Live Action D&D Television Series in the Works.

[Kitten Champion]

Aside from the movie that's coming in early 2022, Hasbro and co. have expressed their intent to move forward on a television series based on the Dungeons and Dragons IP. Though they're in the very early stages of production such that they don't even have a direction they're going in yet.

Here's the article from comicbook.com. Though, again, not much to it at this point.

Apparently the pandemic has led to another surge in D&D's popularity, which I've heard of anecdotally though their sales figures do back that up. So it's a strike while the iron is hot deal for Hasbro.

Personally I was half-expecting an animated series from them at some point - probably a reboot of the old cartoon - and technically that could still happen if the dollar signs are there. Still, there's been a glut of these live-action fantasy series post-Game of Thrones and there are still more on the horizon, so this is pretty on trend.

[Bartmanhomer]

Aside from the movie that's coming in early 2022, Hasbro and co. have expressed their intent to move forward on a television series based on the Dungeons and Dragons IP. Though they're in the very early stages of production such that they don't even have a direction they're going in yet.

Here's the article from comicbook.com. Though, again, not much to it at this point.

Apparently the pandemic has led to another surge in D&D's popularity, which I've heard of anecdotally though their sales figures do back that up. So it's a strike while the iron is hot deal for Hasbro.

Personally I was half-expecting an animated series from them at some point - probably a reboot of the old cartoon - and technically that could still happen if the dollar signs are there. Still, there's been a glut of these live-action fantasy series post-Game of Thrones and there are still more on the horizon, so this is pretty on trend.

Yay! I really can't wait to see it. Probably the D&D TV show will featured Pun-Pun.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Doubt it. That joke was stale years ago.

edit: seriously, I hope they get John Rogers to write it. Fell's Five was a treat.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Meh. I have no high hopes for the show honestly.

[Mechalich]

The problem is that 'Dungeons & Dragons' is a system. It has an implied setting yes, but that implied setting has no stories. All of the actual D&D based stories take place within specific settings. A generic show based on generic D&D materials has no soul and actually works better as a spoof like The Gamers than any sort of actual content.

That said, there are probably a couple of adventure paths that are solid enough to be adapted into a series, though unfortunately D&D lacks a useful stable of generic 'iconics' in the vein of Pathfinder for 5e, so new characters would have to be designed.

There's also the question of mood. D&D, as actually played, tends to be irreverent, campy, and filled with low comedy. The high-magic nature of the system and the lowering of stakes that results from this (especially once things like raise dead start coming into play) means that when it tries to do serious it either looks ridiculous instead, or it has to wave a lot of the magic off into another room somewhere and pretend it's not around (the Drizzt books mostly take this approach, to the point of actively minimizing spell use by certain monsters).

In live action television this is doubly so. Take the Witcher as an example, many of its more overtly magical set pieces are some of its most ridiculous (ex. every time Ciri screams her way out of some bind), and none of them manage the same tension of a good old fashioned swordfight. D&D arguably works better in animation - there are several anime series that are very D&D-inspired (Record of Lodoss War perhaps most famously) that successfully utilize the flexibility of animation to elide the inherent ridiculousness of certain D&D powers, effects, and even monster sizes.

All of which boils down to the question: is you want to make a D&D series, what do you actually want to do?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Say screw it and go get a nice cup of tea instead.

All D&D media projects are set in the Realms, btw. And the Realms is loaded with iconics.

[Tyrant]

I would assume it would be set in the Realms. That's the base setting for 5E and has been the dominant setting since at least 3E. I believe it also has the most fiction material by a very wide margin. There are several books/sets of books that would make good movies but I am not as sure about a series. Maybe take the broad strokes from one of the longer series and use that as the base. If it's meant to run a while I could see them going with Drizzt. I would go with something like either the Sembia series, the Songs and Swords series, Waterdeep: City of Splendors (if you want to keep it to one general city), or the Haunted Lands trilogy as the base. Any one of those could provide enough in terms of characters and plots to build on.

[Anonymouswizard]

Still, there's been a glut of these live-action fantasy series post-Game of Thrones and there are still more on the horizon, so this is pretty on trend.

I think this bit is what worries me. I actually think doing a mature cartoon would serve D&D better right now. Mature as in thematically complex, not as in 'nudity and ex jokes' way.

I'm not sure how a live action D&D show would stand out. Maybe by the time it's airing it'll be more unique, but I'm not convinced. Especially not with Forgotten Realms, if they did Eberron or Ravenloft it would have a bit more of a unique identity. But I guess it's a wait and see' affair.

