http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/toon/20080401a
Once the dwarf apears I could barely stop laughing. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's not a dragonborn but rather the newly designed Troglodite, either way he's a gas.
the stamping of the folders was alright, prob. the best part.
also agree that it's the troglodyte (smell "jokes" and all)
kind of surprised that there didn't seem to be an iota of 4e info in there, but oh well ... expectations (both info and funnyness) weren't very high after the last videos anyway
EDIT: hmm, high will defense for trogs? - i guess that's something
not very funny. found myself not laughing at all.
the stamping of the folders was alright, prob. the best part.
also agree that it's the troglodyte (smell "jokes" and all)
kind of surprised that there didn't seem to be an iota of 4e info in there, but oh well ... expectations (both info and funnyness) weren't very high after the last videos anyway
EDIT: hmm, high will defense for trogs? - i guess that's something
And Mind Flayers apparently choose if their mind blast will be used to Enthrall the target or deal damage (so the brain can be eaten), but I think we had a mind flayer preview previously, so that's nothing new.
Like the other cartoons, not funny on the first watch, but I know I'll be quoting it later.
Oh, and yes, that's a Troglodyte - it says so on his folder when it's stamped.
Of course the gnome was just Adam sitting in to make some silly comments.
I guess then the GCube would be Adam's litle anti-walking device he always rides around in.
The troglodyte/whatever must have been Kari Byron in disguise from the flatus episode.
Which leaves you to wonder was the dwarf Grant or Tory? Do you go for the size comparison or the beard growing ability?
These toons are not in the least something that is promoting the articles or the game well. If they were for a cartoon show or video game they might be good. but for D&D which is mostly presented as a collection of gaming books, you really don't have much in the way of flash or other animation in the books. Some people prefer static text to read at their own leisure unlike all these videos and podcasts with no textual information to look at at your own speed.
They are funny little things and poke fun of the new edition very well to draw attention to it. Hopefully it isn't drawing the wrong attention.
I'm a monster...Ggrrr
I've been doing it for years... and long overdue I might add. :D
[FOOD]
And Mind Flayers apparently choose if their mind blast will be used to Enthrall the target or deal damage (so the brain can be eaten), but I think we had a mind flayer preview previously, so that's nothing new.
Kinda sorta on the Mind Flayer. From the preview in Worlds and Monsters, Mind Flayers get mind blast as an encounter ability, and once they've hit with a tentacle grab (their basic attack), they can choose to either have a nice grey matter snack or make the target their thrall.
All in all, it had about as much new information as the first cartoon did, although there might be some more tidbits in what the interviewees say (can't hear them all too well while I'm at work). What I could hear/see was funny, though :D
My fav. remains as the 2nd... then the first.
"I'm a monster, RAWR!"
[FOOD]
"glub blub blub glug" (with gnome inside)
[THRALL]
"glub blub blub glug" (with fruit bowl inside)
[DESSERT]
"glub blub blub glug" (with gnome inside)
[THRALL]
"glub blub blub glug" (with fruit bowl inside)
[DESSERT]
That little exchange in the movie is what I still keep laughing at, and now I've watched it 3 times.
The gnome/tiefling episode is my favorite one, still.
Now lets cast Haste on all of you and get one out before Fall, eh?
Nice job!
(but get the mags up to par first, so I'll actually pay for insider and be able to watch the toons).
These little toons are incredibly childish. Why is D&D dumbing down the game?
The cartoons do NOT equal the game.
These little toons are incredibly childish. Why is D&D dumbing down the game?
What's New with Phil and Dixie, Wormy, Dork Tower, Nodwick, Order of the Stick, you remember any of those? You know the comics that ran in Dragon Magazine? Yeah, same thing.
Really though as all those can now be found online I wish that Dragon kept some exclusive webcomics of its own in addition to the cartoons, but as I can go read each of those (save Wormy) on their own sites no biggy.
Upon another watch through I noticed the names and races on the various files getting stamped. That is indeed a trog, Jeremy the Troglodyte, along with Mike the Human, Derek the Troll, Stephen the Gelatinous Cube, and Daniel, the Dwarf FTW!
