Open Call for DnD-based Monopoly Design Ideas
DnD-opoly ...or Dungeonopoly ...or Dragonopoly ...or whatever we decide to call it ...It's time to actually consider it.
Today I received another email from Hasbro in which they provided the physical mailing address to their legal department and to the representative that I have to submit the concept to. They are taking this far more seriously than I had ever intended.
I must be insane thinking about this... but I can't help it! I want this game myself!
I've been doing a little more research in to this and have discovered one thing: the game of Monopoly is public domain, so if you're going to create a game of Monopoly based on anything you like, odds are Hasbro isn't going to be the one to sue you. That is, unless you cross the line and do things like using the Monopoly registered trademark, use the Uncle Pennybags artwork, or brand it with the Hasbro logo... Those are blatant copyright issues above and beyond simply taking the mechanics of the game.
So the concern here moves away from Hasbro and focuses on Wizards of the Coast. From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure what the rules are. I would look at the OGL and the 4e GSL (which prohibits "interactive products"... so it depends on whether a board game qualifies as "interactive"), but we're not planning on using the 4e mechanic on this board game. In essence, we intend to use names of places, creatures and the like... We don't want to use the game engine, we want to use those iconic elements in D&D that define the setting.
Using that type of content is most definitely a legal issue because it falls under "intellectual property". From a legal sense, it's not much different than me trying to create a campaign setting and calling it "Greyhawk" or "Blackmoor"... Wizards of the Coast would most certainly drop the legal anvil on me if I tried that. Let me put it another way: I know it already exists, but if you attempted to create a Star Wars themed Monopoly game, LucasArts would sue me in to the Stone Age.
But what's curious is that Hasbro has yet to say "hell no." They actually *want* me to submit my concept. And I'd hate to disappoint... I don't want to send them a one page summary. I want an idea of exactly what we want, so we can be well aware of the legal hurdles we will need to overcome if it ever gets that far.
There's one problem: I'm not a D&D expert! I'm great when it comes to the game mechanics, but when it comes to the history and geography surrounding the multitude of different campaign settings in the D&D universe, I'm nowhere near being knowledgeable enough to pull this off on my own.
And that's not even mentioning that I *don't* want to do this alone. This concept was born from a Twitter conversation, propagated by fans of the game. If this happens, it won't be because of me... It will be because of all of us.
So I need your help, and here are the areas I need it the most:
- In order to make this a bankable product that lots of people can enjoy, I'm thinking - very reluctantly, mind you - that it should be mostly centered around the 4e campaign settings. Creating a version of Monopoly based on past editions - although a very cool concept for those of us that have spent decades playing - would be lost on the modern crowd.
- I would consider pitching two versions of this game: (1) the "basic" version of the game, which uses the rules of Monopoly with zero modifications and only consists of changing the content, and (2) an "enhanced" version in which we may be able to work in some D&D themed game mechanics. The problem I have with #2 above is that doing so takes one step closer to the existing board games Wizards of the Coast already has, and the last thing I want to do is create a competing product. And I don't know how Hasbro would feel if we create a game that is close to not being Monopoly any more.
- I don't know what to do about currency. Paper money is so un-D&D-like. I thought about using the copper/silver/gold/platinum mechanic where each tier is 10x the one before it, but it would be absurd to count off all those copper pieces during a game.
- The game will continue to use 2d6s. I thought of 1d12, but not only does that mess up probability but you lose the "roll again on doubles" feature. For the "enhanced" version mentioned above, I'd consider including a d20 and finding some sort of use for it.
- The biggest hurdle I have is geography...
- Off the top of my head, I can't think of more than half a dozen cities and locations for the game board; we need twenty-two.
- We need all the properties reasonably organized in terms of their worth; from Hommlet to Greyhawk, they must span the spectrum of being cheap to being lavish.
- The properties should be in groups that make sense. For the record, here are the color groups on a traditional Monopoly board, from cheapest to most expensive, along with their original games in Monopoly:
- Purple: Two properties (Mediterranean Avenue, Baltic Avenue)
- Cyan: Three properties (Oriental Avenue, Vermont Avenue, Connecticut Avenue)
- Purple: Three properties (St. Charles Place, States Avenue, Virginia Avenue)
- Orange: Three properties (St. James Place, Tennessee Avenue, New York Avenue)
- Red: Three properties (Kentucky Avenue, Indiana Avenue, Illinois Avenue)
- Yellow: Three properties (Atlantic Avenue, Ventnor Avenue, Marvin Gardens)
- Green: Three properties (Pacific Avenue, North Carolina Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue)
- Blue: Two properties (Park Place, Boardwalk)
- In addition to the properties, we also have:
- Four railroads (Reading Railroad, Pennsylvania Railroad, B&O Railroad, Short Line)
- Electric Company
- Water Works
- Free Parking
- Income Tax
- Luxury Tax
- I am assuming that Jail, Chance and Community Chest could remain named as such.
