How badly has D&D been mismanaged?

[Agemegos]

I actually think there's a good idea for a TV series there with the frame that every episode is a gaming group playing a different game (perhaps with some spread over multiple episodes). So you have a conceit for basically the same characters, but one week they're delving into medieval court politics, and the next they're aboard a spaceship experiencing system failure.

With the occasional very short flash back to the real world at the beginning and end so that we understand the real world that the characters are working through in the fiction, and there could be some ongoing sense of character growth.

Okay, but tell me — suppose that you had a crew of writers, directors, producers, and actors with the chops to do that and make it good, and backers to put up the money for crew and other production costs, and distribution lined up: why should people capable of making that show give a slice of the action to Hasbro? What does WotC bring to the table?

 

[lategamer]

A meta drama+teaching show? Let's just say I watch a ridiculous amount of television, and I wouldn't be in the viewer demographic. Then again, grain of sand since I couldn't make it through the Hobbit series or Stranger Things. There are plenty of mainstream shows I can't stomach.

I'm guessing we're looking for an American Horror Story experience. The actors stay relatively consistent from season to season. Characters may die off, but the actors all reboot in following seasons. Stories can change drastically because there's no need to maintain a strict continuity. Casting is flexible, but consistency is encouraged because the "players" stay the same while the "characters" and story can shift from season to season to show the flexibility of the game.

I think the American Horror Story example works but the Meta has to be in there. Remember this is thinking about what D&D could/should do rather than what we might personally want.

 

[AsenRG]

Also thinking I've never heard about anybody complaining that Columbo reused quite a few actors over the years. Patrick McGoohan topped the list playing four different murderers, followed by Jack Cassidy and Robert Culp, each playing three.

The obvious thing is to make gaming groups dependent on some sort of online tools such as a VTT, and then

• run ads on the VTT, online rules references, and online generation and management tools for characters and campaigns
• provide infrastructure for groups to distribute actual plays, put ads in the actual plays, and give a cut of ad revenue to the most popular groups.

IOW, walled gardens and online tools?

...sounds curiously like what the latest plans of WotC seem to feature, doesn't it?

I'll run more modern games if someone will pay me $100 every time I describe the NPCs they're approaching as "sipping on a nice cold refreshing Pepsi".

...and then you'll run into a Coke vs Pepsi fight!

Okay, but tell me — suppose that you had a crew of writers, directors, producers, and actors with the chops to do that and make it good, and backers to put up the money for crew and other production costs, and distribution lined up: why should people capable of making that show give a slice of the action to Hasbro? What does WotC bring to the table?

Hasbro brings nothing, and won't get anything directly. It could get increased exposure, but I suspect the suits won't be happy with it...

But the show could very well turn to another game to produce this, without losing anything!

And it would be a great idea for popularising RPGs overall!

 

[lategamer]

What does WotC bring to the table?

It's literally D&D. People who play Mythras or Blades or The 23rd Letter might not appreciate it, but it is still massive in comparison.

We are literally not the market (basis: https://dicecove.com/resources/statistics/ )

It wouldn't work with any other game.

 

[b9anders]

I don't actually think it has been mismanaged.

The core of the brand, 5e rules, is by all accounts the best selling roleplaying game of all time. 5e has facilitated a massive expansion of the hobby.
They continue generating profit with high sales for new products with a skeleton dev team.

They have had a really strong presence in the nearest market to RPGs, which is computer RPGS, for decades now. Baldur's Gate is a smash hit every time and Baldur's Gate 3 is probably its greatest success to date, selling nearly twice as much as the second highest seller on Steam in 2023. Then there is Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, etc.

They managed to make a not-awful movie, suggesting this could be tried again.

I don't think people here have realistic expectations of what can and can not be successfully monetised in the long term, really.

What could have been done better?
I reckon another cartoon series could have been a hit, and I don't understand why they dropped the novel lines. Feels like Gloomhaven stole a march on them in the boardgames sector.

