Page 1 of 1

D&D: The Documentary

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:16 pm
by Judging__Eagle
Over at Wired;
Dungeons & Dragons Documentary Scheduled for 2013
By Daniel Donahoo July 12, 2011 | 7:45 am | Categories: Armchair Geek, Videos

Image via Wikipedia (Fair Use)
Over at examiner.com they have announced that production has started on a new “definitive documentary on Dungeons & Dragons.”

The writer, Michael Tresca, (who also seems to be involved, along with Anthony Savini and producing partner Andrew Pascal) says that

Dungeons & Dragons: A Documentary will be a definitive look at the game Dungeons & Dragons, its history, appeal and effect. A game like no other, with influences far-reaching and subtle. A feature length film, shot on HD video. This will be released in 2013, to coincide with the 40th Anniversary of the release of Dungeons & Dragons.

It looks like they are seeking people who might be interested, or have some valuable stories or material to provide, and they have a Facebook page where you can follow developments.

Daniel Donahoo is a researcher and author from Melbourne, Australia who roleplays with his kids, often.
Follow @ddonahoo and @prjct_synthesis on Twitter.
What, how, who, where, why and when would be covered in the study of D&D?

Chronologically?

It's inspirations? Attempting to uncover all of them?

What is important that should be covered?

Re: D&D: The Documentary

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:32 pm
by CapnTthePirateG
I feel like the whole "optimization is bad" thing should be included, because it's kinda weird.

Maybe where the hell is the brand going at the moment?

Re: D&D: The Documentary

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 10:22 pm
by Josh_Kablack
Judging__Eagle wrote:What, how, who, where, why and when would be covered in the study of D&D?

Chronologically?

It's inspirations? Attempting to uncover all of them?

What is important that should be covered?
Here's my rough quasi-chronological outline for how I'd do such a film ( with zero research done, I'm sure some of my info is questionable and the rest needs citations ):

Maybe a five minute overview the history of games which led to wargames. Start at the root, going all the way back to, Go, Mancala and the Royal Game of Ur, but you probably want a nod to the differentiation of the three major branches of Chess in the renaissance (and how that reflected the difference between the cultures that played them - because that lets you play up the theme that games reflect their societies later in the film ) Then on to the development of Kreigspeil as an actual military training tool. From their, the spread of such things to a broader hobby market, with a minute or so devoted to HG Wells enthusiasm and publication of Little Wars..

Then about five minutes on the history of myth, fantasy and improvisational theater.

Then for the next twenty minutes you get people talking in glowing terms about the genius of Gygax and Arenson in combining these elements into one game and talk about GenCon and the early days. A bit about Blackmoor, Greyhawk and the crazy idea of marketing different sets of Basic and Advanced lines at the same time, but mainly people being crazy at Cons and showing the spread of D&D. Covers of Dragon Magazine showing increased production values, the growth of dedicated hobby shoppes ( although this was also due to changes in comic book distribution in the 70s ), the saturday morning cartoon, the game being featured in E.T. etc, etc

Then at about 30 minutes in, you get to the "tragedy struck" part. You have no shortage of personality conflicts and legal actions to tell tales about here. The Tolkien estate lawsuit, the 700 club condemnation ( Be sure to show "Dark Dungeons" ), Gygax squeezing people out, only to be later squeezed out himself, Mazes and Monsters. You break from this to talk about how D&D spawned a bunch of imitators, copycats and spinoffs: Tunnels and Trolls, Villains and Vigilantes, Ars Magica, GURPs, and the Wizardry line of computer games.

I'd also want to talk about the Secret Service raid on Steve Jackson Games here, and how the settlement still looks unfair in hindsight. But more importantly how it led to the foundation of the EFF and has influenced legal rights online ever since.