- Monopoly has a ton of cards for Chance and Community Chest. I can't document them all here, but I think we should consider alternate wording for some of them. NOTE: at least in the "basic" version, we should not change the effect of the card.
- Instead of houses and hotels, I would consider something like hovels and castles/keeps.
- We need tokens. There are a total of twelve tokens in the standard Monopoly set. I would suggest making a mix of the traditional player classes (fighter, cleric, mage, ranger, etc...) and the iconic D&D monsters (beholder, orc, goblin, skeleton, etc...). I would avoid using a dragon because everyone would fight for it, and I would also avoid using tokens that are so similar they can't be told apart ("Is that a goblin or a kobold?" ... "Is that a fighter or a paladin?").
- Artwork will be a BIG issue, but we'll deal with that somehow.
So I'd like to hear your input. If you have ideas on what some of the above should be like, speak up with a comment below or through email to dflor@brainclouds.net.
Quite honestly, I see no way in hell that they'll go for this, but you can't blame me for trying. If a miracle happens and they do provide the go ahead, I would consider creating a Kickstarter fundraiser in order to acquire funds to design, develop and produce the game in full. I'm not doing this for personal profit; I just want the game!
So what do you think, guys?
The Coming Dark, Chapter One
After somewhat of a sleepless night last night (if you follow me on Twitter, you know why. If not, don't ask...), I have decided to buckle down and compile "Chapter One: Homecoming", the first of about eight chapters in my campaign, "The Coming Dark".
There's one section to be completed - the conclusion, which would transition in to the next chapter (that doesn't even have a name) - but beyond that it clocks in at 43 pages. That might sound like a lot, but I admit I'm somewhat thorough; it includes detailed tactical maps, a reprint of some of the new monsters in the appendix, and a lot of talk. In addition - again, due to a noisy, sleepless night - I created a supplement containing all the tactical maps in a usable format (1" squares, no monster or zone markings) that weighs in at 53 pages.
The module consists of five tactical encounters (including one "boss"), two skill challenges and several other ways to gain XP here and there. It's intended for five first party characters, and by the end of the chapter they will be dangerously close to level 2 (about 100xp shy, by my count).
I intend to publish this campaign through my DriveThruRPG publisher page and through other venues. In the meantime, I am looking for a handful of people (3-5, I imagine) that would be willing to review my module for errors (everything from grammar to mechanics) and to see how I did in terms of story, execution and overall "fun-ness" of the campaign. Plus, quite honestly, my biggest concern is how this campaign would translate to the table top; since it was originally designed for "play by post", I have attempted to make several changes in it to try to make it more table friendly.
If you would be willing to review this for free, please let me know via email to dflor@brainclouds.net and I'll provide a pre-release copy.
WARNING: If you are currently playing my campaign, this chapter contains a fair amount of spoilers, so I'd be very hesitant in letting you see it in the first place. Be warned!
DnD-opoly a Possibility?
Sometimes even the most nonsensical of conversations grows in to something quite unexpected.
A few days ago, and I don't even remember how the conversation started, we began to joke about a Dungeons and Dragons themed version of Monopoly. After all, both Monopoly and Wizards of the Coast are owned by the same company - Hasbro - so it doesn't seem all that far fetched.
On a whim, I decided to try something ludicrous, and I send a message to Hasbro through their site:
This might seem like an odd question... I am part of a rather strong community of followers of Dungeons and Dragons, which we know is indirectly another Hasbro property (through Wizards of the Coast).
Recently, on Twitter, they brought up the question about why there wasn't a D&D themed Monopoly game, using some of the locations and themes from D&D laid out on the board game, in the same style as Star Wars and numerous other properties.
First question is, obviously, why not?
Secondly, and here is where I'm taking a bold step, I and several other associates (who have DECADES of experience with D&D) would be very interested in creating such a game ourselves, and have both the technical and artistic talent to do so, but we fear any potential legal repercussions from Hasbro when we try to do that. We are aware of the legal guidelines with Wizards of the Coast and D&D properties (we are very familiar with the 4e Game System License and what we can and cannot do), but we're not quite sure about how Hasbro itself feels about us using the Monopoly theme, mechanic and elements (board layout, cards, dice, tokens, etc...).
So who would I be able to contact about the possibility of getting authorization to do that as an independent project?
Thank you for any assistance you can provide.