Yeah, that was great. I have a lot of players pick generic real world names for their characters instead of the seemingly random rythm of sounds that passes for fantasy names. Both can be ridiculous. Maybe in 4e we'll see no more Mialees and Tordeks and more Douglases and Amandas.
What's New with Phil and Dixie, Wormy, Dork Tower, Nodwick, Order of the Stick, you remember any of those? You know the comics that ran in Dragon Magazine? Yeah, same thing.
Nope, not the same. The others you mention have a distinctly grown-up humor about them and are clearly targeted for adults. Ugly-art gnomes cheerfully spouting "I'm a monster, rawr!", and quivering gelatinous cubes eating said gnome... that's reminiscent of the jokes told by 8-9 yr old kids. These were poor, and it's clear that D&D is aiming for a non-adult audience.
The British humor used in the cartoon is by no means dumbing down the game, if anything it's making it more sophisticated.
Fart jokes are sophisticated now? (Aside from that, I though it was great, especially the "Food" "Food" "Food" moment.)
The British humor used in the cartoon is by no means dumbing down the game, if anything it's making it more sophisticated.
This isn't "British humor", and it's far from sophisticated. Monty Python, Black Adder, Fawlty Towers, AbFab, Mr. Bean... those are British humor, and they have an adult sophistication to them.
Nope, not the same. The others you mention have a distinctly grown-up humor about them and are clearly targeted for adults. Ugly-art gnomes cheerfully spouting "I'm a monster, rawr!", and quivering gelatinous cubes eating said gnome... that's reminiscent of the jokes told by 8-9 yr old kids. These were poor, and it's clear that D&D is aiming for a non-adult audience.
yup the same... order of the stick has dumb jokes, http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0379.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0389.html
yea, those are real adult, come to think of it,
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0438.html
yea "I'm a monster Rawr" was dumb, so are most of my fav web comics though. if they are not your cup of tea...OK, there is no arguement that can make you like them. HOWEVER...I know no 8-9 year old role-players, My friends run the spectrum 21-40... something, and They all LOLed... so many people liked it and see it as the same, I just wish I had a link to the old paper issues "no one will ever take castle Nerf"
"Bonzi.." followed by a mob of multi colored rabbits attacking
yup the same... order of the stick has dumb jokes, ...
Sorry, but OotS outclasses these "made you look!" pre-teen toons by about a million to one.
Nope, not the same. The others you mention have a distinctly grown-up humor about them and are clearly targeted for adults. Ugly-art gnomes cheerfully spouting "I'm a monster, rawr!", and quivering gelatinous cubes eating said gnome... that's reminiscent of the jokes told by 8-9 yr old kids. These were poor, and it's clear that D&D is aiming for a non-adult audience.
Did you ever read Nodwick? Fart jokes and things getting eaten (particularly Nodwick) were staples. Face it you've made up your mind to hate it and are seeing the past through rose colored glasses. Really the level of humor is about the same.
Did you ever read Nodwick? Fart jokes and things getting eaten (particularly Nodwick) were staples. Face it you've made up your mind to hate it and are seeing the past through rose colored glasses. Really the level of humor is about the same.
I never followed Nodwick, really. Sorry about that.
As to being in the past with "rose colored glasses", other people (oh yeah - you) brought up Phil & Dixie, Wormy and OotS. And OotS isn't a "past" comic by any means... it's a current online comic with a huge following.
In any case, if you don't like negative opinions, maybe you should try ignoring them.
In any case, if you don't like negative opinions, maybe you should try ignoring them.
What's New had running gags about having sex in the comic, and it's biggest strip was about a scampish plushy-like dragon running amok. I mean, if that isn't nine-year old's humor, I don't know what is.
Nodwick had entire strips dedicated to farts
Dragonmirth was a strip based almost entirely on puns.
I really don't think the video cartoons compare disfavorably on maturity.
On a humor level? That's opinion, on which reasonable minds can (but sadly often don't) differ without being insulting. Me? I enjoy the videos, though I miss the strips.