Then you come back to D&D with the launch of 2nd ed, and various heads talking about how that revived sales and/or fractured the fanbase. Be sure to include a bit of edition war, you can mention how hate for Mrs. Williams is still strong two decades later, but in general you spin this slightly positive for a bit, and be sure to bring up SSI's gold box games. (as well as possibly the term "mailer daemon and Tom Christianson's maintence of Perl as they relate to computer developments ) But then talk about how V:tM (which was based on Ars Magica) made gaming both sexy and accessible to girls. Get a succession of people saying shamelessly that while D&D was mostly nerdy boys doing math, Vampire got them laid and intercut that with comparative sales graphs for he two games in the early 1990s, until V:tM became the category leader.

And if this wasn't enough, D&D and V:tM together faced a new type of game on the market - clip of Richard Garfield set to "Magic Man". Interview a bunch of hobby store owners about how M:tG became a best seller, and RPG sales tanked during the mid-90s. Rag on Dragon Dice and Lorraine Williams and Spellfire and whatever you can dig up actual business records to mock around here - in hindsight TSR was full of poor business choices in a changing market. Explain how WotC was the winner here and not only made enough money to buy D&D out of TSR's bankruptcy, but also had enough geek-foresight to land the Pokemon US license before the big companies were even aware of it. Explain how this motivated Hasbro to buy them out. If you want, you can digress about Hasbro's track record of buying out just about every other successful game of the 20t century - dating back to at least Monopoly.

Then explain how WotC tried to release a mass market RPG, and how they brought in Jon Tweet ( who had done work on ArM that was cribbed for V;tM ) to design it, and tried to use Hasbro's mass market pipeline to sell it. Set this up as defeat-of-expectation, and intercut some of the critical praise and awards, but Everway was a commercial flop. You can also have some heads talk about Alternity here. Have some pundits speculate about what they learned from this, digress about the Baldur's Gate games and then talk about the 2000 release of 3rd edition and how the core books actually made it onto the NY: Time bestseller list. Talk about the huge revival in D&D and how the Open-Gaming License gave 3rd party publishers an in without fearing prosecution ( note that White Wolf had an open-gaming monster book out BEFORE the 3.0 M&M ). Get lines outside the LotR movies, Get a Vin Diesel clip here, and show Gygax's Futurama appearance, etc, etc

Then switch back to "history repeats itself" and get into the 3.5 vs 3.0 fanbase fragmentation, WotC pulling items from Open Game Content, and unilaterally modifying the OGL in light of the Book of Erotic Fantasy, interest dropping off and Christmas layoffs. Get a someone bitching about the move of GenCon and someone else loving it.

Then talk about further technological changes, and how common RPG-video games had become. Talk about Neverwinter Nights, sure, but also the Final Fantasy series and the rise of the MMORPG. Mention that these all use Arenson's Hit Point mechanic and note the point when the US video game industry started grossing more than than the US film industry. Imply pretty heavily that dude got shafted for being open-gaming instead of patenting the idea. While on the subject of technological changes, talk about .pdfs and piracy and find some grognards who are willing to say they photocopied manuals back in the early days. Point to the rise of Amazon and the decline of the bookstore. Point to the rise of WoW as an incredibly large MMORPG

Use that as the setup for the launch of 4e, and WotC's attempt to move to much more digital-distribution model with DDI and such. Dig up whatever 4e quotes and stats you can. I'm not making this film, nor am I gonna argue about (again) it here, just get some sources and some quotes that are filmworthy and back your own damn view about how 4e sold and what fans at cons said about it.

Then you corner Monte Cook and sign some NDAs, so that he can tell you the great stuff about the 5e launch that they'll be announcing next GenCon under the condition that the film isn't released until after that goes public. Leave 5e a bunch of hype with an open question how it will be able to adapt to an ever-changing market.

Then wrap up with a discussion of the influence D&D has had, how it's not only a cultural icon and a representation of an entire hobby, but how it pioneered an entire category of games, how just one idea from it is integral to so many video and computer games, how it indirectly shaped internet laws.

Re: D&D: The Documentary

Posted: Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:53 pm
by Whipstitch
CapnTthePirateG wrote:I feel like the whole "optimization is bad" thing should be included, because it's kinda weird.