David Flor
President, Darklight Interactive
"Omne ignotum pro magnifico"
Sounds insane, doesn't it? I never expected to be taken seriously, but sometimes you have to try something crazy.
Today I got the following response:
Hi David,
Thank you for contacting Hasbro, Inc.
We would love to try and help with your request. Please submit your request via fax on company letterhead to 1-401-XXX-XXXX, attention: [Name Omitted]. Make sure you include in your fax, you are requesting permission to use Monopoly and Dungeons and Dragons and details on how it will be used.
Thank you for your understanding. We look forward to hearing from you.
Wait... What? Seriously?
First off, in the past I joked about having to send a letter by mail to the Wizards of the Coast legal department. Now they're asking me to FAX something... I haven't faxed anything in five years. I guess using archaic technologies is commonplace in an "old school" company like Hasbro.
Secondly, what exactly am I getting myself in to here? If I sit down I'm sure I can come up with a full blown design, and I'm sure I can get the artists and designers I need in order to make this both aesthetically pleasing and fun for everyone. But is this something that I can really do?
So I now have to formulate a pitch to Hasbro, one that would be convincing enough. I'm considering tying this in to a Kickstarter project of some sort, where the public can fun the physical creation of it (I can get people to create it virtually, but that's very different than creating the board, cards, tokens and box).
If anyone out there has suggestions on this, please speak up. I think I'm going to get in way over my head right quick on this one.
Underwhelming Odds
When I first picked up the D&D 4e rulebooks and began designing my campaign, my DMG was opened several times to the "Encounter Level" chart in order to determine what my XP budget was, and I was using that as a basis for all the encounters I put together. After all, this was the sort of thing severely lacking in previous editions, and Wizards of the Coast must have gone through the motions of balancing both sides to a conflict... They must know what they're doing to come up with these numbers... right?
As the first group in the campaign I'm currently running approaches their fourth level and the end of the first act, I look at MasterPlan and see every other box is in bright red, as if MasterPlan is telling me "are you insane?!? This encounter will crush the party in to gibs! TPK! TPK! For god's sake, man... TPK!!!"
Why is that? Because the current party, when presented an encounter equal or even one level higher than their own, plows through them as if they weren't even there. An army of minions? No problem! A dozen or more kobolds/goblins/small nuisances? Piece of cake! A solo monster two levels higher than the rest of them? Child's play! It was brutal, but not for the players. Even the "hard" encounters didn't last more than two or three rounds, and it usually ended up with only one player or two injured. It feels like they're never bloodied.
I thought something was wrong... this wasn't the way it was supposed to be, right? Granted, some of the problems were actual design issues (my solo "boss" wasn't properly designed, for example), but that couldn't have been the case always. "Maybe it was the dice's fault... Yeah, that's it..." (admittedly, there were some really bad die rolls on behalf of the monsters), but to compensate I found myself adding monsters, traps, or something more to the mix to make it feel like more of a challenge. For example, going on the mathematics alone, at least one non-boss encounter ended up being five levels higher than the party.
The second group to run the campaign had a little more difficulty. The encounters were virtually the same, but they weren't getting off so easily. We recently finished an encounter that would qualify as "hard" (in terms of the XP allowance) and almost every party member (even two NPC allies) got bloodied. I fear that if I throw the same Level+5 encounter at them, it will be a soul crushing defeat.
At the table you can adapt to this; if the party is having it easy, throw some more at them. If the party is having trouble, you can throw some allies in to the mix, or take some monsters away, or even fudge the dice in the player's favor. But I'm designing a campaign for physical distribution... I don't have that luxury, do I?
So I'm forced to create my encounters using the formula the DMG provides because those numbers theoretically define what the expected difficulty should be for an "average" party. In the back of my mind I can't help but think the encounter is too easy, but I can't beef the encounter up at will because I have no idea the ability of the party facing it. An encounter I consider "easy" could be devastating when thrown against a party with a different makeup or a different level of experience.
I can't blame the dice. To me, dice in a DM's hand are sometimes optional... the DM can ultimately overrule them anyway, so he could technically decide hits and misses based on what best fits the story (NOTE: Whenever I have overruled my own dice rolls, it has always been in favor of the party; I don't make it worse for the players just because I feel like it). If the DM wants the party to squeak out of the encounter by their fingernails, he could easily do that without rolling a single die. Sure the players get to roll on their own, and the DM has no say over those results, but he could most certainly compensate by downgrading a monster attack roll or two.
I realize now that one of the important aspects in module design isn't necessarily difficulty but entertainment. Unless I'm making something "fourthcore", I kind of have to go by the recommendations because they are the norm. If the end result is a pushover for the party, or if the party is getting hammered to the brink of death, I have to have a certain degree of trust in the DM running the campaign to make up for that.