Sorry, but OotS outclasses these "made you look!" pre-teen toons by about a million to one.
wow..I agree with you
I think OotSis like a 9 out of 10, these online cartoons are like 6.5 maybe 7 but they are still both childish humor, and once agian... CASTLE NERF... or any of the Nordwick comics, you don't like these, fine, there are many strips I didn't like (Zooanger) and ones I thought were alright but could have been done better (downer) but the base is the same.However if you like online comics try these, and let me know what you think...I warn you I put them in the same childish catagory I do with OotS...
Looking for group
Goblins...life through there eyes
DM of the ring
dndorks.com
Between them and order of the stick those are my D&D like comic fixes, and all of them share some really funny things, so I also see them in the cartoon. If you look through these and let me know what you think maybe we can understand eachother a little more... or worst case you might get a laugh or two out of it...
...However if you like online comics try these, and let me know what you think...I warn you I put them in the same childish catagory I do with OotS...
Heh... you "warn" me? Oh-tay then... :whatsthis
Is it really necessary that I explain my negative opinion in detail?
Is it really necessary that I explain my negative opinion in detail?
Quite the opposite. It would have been much better if you had not tried to justify how you categorize childish and nonchildish humor at all. Just say the cartoon isn't your cup of tea and leave it at that.
Quite the opposite. It would have been much better if you had not tried to justify how you categorize childish and nonchildish humor at all. Just say the cartoon isn't your cup of tea and leave it at that.
Well, thanks for letting us know exactly how people "should" express their negative opinions. Maybe you should get started on a form, and make it really detailed so people don't affront the wrong sensibilities.
The stampings and re-stampings were funny, especially for gelatinous cube. I liked seeing the gnome get labeled as food and then consumed by the cube, because let's face it, that gnome needed to die again. I like the animation style.
The voice acting was kind of annoying, doubly so with the unequalized volume problem: the dwarf's voice was really soft, while the mind flayer's slurping was too loud. I wasn't a fan of the fart jokes, not because they were crude or childish (they were), but because they just weren't really that funny. Not really sure why, but probably because they didn't have the punch to them that the dwarf or cube had. The trog just seemed to drag through the explanation and his insecurities, I guess.
Overall, not too bad, but I do want to see more 4e info in these things. :P
Well, thanks for letting us know exactly how people "should" express their negative opinions.
You put "should" in quotes and yet I didn't use that word. Perhaps you quoted the wrong person.
And if you don't want people to answer your questions, don't ask questions. (Questions are traditionally indicated with question marks, such as the one you placed at the end of the sentence: "Is it really necessary that I explain my negative opinion in detail?")
Maybe you should get started on a form, and make it really detailed so people don't affront the wrong sensibilities.
If I were to start such a form, the first sentence might be "Don't criticize something for immaturity if you're not planning to act maturely yourself." That seems to be a common problem among those who make such complaints. The second one might be, "People who write 'if you don't like negative opinions, maybe you should try ignoring them' too often fail to take their own advice." Sadly, I fear such a form would fall on deaf ears. But thanks for the suggestion anyway! :D
I am sorry to hear that this third effort still appears to have complaints of display, the first clearly understandable, the 2nd slightly less so, however this the third in months of work after concerns about the first two still gets that complaint is not encouraging at all.
I have no opinion on the content as I have not viewed it yet, though I am not impressed by the described topic.
I will not complain or praise about what I have not seen, my comments are based on comments made about the offer. If you will opinions on opinions.
Overall one clearly should accept that what is funny to one person is not funny to another. Also one might recall that after the first was posted someone from WotC had posted the "toon" was not to reveal 4th Edition material, that some indications of direction of 4th was going was a bonus. A toon often reflects the mood of the time where a humorist uses to make a comic. Sometimes the "jokes" are insider to an incident that the general public would not understand.
All in all it does help if you play nice on the internet or anyplace else, but each decides on when to do so.
You put "should" in quotes and yet I didn't use that word. Perhaps you quoted the wrong person.