Plus I'm not sure I'll watch it when it comes out anyway.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm pretty sure it'll just get lost in the noise.

[Prime32]

There's also the question of mood. D&D, as actually played, tends to be irreverent, campy, and filled with low comedy. The high-magic nature of the system and the lowering of stakes that results from this (especially once things like raise dead start coming into play) means that when it tries to do serious it either looks ridiculous instead, or it has to wave a lot of the magic off into another room somewhere and pretend it's not around (the Drizzt books mostly take this approach, to the point of actively minimizing spell use by certain monsters).

D&D arguably works better in animation - there are several anime series that are very D&D-inspired (Record of Lodoss War perhaps most famously) that successfully utilize the flexibility of animation to elide the inherent ridiculousness of certain D&D powers, effects, and even monster sizes.

The famous joke: Record of Lodoss War is the campaign your DM planned, Slayers is what happens when it makes contact with the players.

But it's also worth noting that "Replays" like Record of Lodoss War have always played a huge role in popularising TTRPGs and Western-style fantasy in Japan, and that online Replays like Critical Role are a big source of D&D's current popularity. So it's worth looking at the Japanese industry to see how it's been handled before.

[Tarmor]

I don't see most D&D settings in themselves being a good basis for a movie or TV series. That could work if its based on a book series, but I don't see how most of the settings themselves (FR, Golarion, Greyhawk in particular) would stand out in the story.

I'd prefer to see a movie based on a classic module - something like Ravenloft (the original module), or White Plume Mountain. A TV series could be based on something like A1-4 Slavers, or G1-3 Against the Giants, (potentially through D1-2 Drow, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits), or an Adventure Path. In both cases you want good writing to link everything together and develope the story better than some of the original material does. While most of these were set in Greyhawk, its not the setting here that is important, its the story.

I'd really like to see this done well with live action, but I'd settled for a good quality animated product too.

[Mechalich]

I don't see most D&D settings in themselves being a good basis for a movie or TV series. That could work if its based on a book series, but I don't see how most of the settings themselves (FR, Golarion, Greyhawk in particular) would stand out in the story.

There's also the legal issues involved in using an existing setting or any existing characters associated with that setting. As has recently become apparent with regard to the Dragonlance-related lawsuit, using an existing setting or characters without getting the original creators of those elements on board is fraught with complications. Even if you could bulldoze through the legal issues it creates issues in the press - you don't want RA Salvatore screaming on Twitter that Hasbro mutilated Drizzt's character in the show they made.

I'd prefer to see a movie based on a classic module - something like Ravenloft (the original module), or White Plume Mountain. A TV series could be based on something like A1-4 Slavers, or G1-3 Against the Giants, (potentially through D1-2 Drow, and Queen of the Demonweb Pits), or an Adventure Path. In both cases you want good writing to link everything together and develope the story better than some of the original material does. While most of these were set in Greyhawk, its not the setting here that is important, its the story.

While I agree that story is important, I don't think any of the classic modules are good inspiration. If nothing else, they're really old and most D&D fans have never played them. It probably makes sense to use a more recent module, something that's been splattered across Critical Role and various other modern outlets, in order to maximize recognition - so probably one of the big 5e campaigns.

I'd really like to see this done well with live action, but I'd settled for a good quality animated product too.

Personally I really think live action makes sense for lower magic and lower level, while animation is better for higher magic and higher level. Essentially, live action Drizzt, animated Elminster.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, the best representation of a D&D film I've ever seen is still Gamers and Gamers II: Dorkness Rising. And part of me thinks that is still the best way a movie can actually be a representation of D&D.

The other option is using some of the books as a basis, since some of the writers have a good grasp of story and know what parts of the lore to use and what to completely ignore. But otherwise just using the D&D settings as a basis and you get a weird kinda nonsensical setting that swings wildly from the most generic fantasy setting you can think of, to requiring a lot of exposition just to get the audience to understand what is going on in the movie.

[Tarmor]

Even if you could bulldoze through the legal issues it creates issues in the press - you don't want RA Salvatore screaming on Twitter that Hasbro mutilated Drizzt's character in the show they made.

Agreed. I'd love to see a Drizzt movie, but I don't want to for fear of what we'd actually get.

While I agree that story is important, I don't think any of the classic modules are good inspiration. If nothing else, they're really old and most D&D fans have never played them. It probably makes sense to use a more recent module, something that's been splattered across Critical Role and various other modern outlets, in order to maximize recognition - so probably one of the big 5e campaigns.