Otherwise I reckon they are well established in the adjacent markets they should be in. Grade: Job well done, with room for improvement.

 

[Agemegos]

It's literally D&D.

I don't believe it's clear that that would bring in more revenue than the show would have without the branding. And if it doesn't, why would the production company care?

Starting up a consistently successful TV studio is difficult and chancy, and requires specific competences. I doubt that WotC would have been able to do it just because management decided to try.

 

[lategamer]

I don't believe it's clear that that would bring in more revenue than the show would have without the branding. And if it doesn't, why would the production company care?

50 million people have already played D&D. It was mentioned in ET and Stranger Things so it has more penetration in the mind than most. There's generations of people who only know the TTRPG hobby by the name "D&D".

That's brand.

Starting up a consistently successful TV studio is difficult and chancy, and requires specific competences. I doubt that WotC would have been able to do it just because management decided to try.

No, they'd contract it out.

As others pointed out, there's more money in infrastructure. Tell me why we aren't all setting up data centres and logistics companies?

 

[Agemegos]

50 million people have already played D&D. It was mentioned in ET and Stranger Things so it has more penetration in the mind than most. There's generations of people who only know the TTRPG hobby by the name "D&D".

That's brand.

It's not clear to me that film and TV production companies, actors, and directors, are limited by a shortage of brand.

No, they'd contract it out.


As others pointed out, there's more money in infrastructure. Tell me why we aren't all setting up data centres and logistics companies?

For the same reason that Hasbro isn't setting up movie and TV studios: it's easier said than done, and the business is highly competitive.

 

[lategamer]

I don't actually think it has been mismanaged.

I'm a fan of Betteridges Law

The core of the brand, 5e rules, is by all accounts the best selling roleplaying game of all time. 5e has facilitated a massive expansion of the hobby.
They continue generating profit with high sales for new products with a skeleton dev team.

Very fair!

They have had a really strong presence in the nearest market to RPGs, which is computer RPGS, for decades now. Baldur's Gate is a smash hit every time and Baldur's Gate 3 is probably its greatest success to date, selling nearly twice as much as the second highest seller on Steam in 2023. Then there is Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, etc.

Yup. They still let Blizzard eat their cake a little but they're doing ok.

They managed to make a not-awful movie, suggesting this could be tried again.

It barely made money back but that's indicative of it being a generic movie. It would have made a lot less without the D&D brand associated.

I don't think people here have realistic expectations of what can and can not be successfully monetised in the long term, really.
What could have been done better?
I reckon another cartoon series could have been a hit, and I don't understand why they dropped the novel lines. Feels like Gloomhaven stole a march on them in the boardgames sector.
Otherwise I reckon they are well established in the adjacent markets they should be in. Grade: Job well done, with room for improvement.

I reckon you're right about a series (whether it's cartoon or not is immaterial.) They have content, they can make characters (what Disney has been doing with all of their recent Star Wars stuff is making new characters).

The loss of the novels is a weird one. I never really grokked that relationship.

 

[lategamer]

It's not clear to me that film and TV production companies, actors, and directors, arelimited by a shortage of brand.

I know you;re being devils advocate but with that line of reasoning we'd never get anything new. We wouldn't have gotten the Witcher or Fallout.

I would disagree that they've got enough ideas. There is, for all intents and purposes, infinite money for the development of content. Disney being the prime example of a company that has spent millions to maintain billions in profit on content.

At the moment, everyone else is eating WotCs lunch. So it's not surprising they tried to lock it down.

 

[Sharrow]

I guess we disagree majorly on the terms of reference because while there were several poor MCU movies, on the whole they’ve been very good.

Whereas I couldn’t put a finger on a good D&D movie.

I liked the latest one, and thought it was a fine D&D movie.

 

[lategamer]

I liked the latest one, and thought it was a fine D&D movie.