And if you don't want people to answer your questions, don't ask questions. (Questions are traditionally indicated with question marks, such as the one you placed at the end of the sentence: "Is it really necessary that I explain my negative opinion in detail?")
If I were to start such a form, the first sentence might be "Don't criticize something for immaturity if you're not planning to act maturely yourself." That seems to be a common problem among those who make such complaints. The second one might be, "People who write 'if you don't like negative opinions, maybe you should try ignoring them' too often fail to take their own advice." Sadly, I fear such a form would fall on deaf ears. But thanks for the suggestion anyway! :D
The sheer beauty of your response, cloaked as it is in a veil of civility, is that it perfectly demonstrates the fact that you're just as much a "black kettle" as I am a "black pot". The difference is that you're approaching this from a passive aggressive stance, and a dishonest one. At least I expressed my honest opinion. As with all people who argue against negative opinions, you're demonstrating control issues more than anything else.
In any case... have a lovely whatever. Or don't, I don't really care.
\it perfectly demonstrates the fact that you're just as much a "black kettle" as I am a "black pot". The difference is...
No, the difference is that I didn't come into this discussion arrogantly claiming that I had a more mature sophistication than others in a way that demonstrated that I was in fact a whiny crybaby. I didn't get angry at negative comments by hypocritically telling others to ignore negative comments they didn't like. (I don't have a problem with negative comments.) I also don't ask questions I don't want to hear answers to.
At least I expressed my honest opinion.
Quite the contrary. Your opinion was self-contradictory and a thinly veiled (and ultimately failed) attempt to show how much more mature you were than everybody else. And like many people who don't like to see their own weaknesses you lashed out in anger and denial.
In any case... have a lovely whatever. Or don't, I don't really care.
Oh, but the fact that you keep responding shows how much you do care about how others on this board perceive you.
Still... I *HEART* Jeremy. I gotta figure a way to sneak him into the Ebberon game in a bar somewhere. Along with Pervish cooking.
The gnome bit was funny since it was making fun of people calling the race a "monster" now since it is in the Monster Manual. That is silly because they were in the other MMs and never were called a monster then. I never called an orc a "monster" but it only ever appeared in the MM. Just like the other toons that made fun of the internet responses to 4E this hist the mark for me. I would like to see a FR cartoon that lampoons the "true fans" of that setting but I don't there would be enough of an audience for it.
Plus every gamer young and old I know likes fart jokes. This one guy I game with hates sooooo much stuff and thinks shows like the Office is unfunny but still likes fart jokes. Go to a con, are gamers really that highbrow? Let's not fool ourselves here folks. Hell even a WOD fan likes fart jokes.
By the way its British humour not humor (God dang Yanks dropping vowels all over the place). ;)
Sorry Mr Bean sophisticated!?! That’s funnier than the cartoon! A TV show about a child-like man who makes grunting noises and gurns for all his worth and that’s sophisticated!?! A fart joke is childish but no more so than a man getting his underpants caught in his trouser zip. I’m not saying that Mr Bean isn’t funny (personally I think it’s the worse thing Mr Atkinson has ever done), but sophisticated it aint.
By the way its British humour not humor (God dang Yanks dropping vowels all over the place). ;)
Rowan Atkinson is best in movies where Hugh Grant is also in them. Seriously, Mr. Bean is pretty lame, but his turn as the stuttering priest in Four Weddings and a Funeral, or the Jewelry Store Salesman in Love Actually, were pretty damn funny.
Rowan Atkinson is best in movies where Hugh Grant is also in them. Seriously, Mr. Bean is pretty lame, but his turn as the stuttering priest in Four Weddings and a Funeral, or the Jewelry Store Salesman in Love Actually, were pretty damn funny.
I would say that his best work tends to be period pieces, (Blackadder anyone?)
Sorry Mr Bean sophisticated!?! That’s funnier than the cartoon! A TV show about a child-like man who makes grunting noises and gurns for all his worth and that’s sophisticated!?! A fart joke is childish but no more so than a man getting his underpants caught in his trouser zip. I’m not saying that Mr Bean isn’t funny (personally I think it’s the worse thing Mr Atkinson has ever done), but sophisticated it aint.