We may be from different generations. (Yes, I'm old. Everyone I know may not have played those modules, but they know them.) I don't know recent releases (especially anything 5th ed) but that's also why I suggested an Adventure Path. My point is also that these are things people can recognize as D&D. Without specific call-out of place or spell-names (for example) a D&D movie is just another fantasy film.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Mechalich
Personally I really think live action makes sense for lower magic and lower level, while animation is better for higher magic and higher level. Essentially, live action Drizzt, animated Elminster.

This may be personal taste on my part, but an animated D&D movie isn’t something I’d want to see in a theater, or even pay for at home.

I want to see a live-action take on high magic, because we have the effects to do it well, as very handily shown by the MCU. It’s the story and acting that are the potential weak points.

Originally Posted by Dienekes
But otherwise just using the D&D settings as a basis and you get a weird kinda nonsensical setting that swings wildly from the most generic fantasy setting you can think of, to requiring a lot of exposition just to get the audience to understand what is going on in the movie.

Or...build a new setting for the movie which is recognizably D&D for those of us who have played it, but doesn’t require extensive explanation for those who haven’t. Rather than being tied to an existing setting and trying to shoehorn in the lore (gawd, think of the Realms)—just don’t, and instead create something new that everyone in the audience, players and nonplayers like, can experience for the first time together.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Not happening. Hasbro has written a mandate that everything be set in the Realms into the contracts, as it's the only setting with sales to justify media attention.

[Kitten Champion]

I'm pretty confident Hasbro/WotC have pretty wide berth to use any material from their various officially published settings and D&D-brand novels, at least over that material that ownership is even legally possible. The Weis-Hickman lawsuit was over breach of contract for WotC allegedly reneging on a deal and subsequently not paying restitution, not ownership over the Dragonlance setting.

I strongly suspect they'll use Forgotten Realms for this show. It is the default setting for the current edition, it's the main setting for nearly every D&D novel published in the last decade, it's being used for both Baldur's Gate III and Neverwinter, and they're going to use it for the movie reportedly. Forgotten Realms is a marketable IP as much as the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game is in its own way, they do have a financial incentive to promote it generally speaking.

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. Rather, I don't think the setting is too consequential on what the overall quality of the production will be. I doubt this is going to be a Tolkien-esque deep-dive into the minutia of Torilian history, nor is it going to be Game of Thrones-esque dissection of dystopian medieval politics. Doing Forgotten Realms lets them do all the recognizable fantasy things and all the D&D-specific inventions - like Mindflayers, Tieflings, and Beholders - without any issue.

My experience with D&D media is that it's mostly about the characters. Getting the characters and their interactions down with solid writing and acting is of the upmost importance for this. The world can and probably will be generic, were already familiar with the magic system, the plot(s) is/are probably going to be nothing new in the world of adventure fantasy even if you throw in whatever twist you want, but characters can really sell D&D to the point that quite a lot of people will gladly follow an adventure that's little more than a radio show where the participants break the action to literally toss dice because they like their dramatic personas. Even the aforementioned Fell's Five, those comics are predominantly enjoyable because the characters have been given so much life and charm to them even as the plots are more or less average fantasy staples with some slight humorous subversions here or there.

[Anonymouswizard]

But it's also worth noting that "Replays" like Record of Lodoss War have always played a huge role in popularising TTRPGs and Western-style fantasy in Japan, and that online Replays like Critical Role are a big source of D&D's current popularity. So it's worth looking at the Japanese industry to see how it's been handled before.

The thing that strikes me is that Record of Lodoss War is kind of the Japanese Dragonlance, in that they're both dramatisations of actual games. Of course, while I liked it, the Dragonlance animated movie wasn't nearly as good as the Record of Lodoss War anime.

This may be personal taste on my part, but an animated D&D movie isn’t something I’d want to see in a theater, or even pay for at home.

I want to see a live-action take on high magic, because we have the effects to do it well, as very handily shown by the MCU. It’s the story and acting that are the potential weak points.

And a live action D&D film or series is something I'm very much not interested in. I like animation, and animation allows us to realise fantastic setting easily.

Sure we could do it in live action. But live action will be the wrong choice as long as animation allows us to do it better.

[dancrilis]

I think live action can work for a lot - but it depends on how fantastical things are.
You can look at a cartoon fighter slaughter dozens of larger enemies with ease (a fighter hacking through ogres for instance) and survive being stabbed, shot and bludgeoned multiple times with barely any obvious discomfort - seeing the same in live action however would look very daft.

So if they are going for fantastical then animated might be better - but likely would not generate as much money.

If they are instead telling a story that is more low powered then live action might be the way to go (although not necessarily).