If anything, I think it's a topic that might be too broad to properly cover. The tug of war between spirit of the game and optimization/best practices within a game is actually a surprisingly common issue and begs a number of comparisons to the shifts and changes other games and sports have gone through over the years. I think it just comes to a more obvious head in D&D given that it is at least ostensibly cooperative as opposed to adversarial.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:36 am
by Gx1080
@Whipstich

The "optimization is bad" is not exclusive of D&D, it also includes M:tG on the 90's and GW games.

Maybe I'm approaching bitter vet status (which scares me), but anybody that says "optimization is bad" can get stuffed.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 6:35 am
by shadzar
the problem with "optimization" and reason it "is bad" in D&D, is because it is something done in game with a win condition. D&D doesnt have a win condition. MtG and WHFB/WH40K DO have win conditions.

GW is like D&D where it CAN have a time limit, but there is not victor decided at that time limit.

D&D is a game that is just meant to be played, not meant to be won.

take how closely 4th edition was built to mirror play of the D&D Miniature Game. this was in part because people were optimizing, and that is how you play a wargame, so getting closer to a win condition wa done to D&D...the problem is that contrary to DDM, D&D doesnt end after a single combat encounter.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:42 am
by Leper
I'd mostly hope they don't gloss over Kaye's contributions... again.

All hail Gygax, and all that crap, but Arneson and Kaye don't get near the credit for their contributions they should. Dave at least gets lip service, (despite having some "radical" ideas on game design that were still 'edgy' 4 years ago, and turn out to be pretty fucking solid) but most folks eyes go all glazed over when you so much as mention Don.

I think I actually blame Gary for that.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:57 am
by shadzar
you mean Perren?

Kaye was just a business partner for the most part and upon his passing his wife wanted out and sold his shares to the Blume's which started the problems of TSR.

She is only second to the wicked bitch in people that D&D players should despise, because she too disliked gaming.

she probably wants nothing to do with it, and if still alive feels like the biggest fool in the world. Don may have helped get D&D started, but his wife played a bigger role in D&D in the long run.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:39 am
by Winnah
If it is a dry, informative piece, I probably would not bother watching it.

A humourous presenter like Tommy Dean would be invaluable to explaining the roots of Tabletop gaming, then cut to other C and D list personalities that have experience with the game.

Funny anecdotes and interviews would give the Doc broader appeal. Add in some information about cultural influences and how gaming has changed over the last 40 years or so, and you have have something that non-gamers might find interesting.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:45 pm
by fectin
Gx1080 wrote:@Whipstich

The "optimization is bad" is not exclusive of D&D, it also includes M:tG on the 90's and GW games.

Maybe I'm approaching bitter vet status (which scares me), but anybody that says "optimization is bad" can get stuffed.
WTF? How is optimizing bad in a wargame? How does that even work?

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:51 pm
by Count Arioch the 28th
I am not sure, but making an army list designed to win a game is considered to be "doin' it WRONG" on the GW forums. They call it being "beardy"

I know that in officially sanctioned Games Workshop tourneys, they literally give points to the army with the prettiest paint job. I'm dead serious.

Someone made a legal amry list on WFB using Ogre Kingdoms that had a really good ranged attack capabilities, that did pretty well. So the guy posted the army list on the official forums. Everyone gang-raped the person for being "beardy".

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:12 pm
by Ikeren
@Josh: I would watch your documentary.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:34 pm
by Whipstitch
shadzar wrote: She is only second to the wicked bitch in people that D&D players should despise, because she too disliked gaming.

she probably wants nothing to do with it, and if still alive feels like the biggest fool in the world. Don may have helped get D&D started, but his wife played a bigger role in D&D in the long run.
Your vendettas are super creepy.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:14 pm
by Leper
shadzar wrote:you mean Perren?

Kaye was just a business partner for the most part and upon his passing his wife wanted out and sold his shares to the Blume's which started the problems of TSR.
No. I meant Kaye. And the fact that you think Kaye was only a business partner kinda proves my point.