I'll watch it again and see what identifies it as a D&D movie, other than the name.

 

[Sharrow]

...I suspect WW simply didn't think they can take on the law team of True Blood in court?

The True Blood show was based on a series of novels, so for WW to go after it for infringement it'd have to explain how the show was copying WW IP rather than the novels, and the show and novels were different from WW's WoD setting(s) in lots of ways - Vampires and Werewolves being 'out of the closet' for starters. Then there's the difference in what vampire blood does to humans that drink it.

 

[Sharrow]

Hasbro brings nothing, and won't get anything directly. It could get increased exposure, but I suspect the suits won't be happy with it...

When artists are persuaded to do something 'for the exposure', it's generally understood that they're being ripped off. I doubt it'd be any different here.

 

[Voros]

They just made a shitty movie about Pop Tarts. They made a film based on Battleship. Hollywood is obsessed with IP and brands. Hell they remake obscure 70s and 80s horror films that weren't even theatrical hits the first time because they're so afraid of trying something new. D&D brings more to the table than spicy Doritos or whatever the hell that one recent movie was about.

 

[AsenRG]

The True Blood show was based on a series of novels, so for WW to go after it for infringement it'd have to explain how the show was copying WW IP rather than the novels, and the show and novels were different from WW's WoD setting(s) in lots of ways - Vampires and Werewolves being 'out of the closet' for starters. Then there's the difference in what vampire blood does to humans that drink it.

Yeah, but that basically only makes the positions of the True Blood law team stronger!

When artists are persuaded to do something 'for the exposure', it's generally understood that they're being ripped off. I doubt it'd be any different here.

Yeah, except it's fake equivalent.
Why? Because it basically doesn't involve them doing anything. An artist that makes a picture for the exposure is probably being ripped off, true. That's time wasted to produce something he gets no money for, and most artists that need the exposure aren't exactly rich...
If the artist didn't accept the offer, he or she could use the same time and efforts to produce something for sale. Clearly, missed opportunity.

But a company like WotC or WW allowing the use of an IP does nothing, and wastes only the money required for their law team to check the contract and ensure that it can under no conditions limit their rights to use their own material. That's it.
None of their creatives need to do anything extra. They can keep producing books for sale, as they were going to do anyway if the company hadn't accepted the offer!

Clearly, not equivalent, IMO.

And in fact, if the studio wants to, it can hire their members as consultants...

 

[TristramEvans]

The True Blood show was based on a series of novels, so for WW to go after it for infringement it'd have to explain how the show was copying WW IP rather than the novels, and the show and novels were different from WW's WoD setting(s) in lots of ways - Vampires and Werewolves being 'out of the closet' for starters. Then there's the difference in what vampire blood does to humans that drink it.

True Blood is to WoD as The Sword of Shannara is to LOTR. Distinct enough to be identifiable as it's own thing, but everyone knows that they are looking at Xeroxes with some stuff crossed out and changed with a sharpie. Same as Underworld (though I think the White Wolf lawsuit was frivolous, you can't copyright an aesthetic or a Romeo & Juliet with monsters premise - I feel like WW went full GW on that one).

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think True Blood , Underworld, and Sword of Shanana are kinda bad, but not because of being riffs on WW. WoD itself is composed almost entirely on riffs of other works, just like Warhammer. And I've seen WoD riffs handled well. The first Blade film, despite ostensibly being based on the Marvel character, was dripping with White Wolf. The Everlasting is an RPG riff that I like better than White Wolf.

But there is a difference between a riff and a rip-off, the latter being where no creativity or originality is brought to the table. Hence Vampire: Undeath:

Review of Vampire: Undeath - RPGnet RPG Game Index

Anyways, I haven't seen anyone discussing the White Wolf TV show yet, Kindred: The Embraced. Which I watched repeatedly (I recorded the original airings on VHS and then got the completed VHS set after the show's mid season cancellation) fir two reasons: Brigid Brannagh.



teenage me was like "Hello most beautiful woman I had ever seen in my life" (this accolade would eventually be passed to new recipients, up to and ending with my current GF, who is like something that stepped out of my dreams).