By the way its British humour not humor (God dang Yanks dropping vowels all over the place). ;)
Of all the ones I mentioned, even Mr. Bean has two levels of humor - children think it's funny for the silly faces, his physical humor, etc. But there's an adult-sided humor to it as well. In that regard, it's a bit like the old Bugs Bunny cartoons - children and adults find it funny... but (usually) for different reasons.
That being said as a Brit I am not sure I get the original reference that the cartoon had a British style. I thought that compared to the first two it was the best they have put out. Really I am not expecting stunning pieces of humour here, but it made me smile – so I think it worked.
None of my players found this cartoon funny at all.
(Nor was this year's April Fool's day bit very funny, though it was funnier than the cartoons.)
I am open-minded towards 4th Edition, and although I realize that the cartoons have nothing to do with the rules of 4th Edition, it makes it more difficult to persuade my players to be open-minded about the new edition when they associate it with these very un-funny cartoons.
I have posted this opinion in the hope that Wizards will consider the fact that they might further annoy (and thus alienate) players who are skeptical about the new edition.
I did not find this cartoon funny at all.
None of my players found this cartoon funny at all.
(Nor was this year's April Fool's day bit very funny, though it was funnier than the cartoons.)
I am open-minded towards 4th Edition, and although I realize that the cartoons have nothing to do with the rules of 4th Edition, it makes it more difficult to persuade my players to be open-minded about the new edition when they associate it with these very un-funny cartoons.
I have posted this opinion in the hope that Wizards will consider the fact that they might further annoy (and thus alienate) players who are skeptical about the new edition.
A cartoon on a website is a pretty flimsy reason not to play a game. A person who is so easily persuaded to pass on a game is probably not going to play that game anyway.
And can I say something here? I've been in the gaming industry for 8 years now, and I've noticed that whenever a game company does anything, some players will use the "stop doing this or people will stop playing/buying/considering your game!!" hyperbothreat. That threat has been so overused, game industry types like me typically just ignore it. It's fine to have a negative opinion of a decision or product, but speak for yourself. I guarantee your opinion will hold more weight if you do. And threats (veiled or otherwise) are just not an effective way to get someone to see your side of things.
And if I could write comedy that every single person would find funny, I would be a multi-millionaire comedy writer, not the mono-millionaire game designer I am today! :P
And if I could write comedy that every single person would find funny, I would be a multi-millionaire comedy writer, not the mono-millionaire game designer I am today! :P
All I am trying to figure out now is why a millionaire is even working at all, that should be enough money to live on and enjoy *wink* Also I did not believe game designers got paid that much.
I do not intend to stop buying Wizards of the Coasts products as a result of this cartoon, and never indicated that I would.
I presume that WotC intends for these cartoons to amuse players and to promote 4th Edition using humor. Where many other people who have posted are concerned, this appears to have been effective.
I have stated that with "my players"---whom, I clarify, are six people I have known very well for a long period of time---these cartoons have not been effective at promoting 4th Edition, because we did not find them funny.
I do not see any reason why I cannot express my opinion and my observation of the opinions of several other people I know very well. We could be the only seven people who have ever seen the cartoons who didn't find them funny. Nevertheless, to us, this was not an effective way of promoting 4th Edition.
RyanM, I'm sure that you worked hard on the cartoons and a lot of people have found them funny. I believe you principally objected to my "trying to make my messageboard vote count for more" by mentioning the opinions of my players. I have not misrepresented the opinions of my players, but, on the other hand, I think I understand what you are saying. You are correct that I should speak solely for myself and rely on them to post their own opinions, because it makes it appear that I am threatening to "take my players elsewhere." I am not. I still intend on persuading them to play 4th Edition, and they will probably come around (unless the rules actually turn out to be bad).
My own, personal, opinion remains that more frequent solid-information preview articles on 4th Edition would be a better way of promoting 4th Edition to me than cartoons, given the highly subjective nature of humor. Obviously, these are not mutually exclusive, but lately, with April Fools day and all, it seems like there's been a lot of jokes about 4th Edition on the web-page and not a lot of new information about it.