He helped develop the Chainmail rules (and a few iterations before that) he played under Arneson's Blackmoor rules, and was pretty much the first guy to say "fuck this description, I have an imagination of my own. We can break the description without breaking the rules."

He was involved in developing several other TSR projects before his death, and was a pretty fucking competent game designer.

As for his wife, it's not even close to fair to compare her to She-who-shall-not-be-named. No, she didn't like gaming, but she didn't sell off the shares because she was actively trying to destroy gaming or some bullshit like that. She sold off her shares because her husband had died and the idea of managing a company that did nothing she was intersted in where every day in the office would be a reminder of he dead husband seemed (quite reasonably) unpalatable.

Nobody knew the Blumes were going to fuck up the company at that point, and frankly, Gary and his massive coke habit in the 80s were as much responsible for that as anything anyone else did.

By the way, Gary trying to separate "his" ideas from thsoe that belonged to Arneson is the reason you don't hear about Kaye that much. If It was Gary & Kaye, then it became a "Gary Idea" if it was solely Kaye, it became a "mostly Gary, but Kaye might have helped" idea. Since the guy was dead and not around to defend himself, the glorious master of coked up dungeoneering was able to take as much credit as he damn well pleased.

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:00 pm
by shadzar
chainmail is really just a footnote in D&D history, since it was jsut another wargame among many.

Don made characters prior to the gygax kids playing, and prior to them playing blackmoor, but he didnt really have a chance to get into D&D all that much.

TSR wasnt even around long BECAUSE of his death, it had to change to TSR INC, as well the TSR newsletter had to become The DRAGON as well.

game PRIOR to TSR i could se a good bit on Kaye in, but considering the misfortune of the events, he really wasnt that much a part of D&D as it was.

his biggest contribution to D&D was $1000 and playtesting and number crunching.

again though the number crunching came form the miniature wargames mostly and adapted to the chainmail rules and somewhat for D&D of those that Dave didnt crunch and devise.

she could have been a silent partner and let gary handle it all and just collect some money when gary could buy her out. she would have gotten more and i dont think she really needed it for the funeral expenses unless the $1000 was all of the life insurance policy Don had.

Brian was already in it by that time anyway, his dad was the one that bought Don's shares.

but she gave even her husbands work away to a recent acquaintance, rather than to his own childhood friend.

maybe it COULD shed some light on the fact gary trying to fight so hard, led to the fight with Arneson as well.

that would be a totally new angel on all this.

gary lost his friend, and was losing the game jsut designed to 2 recent acquaintances, has to fight to keep the company, and right after gets into another fight with the newest member of the crew.

but that might put it all into gary being bullied about, and i dont think you would want that now would you?

i just hope it doesnt end up like penny arcade crap with Wil Wheaton in it.

though if i recall it was supposed to be part game, like in movie or scripted movie sense, and the other part would be documentary.

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:26 am
by Josh_Kablack
Ikeren wrote:@Josh: I would watch your documentary.
Thanks, that is as close as I will ever get to selling a sceenplay.

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 3:44 am
by BearsAreBrown
Count Arioch the 28th wrote: I know that in officially sanctioned Games Workshop tourneys, they literally give points to the army with the prettiest paint job. I'm dead serious.
I can only speak for 40k wargames but it's even worse then this. There are more 'pretty paint' awards then there are 'win the game' awards per tournament. You're not supposed to focus on winning, instead of modelling and friendship and fanwank over the setting.

It makes no fucking sense in a wargame but whatever. This is one of the many reason that digital "tabletop" wargames never took off, because no one plays to win.