I always thought Brigid there would have been a good casting for Red Sonja (the Frank Thorne iteration).

Anyways Kindred was admittedly nooooot a great show. It was OK, but was like a proto-Buffy-that-hadn't-quite-found-the-right-formula (so the Buffy movie). Mixing it with the conventions of early 20s soap opera TV I'm not against in theory (see my obsessive love of Twin Peaks), but they didn't rise above the most mediocre of the genre. Where I think they most failed as an adaption though (the changes to Clans didn't really bother me), is that the World wasn't Dark enough. But would that have made it a success or led to a greater increase in profits for the RPGs? I don;t know. I have a hard time picturing it.

 

[Endless Flight]

(this accolade would eventually be passed to new recipients, up to and ending with my current GF, who is like something that stepped out of my dreams).

 

[robertsconley]

Modern D&D is a ridiculously overwrought system that requires an autistic level of engagement from players. 5e is slightly better than 3rd-4th ed, but it's still needlessly complicated, making itself as much of a chore for players to assimilate as Advanced Squad Leader. There is no modern equivalent to Holmes/The Red Box.

So, if we say that is true, then what? D&D 5e is the worst-selling edition of all time? The observations of what happened don't fit your thesis.

What does fit what we observed are the following.

From 2014 to 2019, D&D 5e was adeptly marketed and produced avoiding many of the issues that plagued 3.X and 4e. Namely by focusing on interesting adventures rather than splat books of kewl powers.

Then from 2020 to 2021, a successful edition was shot into the stratosphere due a combination of popularization due to Critical Role style depictions of actual play, VTTs, and people looking for something to do during the pandemic.

It was during and after this period the brand and the RPG started to be mismanaged. Mainly by ignoring what made it moderately successful up until 2019.

As for an intro to D&D 5e we had the first Phandelver based Starter set and the free online Basic rules. The two in my opinion more than did the job that the red box was trying to do. Phandelver remains one of the top ten D&D adventure campaigns of all time. That first starter set served as a very good tutorial for a total novice to get up to speed with D&D 5e both as a player and a referee.

Despite having cut down rules the starter set referenced the online Basic rules as a source of more information and details. By the mid 2010s the internet was pervasive enough to make this a reasonable creative choice for the brand.

This isn't an issue of monetization tho, simply fans writing stuff for fans. We are in the "fanfic" era of the nostalgia-mined IPs of our youth.

All I can say is that now that we are nearly 20 years into this OSR thing, I am seeing a lot of younger folks doing stuff with it. With D&D 5e it skews even younger.

 

[chuckdee]

But the IP. The books, movies and other entertainment. That’s passive.

Going from active to passive is a lot easier than the other way around. There are a lot of gotchas in the media industry as opposed to the hobby industry. You talk about Marvel, but look at how long it took for them to do it successfully. For them to do it, they had to build a studio, not just dip their toes in. And there was a considerable investment of time and money before Iron Man hit and caught the zeitgeist. This isn't as cut and dried or non-fumble-able as it might seem. e

The new D&D Movie was an excellent introduction to getting it done right. However, there were too many expectations placed on it for a first foray. It needed to be seen as a stepping stone and a loss leader, but I don't think it's going to be seen that way.

 

[lategamer]

Going from active to passive is a lot easier than the other way around. There are a lot of gotchas in the media industry as opposed to the hobby industry.

I think the active/passive thing is a red herring. Or a goose.

You talk about Marvel, but look at how long it took for them to do it successfully. For them to do it, they had to build a studio, not just dip their toes in. And there was a considerable investment of time and money before Iron Man hit and caught the zeitgeist. This isn't as cut and dried or non-fumble-able as it might seem.

