelstrom
                      - Draconian Measures
                      - Dhamon Saga
                      - War of Souls
                      - Wizard's Conclave
                      - Lake of Death
                      - Dark Disciple
                      - Heroes of Destiny (based on the game models)


                      My Homebrew Signature

                      "And all our knowledge is, Ourselves to know"- An Essay on Man

                      I now blog in here

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by LostLight View Post
                        Getting Dragonlance movie/tv show could be the fulfillment of all of my dream or my biggest nightmare, depending on how it would turn out. I think that a tv show would be the best, considering that DL is such a big world and could potentially be explored through all kinds of angles and characters. As DL has already canonized the principles of alternatives timelines and universes, I may even accept certain changes made in such "cinematic universe" as simply another split of the River, so it may include minor characters which do not show up in the books themselves but do show up in the game models, in order to expand the diversity of characters or something like that.

                        just for the record, the way that I imagine the order of the "cinematic universe" (based on my reading order) would be, more or less, as the follows (italics is for optional)-

                        -Legend of Huma
                        - Kaz the Minotaur
                        - Vampire of the Mists (you know why it's here)
                        - Kingpriest Trilogy
                        - Renegade Wizards
                        - Raistlin Chronicles
                        - Dragons of Autumn Twilight
                        - Dragons of Dwarven Depths
                        - Dragons of Winter Night
                        - Dragons of Highlord's Skies
                        - Dragons of Spring Dawning
                        - Dragons of Hourglass Mage
                        - The Sellsword
                        - Legends Trilogy
                        - Knight of the Black Rose (that's why)
                        - Second Generation
                        - Specter of the Black Rose
                        - Dragons of Summer Flame
                        - Last Thane
                        - Tears of the Night Sky

                        - Doom Brigade
                        - Spirit of the Wind
                        - Silver Stair

                        - Dawning of a New Age
                        - Legacy of Steel
                        - Lioness
                        - Day of the Tempest
                        - Eve of the Maelstrom
                        - Draconian Measures
                        - Dhamon Saga
                        - War of Souls
                        - Wizard's Conclave
                        - Lake of Death
                        - Dark Disciple
                        - Heroes of Destiny (based on the game models)
                        Would Weasel's Luck and... I can't remember the sequel's name, fit in there? I don't know if I missed it.



                        ​When noise turns to silence, when colors dull and pale, when reality no longer makes sense, there shall you find me. There, in the dreams of the River of Faceless Millions, do I dwell.

                        http://harenm.deviantart.com/gallery/ for my art.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by haren View Post
                          Would Weasel's Luck and... I can't remember the sequel's name, fit in there? I don't know if I missed it.
                          I haven't read it and didn't managed to find a good summary, so I didn't really knew where to put it. I'm more than open for suggestions for more "movies" for the theoretical "Dragonlance Cinematic Universe"- as long as it is not the Sextet. Or Dalamar the Dark. Or Brothers Majere. You know, any book which made my cringe and think "what?.."


                          My Homebrew Signature

                          "And all our knowledge is, Ourselves to know"- An Essay on Man

                          I now blog in here

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by LostLight View Post
                            I haven't read it and didn't managed to find a good summary, so I didn't really knew where to put it. I'm more than open for suggestions for more "movies" for the theoretical "Dragonlance Cinematic Universe"- as long as it is not the Sextet. Or Dalamar the Dark. Or Brothers Majere. You know, any book which made my cringe and think "what?.."
                            It's set in the past with Brightblade's (that was Sturm's name, right?) ancestor, his fiance, and the POV character is the sneaky youngest son of a guy invited to the wedding when an undying man who cursed the fiance's family kidnaps her... so he can finally end the curse. And the story is about their adventures to rescue her, even though the youngest son sorta did some betrayal (and feels bad about it). The second story is him older and a squire to the Brightblade, trying to do better and impress a girl he fancies.



                            ​When noise turns to silence, when colors dull and pale, when reality no longer makes sense, there shall you find me. There, in the dreams of the River of Faceless Millions, do I dwell.

                            http://harenm.deviantart.com/gallery/ for my art.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by haren View Post
                              It's set in the past with Brightblade's (that was Sturm's name, right?) ancestor, his fiance, and the POV character is the sneaky youngest son of a guy invited to the wedding when an undying man who cursed the fiance's family kidnaps her... so he can finally end the curse. And the story is about their adventures to rescue her, even though the youngest son sorta did some betrayal (and feels bad about it). The second story is him older and a squire to the Brightblade, trying to do better and impress a girl he fancies.
                              I'll add it to my "to read" list, but it sounds like a good fit to the "universe" :P


                              My Homebrew Signature

                              "And all our knowledge is, Ourselves to know"- An Essay on Man

                              I now blog in here

                              Comment


                              • I am currently playing tomb of annihilation with my friends. My character is a halfling wild magic sorcerer called Twitch Nervously. Thing is i've already had a character die (at lvl 1 no less sigh) and i'd like to be prepared and have another character as backup in case the 'unthinkable' happens (again).

                                So far, i've been interested in trying the warlock class (it would be my first warlock). I was looking at the Cthulhu patron but the Xanathar's Guide Celestial patron has caught my eyes. I am sort of thinking a (nondisruptive) lawful Evil that is forced to do good things because of his patron. Sort of going the inverse to what one would expect from warlocks generally.
                                But i am stumped as to what race, pact and background to choose. The pact of blade intrigues me but i've heard it is not great (which to be fair never stopped me before from making a character).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X