[Eldan]

I think live action can work for a lot - but it depends on how fantastical things are.
You can look at a cartoon fighter slaughter dozens of larger enemies with ease (a fighter hacking through ogres for instance) and survive being stabbed, shot and bludgeoned multiple times with barely any obvious discomfort - seeing the same in live action however would look very daft.

I wouldn't say so. Martial arts movies where the lead takes on a dozen goons at a time have been popular for decades. If your wizard is Dr. Strange, your fighter can be John Wick.

[dancrilis]

I wouldn't say so. Martial arts movies where the lead takes on a dozen goons at a time have been popular for decades. If your wizard is Dr. Strange, your fighter can be John Wick.

There is a difference between seeing a fighter parrying attacks and dodging blows and a fighter seeing their horse turned into a puddle by a giant wielding a tree trunk and then taking that tree trunk to the head and shrugging it off.

In a cartoon you can make that seem great in live action it would likely (in my opinion) look stupid.

[Eldan]

Eh. Thor and the Hulk are a thing.

[dancrilis]

Eh. Thor and the Hulk are a thing.

Hulk is basically a cartoon - and Thor is much like Superman, you know that he is not human.
When characters like that do stuff like that it isn't because they killed a lot of kobolds and anyone could learn to do it if they merely got some more fighting experience.

[Hopeless]

Depends on the details how many remember Mythica?

That was a live action fantasy series.

If we're talking tv series maybe focus on a group of teenagers and their efforts to cope with everyday life and bring their woes into the game where they as a group handle the situation in their own way perhaps helping to resolve it without recognizing there was a problem in the first place?

I agree about Dorkness Rising.

I wouldn't bother using the Realms as ultimately you could never do that right regardless of what kind of fan is reacting to that.

So keep it generic, but make it a decent story and bin the agenda that helps no one!

[Eldan]

There is a difference between seeing a fighter parrying attacks and dodging blows and a fighter seeing their horse turned into a puddle by a giant wielding a tree trunk and then taking that tree trunk to the head and shrugging it off.

Then don't show that? D&D is pretty clear that hit points don't just mean how much blood you have in your body. A DM can easily rewrite that scene as the giant swinging wildly, and the fighter leaping out of the saddle and rolling on the ground at the last moment, while their horse is smashed aside. You can describe your barbarian getting stabbed 24 times by goblins, or you can describe him parrying all of it. It's the same in the rules.

[dancrilis]

Then don't show that? D&D is pretty clear that hit points don't just mean how much blood you have in your body. A DM can easily rewrite that scene as the giant swinging wildly, and the fighter leaping out of the saddle and rolling on the ground at the last moment, while their horse is smashed aside. You can describe your barbarian getting stabbed 24 times by goblins, or you can describe him parrying all of it. It's the same in the rules.

And that would be the point - in live action you need to do things a certain way or it looks daft (or at best comical), in animation you have more options before people care about something that would be obviously off in live action.

[Eldan]

Sure, but I don't see what hte problem is. There's no reason to ever show that in D&D.

[dancrilis]

Sure, but I don't see what hte problem is. There's no reason to ever show that in D&D.

It depends on the feel you are going for, as an example the end of this strip linked to the beginning of the next one wouldn't really work in live action to walk off being impaled - but they work fine in comic format.
Same for the end of this one, where in live action standing up and shaking off that fall would seem odd.

You don't need scenes like that for a narrative that a movie might follow, but using a medium that denies you the use of them does limit options.

Note I am not saying that DnD should be an animated movie - just that animation has some advantages that live action does not have, and live action doesn't really have any advantages over animation in terms of making things more possible for the story.

[GrayDeath]

My first reaction?

Please dont. Honestly, nothing with D&D in movies was even remotely good, exccept indirectly The Gamers and The Gamers 2.

Why not do an animated Series, they are much cheaper to make and seeing the success of series like The Dragon prince, not a large risk like a life actions eries that WILL be measured against seasons 1 to 7 of GoT....

[Eldan]

It depends on the feel you are going for, as an example the end of this strip linked to the beginning of the next one wouldn't really work in live action to walk off being impaled - but they work fine in comic format.
Same for the end of this one, where in live action standing up and shaking off that fall would seem odd.

You don't need scenes like that for a narrative that a movie might follow, but using a medium that denies you the use of them does limit options.

Note I am not saying that DnD should be an animated movie - just that animation has some advantages that live action does not have, and live action doesn't really have any advantages over animation in terms of making things more possible for the story.

Sure, but that's in a comic. It does that kind of thing. In most D&D campaigns, no one gets impaled and shrugs it off.