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 4:52 am
by Leper
First off, there are some amazing artists--painters, sculptors, etc. involved in wargaming. Granted, it does seem really odd to see less attention payed to the game itself from a certain perspective, but:

[*]GW doesn't make money off of fun.
[*]GW really doesn't exactly make money off of people playing their games.
[*]GW does make money off of reselling paint and art supplies other people make at a 200-500% markup after they slap their logo on it.
[*]GW makes money off of a guy who buys models for his army. It makes more money off the guy who buys three of each model for his army so he can chop them up and put them back together in interesting ways with modeling compounds, extra paints, "specialty" brushes, etc.
[*]"Art sells games." Spotlighting the art around the game encourages people to play who might not pay attention otherwise, and the fact that some of these people make it look so fucking easy (talented bastards!) encourages other people to go out and spend more money than they normally would on heavily marked up plastic, pewter, paint and other art supplies.
[*]GW is a strong believer in "support what's popular." This generally goes well beyond publishing more material for Space Marines, (or other popular armies) and breaks down into publishing material that is blatantly in favor of those armies on a mechanical level. Discouraging "beardyness" serves a dual purpose:

1. De-emphasizes that the company publishes shit rules in a blatant attempt to make more money by selling a win.
2. Further de-emphasizes that they're selling a win when someone finds some way to work around the rules for non-Space Marines and make something that can win in spite of being otherwise mechanically crippled. That guy found a way to beat space marines! That army might not suck all the time... "Oh, no, no, no... you don't want to be like that guy. He's 'beardy.' So you can feel good about buying your Space Marines and know that the only time you will lose is against someone who's being 'beardy' which is almost like cheating!"

So... choosing the over-supported popular army knowing that it gives you a strategic advantage is not beardiness, but choosing the unpopular army and then exploiting some problem in the rules to actually make it a fair-ish fight or tip the sales in your favor absolutely is. Yes, that requires a mind-bending amount of doublethink, but there are genuine fans of GW that will say that kind of crap with a straight face.

Of course I could be hugely paranoid and unrealistically biased against the company... But these were my strong impressions of their business model.

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:18 am
by Gx1080
@Count

There's no official GW forums anymore, through the biggest unofficial GW forum is Warseer. Warseer is fucking awful. You can FEEL the braincells lost by reading their drivel.

Besides that, you are right.

@Leper

The big deals against GW, beyond their lack of decent tournaments, even beyond their prices, is that their glacially slow release schedule and they putting Marine variants after Marine variants while the only good non-Marine variants are Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard and Tau means that if you don't like Marines or any of the above armies, you are SOL for YEARS. Combine that with the recent Grey Knights fluff (which is the biggest Mary Sue Marine-wanking fantasy so far), and there's a huge turnoff.

Necrons on December can't come fast enough. There's some leaked models and they look really neat. Egyptian robots FTW.

Oh, and the new ruleset that may come on 2012, before all army books are updates, may be supremely awful and kill the game.

Compare that to, let's say, Warmachine. As much shit I give them for covering shitty base rules with tons of special rules and for having the same retarded fanbase than GW (myself included), at least they bother to make all the factions somewhat viable.

And their tournaments are less derp, through the retarded playerbase (this one not me) are pushing for comp limitations (aka buy more models) because Bane Threalls + UA + Tartarus is highly annoying to play against.

And this went waaaay out of topic. Maybe a different thread about optimization on TTRPGs and Wargames or something.

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 5:45 am
by Josh_Kablack
Of course I could be hugely paranoid and unrealistically biased against the company
Actually, compared to the general attitude about GW and Warhamster here on the Den, that comes off as such blatent pro-GW propaganda that I have to wonder if they paid you to write it. ;)

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:07 am
by Whipstitch
Leper wrote:
So... choosing the over-supported popular army knowing that it gives you a strategic advantage is not beardiness, but choosing the unpopular army and then exploiting some problem in the rules to actually make it a fair-ish fight or tip the sales in your favor absolutely is. Yes, that requires a mind-bending amount of doublethink, but there are genuine fans of GW that will say that kind of crap with a straight face.
Doesn't really surprise me. It reminds me of when Wizards started printing green cards that are actually good, promptly leading to much wailing and gnashing of teeth about color wheel encroachment from the blue fetishists in my gaming group.