People forget the 'pure' Marvel movies before Iron Man. Blade. for instance. That was their taster..

The new D&D Movie was an excellent introduction to getting it done right. However, there were too many expectations placed on it for a first foray. It needed to be seen as a stepping stone and a loss leader, but I don't think it's going to be seen that way.

It's really really generic. I mean it barely involves dungeons and dragons. It mentions some Forgotten Realms words. Neverwinter. Baldurs Gate. Tiefling but that's fan service. It's not instructive.

 

[Willmark]

Out of all of their IP Dragonlance would be the obvious choice for a movie. I’ve seen the cartoon version…

 

[Baulderstone]

Also thinking I've never heard about anybody complaining that Columbo reused quite a few actors over the years. Patrick McGoohan topped the list playing four different murderers, followed by Jack Cassidy and Robert Culp, each playing three.

Far from complaining. The fact that there are four McGoohan episodes is a bonus.

Sci-fi/fantasy shows are especially likely to reuse actors. The use of make-up helps there. It happened a lot on Babylon 5. The same actor played both Ivanova's rabbi and the head of the Rangers in the prequel movie. The Soul Hunter and G'Kar's uncle were the same actor. After the original actor that played Na'Toth left the show, she came back as Sheridan's lawyer in an episode. Even without make-up, the actor that played Morden also played a member of the crew in the pilot. Turning to Farscape, the wife of the actor that played Crichton showed up every season as a different alien.

 

[AsenRG]

Turning to Farscape, the wife of the actor that played Crichton showed up every season as a different alien.

And then fans ask why your aliens are so alike!

 

[Baulderstone]

Out of all of their IP Dragonlance would be the obvious choice for a movie. I’ve seen the cartoon version…

The biggest hurdle to Dragonlance is that it draws so heavily on LotR. Given that the LotR movies still have enormous cultural power 20 years later, it would risk being derided as a rip-off. It's not an insurmountable obstacle. Just something to consider.

I suppose Drizz't has the advantage of being an Elric rip-off, as Elric has never made it to the screen, and even the books seem to have diminished in visibility since I was young.

 

[Baulderstone]

And then fans ask why your aliens are so alike!

She actually gives very different performances in each part. Between that and makeup, I never would have known without Wikipedia.

 

[TristramEvans]

So, if we say that is true, then what? D&D 5e is the worst-selling edition of all time? The observations of what happened don't fit your thesis.

um no, I didn't say anything about 5e's sales, so it wasn't a part of my thesis, you're on to a different topic.

Not that you can't make observations and suppositions based on sales (as you do), but it's just not a response to my thesis.

 

[Lofgeornost]

And then there is Jeffrey Combs, who played nine different characters in DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and Lower Decks: three different Ferengi, one Vorta (or four, if you count different clones), one Andorian, one human, two humanoid aliens of unidentified species, and an A.I.

 

[chuckdee]

People forget the 'pure' Marvel movies before Iron Man. Blade. for instance. That was their taster..

Not really. That was accident. They weren't really building at that point- just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it stuck. That's the reason they got progressively worse.

 

[chuckdee]

I think the active/passive thing is a red herring. Or a goose.

Not really. There's something to be said for consuming (passive) vs creating (active). And it definitely harder to get people involved in creating vs consuming.

 

[chuckdee]

It's really really generic. I mean it barely involves dungeons and dragons. It mentions some Forgotten Realms words. Neverwinter. Baldurs Gate. Tiefling but that's fan service. It's not instructive.

And that's how you get started. How much of the world at large did Iron Man mention before the end credits stinger? Nothing. They hung it all on RDJ just as they were trying to hang everything on Chris Pine. The first movies in the MCU were wildly different and didn't have a cohesive plot nor story, other than end credits stingers. Captain America First Avenger? Iron Man? Thor? They were all radically different in approach and tone. Other than little things thrown in (Hawkeye in Thor, Nick Fury in CA and Iron Man) they were totally separate and might as well not have been in the same world.