If I may be so bold as to speculate on part of the reason why the cartoons haven't gone over well in my group, I believe it is because the edition change itself is somewhat of a sensitive issue (i.e. some people have bought a great deal of books, others none; some love the old rules, some desire improvement; etc.) and therefore ANY "official" jokes about the issue probably aren't going to go over well. More frequent previews of the new rules might persuade the reticent players, where jokes about the gnome being in the Monster Manual might simply aggravate them (since some people still don't like this decision).
I normally don't like answering back on a thread, but I hope that clarifies my opinion.
On the whole, I really don't like these cartoons either. It really does suggest that WotC is aiming for a much younger demographic than we've previously seen.
I am really sick to the back teeth of people in their late twenties and thirties whining that the game is being marketed at the younger generation. First off learn to read and look at the back of the players guide it tells you what age ranges are recommended to play the game. Second get off your high horses - so what if kids want to play the game, doesn’t mean you have to play with them! Most of us played as kids, I see no reason to suggest that this should change.
To FaintestInklingBAC – You might not have intended to suggest that the cartoons were putting new players or converts off, but that was regrettably the impression you gave.
Really people lighten up it’s a freaking cartoon, shown on one website. Not everyone is going to like it, but then again you never get something that everyone likes.
I'm really uspet about the low amount of content on Insider. My opinion is that, while comics/toons certainly have their place in the zines, there should be a lot more than just them.
It may be that these comics are not as highly regarded as they otherwise should/might be because they are seen as a "waste of resources".
Now by that I don't mean they're not worth doing, not by a longshot. However, I personally would prefer a whole lot more crunch than humor.
To use an analogy, it's like putting a spoiler and spinners on a Yugo: buy a quality car first, and then pimp it out. No one wants a car that's all bling and breaks down every few miles.
But, to end on a positive note, please keep these toons coming. They're hillarious.
however, as i've said before, i don't like any of the videos (the third is the least bad, so i suppose it's technically my favourite), but if they were just a small part of what was being put up on the site, i wouldn't mind (like how i didn't mind the magic online weekly article on the mtg website)
Bane on a freaking bike! Not the whole D&D is being aimed at kids crud again!!! As shown in an informal poll most of us started when we were kids and it’s a hobby where we play act at being people from stories and fairy tales it has always appealed to kids.
I am really sick to the back teeth of people in their late twenties and thirties whining that the game is being marketed at the younger generation. First off learn to read and look at the back of the players guide it tells you what age ranges are recommended to play the game. Second get off your high horses - so what if kids want to play the game, doesn’t mean you have to play with them! Most of us played as kids, I see no reason to suggest that this should change.
hey, not everyone who thinks these videos are childish is an old fogey. i'm 19, and i do (as well as many of my friends, who are my age or younger - but i'd best not bring them up, lest i be accused of raising the count)
Like that little grey brain the mind flayer was squeezing? That's a gleemax promotional brain. I got one at Gen Con.
:D
One, how people didn't find it funny - it was hilarious. Especially the revisit of "I'm a monster - Rargh!"
Two, how people have the audacity to be so down-putting and rude about Wizards' staff's efforts in producing something funny for us.
I've been with D&D since AD&D 1st edition (just barely) and I remember cartoons from the earliest Yamara to the most recent Order of the Stick. This cartoon would have fit in happily with any of them. I also think those that object to the cartoon as "childish" are also likely in the stages of trying to distance themselves from being childish whilst older people probably don't care.
I enjoyed it as I'm certain a lot of other people did as well. And I don't want the people who produced it not doing more things like this because they think the reward for their work (and I'm sure it took a while) is a bunch of people having a go at them for being too childish, not being funny and - most dumbfounding criticism of all - not containing enough new information about 4th edition rules.
Great work whoever did this. Love all the little details, love the revisiting of previous characters and love the little characterisations such as the Mind Flayer double stamping the dwarf when he starts going into his sex story. :rotfl:
I don't get two things:
One, how people didn't find it funny - it was hilarious. Especially the revisit of "I'm a monster - Rargh!"