As part of my campaign, I've considered adding a section to each encounter or scene describing how to make it "harder" or "easier". I've seen some modules describe how to adjust the difficulty in cases where there are more or less players ("if four players, do this..." "If six, do this..."), but the ones I've seen have provided very general recommendations at the beginning of the module, not on a per encounter basis. And most modules don't discuss the topic at all, expecting the DM to figure that sort of thing out as he goes. The way I see it, I either have faith in the DMs to compensate or release two versions: a seemingly wimpy (at least to me), by-the-book module and a Fourthcore "no, seriously, everyone's gonna die" version.
I guess it all boils down to playtesting. I'm currently running the campaign in three groups, but I do admit they are all "play by post"; I have not tried any part of my campaign with a live audience. One of these days I should run it in person, but I haven't DM-ed a live game in almost two decades.
Also, before I DM one of my own, I feel I need to play a lot more. A lot of people find that somewhat puzzling... It was the same problem when I was doing video game design, writing The Opera (total conversion for Half-Life). When I told people "I don't have time to play games, I'm too busy writing them!" they thought I was joking, but it's the honest truth. Hopefully I'll remedy this concern soon.
Time will tell.
Contest Winner: Goblins go BOOM!
It's no secret that I love minions. They are an easy answer to making an encounter seem like more than it really is. Sometimes just a handful of monsters is dull... I want droves upon droves of enemies coming at them from all sides! And when I don't want them to die so easily I toughen them up, but sometimes I want them to die in an unnaturally glorious way.
Recently Wastex Games had a contest called Minions Encountered, where the objective was to create an encounter where the boss used his minions in an "interesting way." I decided to submit one encounter that was inspired by my campaign.
To be quite honest, besides what you seen on this blog I've never actually submitted anything to a contest of this nature. Heck, I even failed miserably at NaNoWriMo and the NYC Midnight Short Story competition (I never even got close to finishing a submission for either one). So I looked at this competition a different way: to see if I can physically put something together in a format that others could actually use.
You see, there's a big difference in designing a campaign that you will run and designing a campaign that someone else will run. If you're doing it for yourself, you can fill in the blanks as you go, adjusting the encounter based on the how the players react to it. But when designing it for use by the general public, you either tell them very little (and hope they can fill in the blanks themselves) or explain every little detail so that there's no room for doubt. The former is meaningless for the competition, so I decided to build the encounter in the traditional format that Wizards of the Coast has used on multiple occasions.
And it allowed me to get a little more practice with Adobe InDesign CS5, for that matter. I'm not a graphic designer, so this too was somewhat of a new experience.
Now, about the encounter itself... The encounter is relatively low level, so I chose to use a concept that I'm surprised isn't used very often: the "Goblin Suicide Bomber", which is loosely based on the "Goblin Grenade" from Magic: The Gathering. Whereas most goblins are rather cowardly and flee at the first sign of trouble, these little buggers race forward to protect their leader and their sacred temple, light their fuse, then jump on the backs of unsuspecting PCs while laughing maniacally and waiting for their fuse to burn down.
But that wasn't enough! These guys would die almost immediately and they would have little effect; a poor initiative roll combined with a well placed burst attack can take them out of the equation almost instantly. What we needed is LOTS of goblins. Like... oh, I don't know... dozens of these little guys! I needed something that would keep creating wave after unrelenting wave of happy-go-lucky suicide bombers. So I turned to Save Versus Death and their "Endless Hordes"... Now things really come together! Four suicide bombers per turn, ad infinitum, should get fun quick!
But that still wasn't enough! Players could simply step aside, push them out of the way, or simply move faster than the bombers. What I needed is something to funnel the bombers so the players would have no choice but to charge in themselves, taking a boatload of damage in the process. So I chose to put the entire encounter atop narrow stone bridges over a river of lava.
Apparently that was enough.
I would like to thank Wastex Games for choosing me as the winner! I'm honored, guys! I'm sorry I can't take photos of the prize (I don't have a working digital camera; will try to get one soon), but I really do appreciate the Beholder Eye Tyrant and other minis!
Here, for your enjoyment, is my winning entry on the Wastex Games site:
The "Chamber of Fire"... or, as I like to call it, "Goblin Go BOOM!" (PDF)
About the Author
Software developer and game designer in Miami, Florida. Currently working on content for Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition, Pathfinder, 13th Age and other systems.
Links
Recent Posts
- Hacking an AI Chat Bot (Part Three)
- Hacking an AI Chat Bot (Part Two)
- Hacking an AI Chat Bot (Part One)
- In Response to Threat of Arrest
- Everything Is Better With Tentacles – Planning