 

[robertsconley]

um no, I didn't say anything about 5e's sales, so it wasn't a part of my thesis, you're on to a different topic.

Not that you can't make observations and suppositions based on sales (as you do), but it's just not a response to my thesis.

No as # of sales is the closest thing we have to measure number of users. Especially over a sustained period of time. RPGs that are "a ridiculously overwrought system that requires an autistic level of engagement from players" would have trouble being used by a large number of hobbyists over a sustained period of time.

Since D&D 5e has been used by a large number of hobbyists over a sustained period of time it highly it is likely not "a ridiculously overwrought system that requires an autistic level of engagement from players". Nor is it impenetrable to newbies as you claim.

And that fact you compared D&D 5e to Advanced Squad Leader further weakens your argument. The two are nothing alike in terms of complexity or detail. Speaking as someone who played ASL and SFB.

 

[lategamer]

And that's how you get started. How much of the world at large did Iron Man mention before the end credits stinger? Nothing.

They opened with a nice taster of the violence to come and a massive exposition about who Tony Stark was.

I mean, characters are part of it but as the DCU shows, writing is more important.

They hung it all on RDJ just as they were trying to hang everything on Chris Pine. The first movies in the MCU were wildly different and didn't have a cohesive plot nor story, other than end credits stingers. Captain America First Avenger? Iron Man? Thor? They were all radically different in approach and tone. Other than little things thrown in (Hawkeye in Thor, Nick Fury in CA and Iron Man) they were totally separate and might as well not have been in the same world.

Yup. But we know with the end credit scenes that it was building to something.

 

[lategamer]

Not really. That was accident. They weren't really building at that point- just throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it stuck. That's the reason they got progressively worse.

Blade

Budget	$45 million
Box office	$131.2 million

Blade 2

Budget	$54 million
Box office	$155 million

Blade 3

Budget	$65 million
Box office	$132 million

Pretty respectable for wall-spaghetti.

 

[Voros]

Blade

Budget	$45 million
Box office	$131.2 million

Blade 2

Budget	$54 million
Box office	$155 million

Blade 3

Budget	$65 million
Box office	$132 million

Pretty respectable for wall-spaghetti.

Blade 2 is directed by Guillmero Del Toro and is an absolute blast. Blows the other films, and many of the MCU films, out of the water.

Punisher: War Zone by Lexi Alexander is a messy, ultraviolent exploitation actioner that is clearly inspired by Ennis' run and has a significant cult following among action and exploitation fans.

 

[TristramEvans]

No as # of sales is the closest thing we have to measure number of users.

Which is significantly less than the audiences that iD&D is being compared to. Like, you can say "D&D 5th edition is the best selling RPG of all time" and that is a factual statement that means ...it's the best selling RPG of all time. Do sales correlate to quality? Demonstrably not, so if you said it was "the BEST RPG published, that would be an opinion based on your personal standard that popularity = "best", but it would not be an objective way of assessing the game's value.

But the reason your thesis has nothing to do with my thesis, is because yours doesn't address the context of the assertion: why D&D is not as successful as Harry Potter and Star Wars? The OPs assertion is that the reason for this is under-monetization, which I'm not sure to what degree I agree with. But my proposal, my "thesis" is that one reason is that D&D's mass appeal is limited by their own presentation.

Is that enough to make it a cultural phenomenon? No, I don;t think so, because the reasons those exist are a combination of luck, timing, catching the zeitgeist, and a host of socio-psychological factors that are not within any creator's ability to control. Hence why I described the OP's question as "why didn't D&D win the lottery?" But the baseline of the question is looking at the success of 5th edition and saying "not good enough".

So you are affirming that it is successful in comparison to itself, and a niche hobby it has dominated for over 40 years, which...fine. Nobody, especially not myself is arguing with that. But you aren't addressing or even taking part in the conversation about why that success is not to another level of success.