It was sort of cute, but it wasn't terribly funny. Didn't come close to "hilarious" for me, sorry. Different sense of humor, I guess.
My first thought was, "How does an Illithid eat a gelatinous cube's brain anyway?"
Fart jokes are sophisticated now? (Aside from that, I though it was great, especially the "Food" "Food" "Food" moment.)
ROTFL
"glub blub blub glug" (with gnome inside)
[THRALL]
"glub blub blub glug" (with fruit bowl inside)
[DESSERT]
Hahahaha! It was the best scene of the movie:D
Gotta love the little details.
Like that little grey brain the mind flayer was squeezing? That's a gleemax promotional brain. I got one at Gen Con.
:D
Nooo!!! Really?!! I can't believe it! O_O
I want it!! *.*
Gotta love the little details.
Like that little grey brain the mind flayer was squeezing? That's a gleemax promotional brain. I got one at Gen Con.
:D
Sorry to sidetrack, but did they ever give more details on the squeezy brain? I never did quite figure out why they mailed me one, or what the writing on it was supposed to mean. Anyone?
Sorry to sidetrack, but did they ever give more details on the squeezy brain? I never did quite figure out why they mailed me one, or what the writing on it was supposed to mean. Anyone?
There used to be a really good article on wikipedia about the line of jokes that originally spawned "Gleemax" but that article has been heavily truncated it seems.
All the same, the "short" version is that all the forums now exist as part of "gleemax" WotC attempt to create a gameing-centric social networking website. www.gleemax.com for more.
As someone who really has enjoyed all three cartoons so far, I can understand a bit of where faintestinkling is coming from.
I'm really uspet about the low amount of content on Insider. My opinion is that, while comics/toons certainly have their place in the zines, there should be a lot more than just them.
It may be that these comics are not as highly regarded as they otherwise should/might be because they are seen as a "waste of resources".
Now by that I don't mean they're not worth doing, not by a longshot. However, I personally would prefer a whole lot more crunch than humor.
To use an analogy, it's like putting a spoiler and spinners on a Yugo: buy a quality car first, and then pimp it out. No one wants a car that's all bling and breaks down every few miles.
But, to end on a positive note, please keep these toons coming. They're hillarious.
Y'know, I've always wondered about that particular statement, that the WotC staff should be doing something more crunchy...
Thing is, though... isn't the guy who does the cartoons a Freelancer who doesn't really DO any other work for WotC? (His name on the forums IS RyanM, not WotC_RyanM...) If so, the only resource the cartoons are costing is money.
If I may be so bold as to speculate on part of the reason why the cartoons haven't gone over well in my group, I believe it is because the edition change itself is somewhat of a sensitive issue (i.e. some people have bought a great deal of books, others none; some love the old rules, some desire improvement; etc.) and therefore ANY "official" jokes about the issue probably aren't going to go over well. More frequent previews of the new rules might persuade the reticent players, where jokes about the gnome being in the Monster Manual might simply aggravate them (since some people still don't like this decision).
I normally don't like answering back on a thread, but I hope that clarifies my opinion.
Yep, that's much clearer, thanks!!
I think you hit the nail on the head - many folks are sensitive about the new edition, and I think some people take my attempts at humor as me poking fun at their sensitivity, which is not my intention at all. Serioulsy, we just wanted to make some fun cartoons, they are not intended to signal a shift in the direction of D&D or anything like that. But I can understand how some would take it that way.
Y'know, I've always wondered about that particular statement, that the WotC staff should be doing something more crunchy...
Thing is, though... isn't the guy who does the cartoons a Freelancer who doesn't really DO any other work for WotC? (His name on the forums IS RyanM, not WotC_RyanM...) If so, the only resource the cartoons are costing is money.
I'm a game designer here at Wizards, but I don't work on D&D. I'm currently working on new digital games for gleemax.com. This means that your statement is true - these cartoons aren't competing with 4E for resources, other than the negligable cost to make them.