Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2022, 07:58:34 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 27, 2022, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2022, 06:11:22 PM
Spider-Ham was (and should remain) a joke.

Just because you liked it doesn't make it not a tokenized character. Do you know the definition of a tokenized character?

Peter Porker was great!

Finally the cartoon pigs get representation.

It was a great joke. For anthropomorphic animals as superheroes DC did it first and did it better.

Its not anthropomorphics. Its good ol funny animals. And that goes way back to characters like Captain Marvel Bunny, yes thats a real thing, and the aforementioned Captain Carrot. DC oddly had alot of these over the years.

Marvel seemed to rarely venture into the funny animal realm in the mainstream comics till Spider Ham. But their sideline lines did to varying degrees.

Pretty sure someones done a write-up for some of these for both companies attendant RPGs.

Who knows what sort of botch WOTC would make of a superhero RPG now.

Off topic but speaking of adaptions...

I am still surprised that WOTC never hyped 5es versatility like they did with 3e. They seemed to be prepping for it early on. Then nada.

This is looking to be the first edition to lack an attendant Gamma World game. But considering the massive botch of the ones for 3 and 4e... Maybe its for the best.

Quote from: Omega on January 19, 2022, 06:40:30 PMThen they ran it into the dirt and sales are starting to drop and reviews are starting to be increasingly less flattering.

How long they can ride the IP train is right now iffy. And without the RPG t back it they lose a portion of their customer base and lose the main source of recognition.

David Stewart's "Phases of Corporate IP Ownership" handles this quite nicely.

Quote from: Omega on January 28, 2022, 02:37:05 AM
Marvel seemed to rarely venture into the funny animal realm in the mainstream comics till Spider Ham. But their sideline lines did to varying degrees.

   Spider-Ham dates back to c. 1983/84, but was part of their STAR Comics imprint for younger readers, so he fits into the latter.

Anb "Not Brand Ecch!" which was Marvel satiring their own universe. It was like Marvel's own Mad Magazine poking fun at itself and DC.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 28, 2022, 07:49:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on January 28, 2022, 02:37:05 AM
Marvel seemed to rarely venture into the funny animal realm in the mainstream comics till Spider Ham. But their sideline lines did to varying degrees.

   Spider-Ham dates back to c. 1983/84, but was part of their STAR Comics imprint for younger readers, so he fits into the latter.

Both as it started as a Marvel comic in 83. I have the 1st issue still I believe. The STAR line came out in 85 or so.

Well now we have a new D&D cartoon. (with the serial numbers almost filed off...) A Critical Role "adult" cartoon...

I am surprised WOTC didnt have a hand in this. Then again it may be a WOTC end run around Solomon's blockade on D&D media. But am probably giving WOTC too much credit.

Quote from: Omega on January 28, 2022, 02:37:05 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2022, 07:58:34 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 27, 2022, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2022, 06:11:22 PM
Spider-Ham was (and should remain) a joke.

Just because you liked it doesn't make it not a tokenized character. Do you know the definition of a tokenized character?

Peter Porker was great!

Finally the cartoon pigs get representation.

It was a great joke. For anthropomorphic animals as superheroes DC did it first and did it better.

Its not anthropomorphics. Its good ol funny animals. And that goes way back to characters like Captain Marvel Bunny, yes thats a real thing, and the aforementioned Captain Carrot. DC oddly had alot of these over the years.

Marvel seemed to rarely venture into the funny animal realm in the mainstream comics till Spider Ham. But their sideline lines did to varying degrees.

Pretty sure someones done a write-up for some of these for both companies attendant RPGs.

Who knows what sort of botch WOTC would make of a superhero RPG now.

You grow hair from your armpits and it can move, lengthen, etc, think Medusa from the inhumans but gross.

Expect D&D to offer multiple-play modes for the Anniversary Edition:
1. Storymode: undying PCs that vomit backstory sub-plot in a way that ignores dice rolls. This version might even be diceless like Amber. Story is EVERYTHING, yes?

2. Hardcore old-school game with rolled/array stats, 1 or 2 "race" (or whatever they call it) perks, character flaw (pick your poison), skills catalog, spell catalog, equipment catalog (because shopping is FUN!)

No Classes. Want to play a sword-wielding, armor-clad Wizard? Go for it. Why should Clerics have all the fun?

Alignment? Nope. Deconstructionism annihilates morality. People just do what they want. Right? You as GM introduce a setting with active deities and you get an atheist PC who ignores the gods.

Because, RAW, they can. Your Gods and their magic has no effect on this PC.

Are you ready to run games for players who dictate exactly how you run your game?

I just watch the sea around the game. The waves are getting ridiculous.