You can propose reasons for that, and possible fixes, you can even debate the reasons or fixes that I give, but you can't do either if what you're talking about doesn't leave an argument that no one is having in regards to D&D 5e's sales. It's just, as I said, a completely different conversation.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

And that's how you get started. How much of the world at large did Iron Man mention before the end credits stinger? Nothing. They hung it all on RDJ just as they were trying to hang everything on Chris Pine. The first movies in the MCU were wildly different and didn't have a cohesive plot nor story, other than end credits stingers. Captain America First Avenger? Iron Man? Thor? They were all radically different in approach and tone. Other than little things thrown in (Hawkeye in Thor, Nick Fury in CA and Iron Man) they were totally separate and might as well not have been in the same world.

It was indeed a much better way of doing things. As someone who doesn't watch each and every Marvel movie coming out, the approach of tying them all together is not a good thing. For example, I've watched all three Guardians of the Galaxy movies. The third one explicit referenced something that happened in the last Avengers, which I haven't seen, so I was a bit confused at the start of that movie.
I also think it gives the producers/directors of Marvel movies a lot more freedom, if there isn't some overarching story to everything.

 

[CRKrueger]

Not sure the lack of movies is TSR/WotC fault. Amazon did great with the Fallout series, but Rings of Power was an abomination, not to mention the 40k hilarity, and even GoT started the nosedive into Season 8 once the TV writers had passed GRRM. On the movie front, even Jackson is responsible for the tomato scene.

Writers and Directors have to understand and respect the source material if they are going to adapt it. Changes for the adaptation and the format are one thing, changes out of ignorance or personal agendas or outright hatred of the genre and it's fans are something else entirely.

Hollywood doing Dragonlance would have probably been a disaster (especially if they knew about the Mormon trappings). The new movie was technically Realms, but really was just using a couple of tags for easter eggs. They managed to capture the D&D experience without worrying about the IP.

The last thing any creative product needs is for corporate to turn it into a IP-building brand exercise. Corporification of the creative process is why the dead and mouldering corpses of decades old IPs are being dug up and raped again and again instead of developing anything new.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

Anyways, I haven't seen anyone discussing the White Wolf TV show yet, Kindred: The Embraced. Which I watched repeatedly (I recorded the original airings on VHS and then got the completed VHS set after the show's mid season cancellation) fir two reasons: Brigid Brannagh.

View attachment 81769

teenage me was like "Hello most beautiful woman I had ever seen in my life" (this accolade would eventually be passed to new recipients, up to and ending with my current GF, who is like something that stepped out of my dreams).

I always thought Brigid there would have been a good casting for Red Sonja (the Frank Thorne iteration).

Anyways Kindred was admittedly nooooot a great show. It was OK, but was like a proto-Buffy-that-hadn't-quite-found-the-right-formula (so the Buffy movie). Mixing it with the conventions of early 20s soap opera TV I'm not against in theory (see my obsessive love of Twin Peaks), but they didn't rise above the most mediocre of the genre. Where I think they most failed as an adaption though (the changes to Clans didn't really bother me), is that the World wasn't Dark enough. But would that have made it a success or led to a greater increase in profits for the RPGs? I don;t know. I have a hard time picturing it.

I like Kindred: The Embraced. It was good enough for what it was; a drama show with vampires. It had pretty women and hot men. Damm Mark Frankel (Julian Luna) was hot.

 

[CRKrueger]

I’m still not sold they can monetize it with this virtual table top like they think they can do.

They can, if it's priced right for its audience. They also might be doing an Ahab, a "whale hunt". If they hit the sweet spot with affluent lifestyle brand gamers, completionists, and "look how cool I am for having all the D&D content" assholes, they might not need mass appeal, if they get a large enough core of "buy it all" customers.

I'm sure they'll overreach and have all the subtlety of a crack addict, with microtransactions for every possible rule exception.