D&D General What *is* D&D? (mild movie spoilers)

[Older Beholder]

3. The monsters in the arena are all iconic D&D-specific monsters.


None of these things appeal to me at all, and I find them patently anti-D&D.

Iconic D&D specific monsters are anti-D&D?

 

[Minigiant]

Anyway, I've said (repeatedly) that for people who want to see the movie and enjoy it, that's good for them. But the points laid out in the OP easily represent reasons why I know it won't appeal to me, namely:

1. It's not a boiling pot of Tolkien, Vance, Howard, Leiber, and all the other Appendix-N influences any more
2. not including orcs and goblins and ogres and trolls
3. The monsters in the arena are all iconic D&D-specific monsters.
4. The adventuring party isn't the traditional elf, dwarf, halfling, and human.
5. The non-human NPCs are dragonborn and aaracokra and tabaxi.
6. The world itself isn't medieval or dark ages, it's a bright, colourful fantasy rennaisance with giant skyscraping supermax prisons and magical arenas with shifting mazes and hot air balloons.

None of these things appeal to me at all, and I find them patently anti-D&D.

I think the core issue many have is

D&D is more than the core books.

Meaning over time whoever holds the IP will have to keep making books. So they'll expand it.

Early Edition D&D vs Late Edition D&D.

So although D&D might start as Tolkien Vance dwarves Halflings, orcs and goblin...it'll change.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"Today" meaning any time since 1984 (DL1).

Sorry "most" is the operative word here for my point. You are of course correct that the mainstreaming of primarily heroic play (if often with "reluctant heroes") began with DL in the 1980s. But I don't think it really became actively the norm until around 3E, and by 4E it was absolutely established as the default mode of play. I would say you can see the cultural change playing out across the 1990s and early 2000s if you look at adventure design and how the writers expect the PCs to be motivated and what they allow for behaviour-wise. TSR, WotC, 3PP and Dungeon adventures all show the gradual trend IMHO. We're still in a phase where usually (as per recent movie again, which is kind of a decent snapshot of modern D&D in a word way) there's a pretence of self-interest but it's an increasingly weak one.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But I don't think it really became actively the norm until around 3E

Maybe, at about that time we where mostly playing FASA Star Trek RPG, which is of course, inherently heroic.

But then, so was Tolkien.

 

[Remathilis]

That argument has already been covered.

How's the traffic in Wyoming?

 

[Remathilis]

FWIW, I have no idea of any of the things you're talking about in your edit. [emoji2369]

And none of them have anything to do with what D&D is to me. Obviously they have something to do with what D&D is (or was maybe?) to you, which is cool for you.


None that claim to be a "D&D" movie and present a fiction not in line to what D&D is to me.

Why would I bother to go see a movie that I won't enjoy? There are a LOT more movies out there that I don't watch because they won't appeal to me than movies I watch because I they do appeal to me.

---

Anyway, I've said (repeatedly) that for people who want to see the movie and enjoy it, that's good for them. But the points laid out in the OP easily represent reasons why I know it won't appeal to me, namely:

1. It's not a boiling pot of Tolkien, Vance, Howard, Leiber, and all the other Appendix-N influences any more
2. not including orcs and goblins and ogres and trolls
3. The monsters in the arena are all iconic D&D-specific monsters.
4. The adventuring party isn't the traditional elf, dwarf, halfling, and human.
5. The non-human NPCs are dragonborn and aaracokra and tabaxi.
6. The world itself isn't medieval or dark ages, it's a bright, colourful fantasy rennaisance with giant skyscraping supermax prisons and magical arenas with shifting mazes and hot air balloons.

None of these things appeal to me at all, and I find them patently anti-D&D.

So you didn't want a Forgotten Realms movie, you wanted Rings of Power.

 

[cranberry]

To me, D&D will always be the traditional Medieval/Renaissance fantasy.

However, I can can understand why content creators like the idea of an "everything and the kitchen sink" world - simply because it gives them a much larger canvas to work with.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Mystara, basically any setting they're not currently supporting or planning to support.

Wait, you think Mystara is low magic? Where the boxed set has the PCs as crewmen on a magical flying airship, characters are quick-drawing wands like its the Old West, the world has not one, but two magocracies (and magic is everywhere in both Glantri and Alphatia), plus a theocracy.

 

[Remathilis]

Wait, you think Mystara is low magic? Where the boxed set has the PCs as crewmen on a magical flying airship, characters are quick-drawing wands like its the Old West, the world has not one, but two magocracies (and magic is everywhere in both Glantri and Alphatia), plus a theocracy.

Butbutbut the B/X modules are low magic! Except for the Lost City, Castle Amber...

 

[Emberashh]

What makes you think the first image is less medieval than the second? Tolkien knew his history, and the layout of Minas Tirith has a striking resemblance to Edinburgh Castle. If I remember correctly, it even has the same number of tiers (7).

You think the lower image looks more medieval because it uses less sophisticated techniques and materials, but if you look at the subject matter there is no reason to favour one over the other.

A medieval building:

The question isn't medieval vs Renaissance, but high magic vs low magic.

The top interpretation of Minas Tirith is a more fantastical rendition that invokes a higher form of magic than Tolkien intended, as shown by his own drawing of what he envisioned.