I'm brand new to this forum, but have run D&D games for 44 years, and I've watched D&D change over the course of those decades quite a lot, just as likely most of the folks here have. I like 5e, I think there is a great deal to recommend about it and they did a good job in simplifying play from 3.0s complexity but maintaining the D&D feel. I skipped 4.0 for many reasons and so wont comment on it. When the IP started making woke statements, adding in LGBT relationships and generally just appealing to the (worst iimho) parts of the culture I was disappointed, even decided for a time to stop giving money to the IP that I've supported for most all my life. I finally realized that it wasn't really the wokeness that was eating at me in truth as much as I despise that vacuous philosophy, rather I was becoming unhappy with the brand before that happened. The writing has simply been losing quality from supplement to supplement. I realize this is a very subjective statement, its just my opinion after all, but I realized that I could ignore the little woke additions to the text but when the overall quality of the product has devolved, it's no longer worth bothering. Strixhaven is one of the very worst examples of this, and I'm not here to dish on Hasbro, so I don't intend to get into reviewing the work, there are dozens of reviews online that talk about what I'm saying here, agree or disagree. I've actually started focusing on Kobold Press and our current campaign is in Midgard. They are another woke gaming company, but their stable of writers are solid and put out quality gaming material. I don't really care what your politics are, bad writing is simply bad writing woke or no, and that is where WoTC is going.

Quote from: Shasarak on January 27, 2022, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 27, 2022, 06:11:22 PM
Spider-Ham was (and should remain) a joke.

Just because you liked it doesn't make it not a tokenized character. Do you know the definition of a tokenized character?

Peter Porker was great!

Finally the cartoon pigs get representation.

Spanky Ham was both stunning and brave.

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 29, 2022, 10:16:33 PM
No Classes. Want to play a sword-wielding, armor-clad Wizard? Go for it. Why should Clerics have all the fun?

Alignment? Nope. Deconstructionism annihilates morality. People just do what they want. Right? You as GM introduce a setting with active deities and you get an atheist PC who ignores the gods.

Because, RAW, they can. Your Gods and their magic has no effect on this PC.

1: This was actually a thing for BX and 2e D&D. BX had a Dragon article introducing a "create your own class/race" system that was actually not bad. 2e had in the core books a watered down and more convoluted version. And later Skills & Powers opened up options as well. Think the Complete Handbook for Wizards did too. If not there then there was at least one ckass kit that opened up the ability to wear leather or chain I believe. Not positive though. Been a few decades.

2&3: Oddly enough BECMI has this. Clerics in that serve a cause, and get their power from their belief in that cause. Not from gods.

Quote from: Jamesbeadle on January 31, 2022, 12:06:00 AMWhen the IP started making woke statements, adding in LGBT relationships and generally just appealing to the (worst iimho) parts of the culture I was disappointed, even decided for a time to stop giving money to the IP that I've supported for most all my life.

I finally realized that it wasn't really the wokeness that was eating at me in truth as much as I despise that vacuous philosophy, rather I was becoming unhappy with the brand before that happened. The writing has simply been losing quality from supplement to supplement. I realize this is a very subjective statement, its just my opinion after all, but I realized that I could ignore the little woke additions to the text but when the overall quality of the product has devolved, it's no longer worth bothering.

1: So far. Not the so far part... The LGBT bits have been surprisingly small to the point of practically being non-existent. Worse. They are always meaningless. By that I mean in every case so far the LGBT insertions have no impact on the adventure or even on the insertion itself as an agenda platform.

2: 5e's writing has been all over the place. Overall ok. But around the advent of Essentials things started a slow decline. Then around Candlekeep a sharper decline. But you could say that of TSR too. Their product and modules were all over the place. Especially during 2e as they began to struggle with internal problems after ousting Gygax.

Quote from: Omega on January 31, 2022, 02:42:00 AM
5e's writing has been all over the place. Overall ok. But around the advent of Essentials things started a slow decline. Then around Candlekeep a sharper decline. But you could say that of TSR too. Their product and modules were all over the place. Especially during 2e as they began to struggle with internal problems after ousting Gygax.

I agree that the writing is all over the place -- but I liked Candlekeep Mysteries more than the other adventures I'm familiar with - Lost Mine of Phandelver, Princes of the Apocalypse and Out of the Abyss. So I don't think I see the same pattern as you. I like the core rules, but I thought the initial adventures were mediocre at best.

On the rules front: I thought the Sword Coast Guide was decent, and Volo's Guide was OK, but Tasha's was terrible. Fizban's seems mediocre so far - but I haven't read it through yet. I do feel like the rules quality is decreasing, but that has been true for most games as they enter the "splat book" phase of releases.

Quote from: Omega on January 31, 2022, 02:29:16 AM

1: This was actually a thing for BX and 2e D&D. BX had a Dragon article introducing a "create your own class/race" system that was actually not bad. 2e had in the core books a watered down and more convoluted version. And later Skills & Powers opened up options as well. Think the Complete Handbook for Wizards did too. If not there then there was at least one ckass kit that opened up the ability to wear leather or chain I believe. Not positive though. Been a few decades.

The create your own class system in Dragon was badly broken. Among other things, it tried to argue that magic-users were underpowered and needed a boost.