Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ranes" data-source="post: 1422134" data-attributes="member: 4826">I agree. And yet I enjoy the challenge, because I am into world-building consistency and verisimilitude - and D&amp;D. There are many aspects of D&amp;D that don't withstand sustained scrutiny and extrapolation but it's my contention that they don't need to.&nbsp;It's not that uncommon for a producer to interrupt a screenwriter who's making a pitch, to complain that a line doesn't work. And it's not uncommon for the screenwriter to respond with, &quot;Imagine the way X would play it.&quot; There are moments in films that only work for that moment or for just a little longer than the length of the film. When people discuss a film they've seen, they often realise that certain aspects of the story didn't quite add up, things that didn't occur to them while they were watching the film. And any film that can camouflage its conceit for long enough to tell its story isn't that bad.&nbsp;I try to use some of the screenwriter's tricks, in order to consolidate my desire to evoke a convincing world with the rules and assumptions of D&amp;D. If I can justify the way things are in my campaign for as long as everyone is playing, then I don't care how much they can poke holes in it afterwards. It's not easy, as I can tell you know; I've looked at your D&amp;D page. But I don't have to account for all the assumptions at once and I can get away with justifying counter-intuitive and even sometimes nonsensical D&amp;D-isms by the way I deal with them on a case by case basis, tailored to the players.&nbsp;Having said all that, I love your other reason for getting rid of improved invisibility - that it undermines perfectly good visuals. I'd have pasted that one into my sig, if I was the kind of poster who used sigs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ranes, post: 1422134, member: 4826"] I agree. And yet I enjoy the challenge, because I am into world-building consistency and verisimilitude - and D&D. There are many aspects of D&D that don't withstand sustained scrutiny and extrapolation but it's my contention that they don't need to. It's not that uncommon for a producer to interrupt a screenwriter who's making a pitch, to complain that a line doesn't work. And it's not uncommon for the screenwriter to respond with, "Imagine the way X would play it." There are moments in films that only work for that moment or for just a little longer than the length of the film. When people discuss a film they've seen, they often realise that certain aspects of the story didn't quite add up, things that didn't occur to them while they were watching the film. And any film that can camouflage its conceit for long enough to tell its story isn't that bad. I try to use some of the screenwriter's tricks, in order to consolidate my desire to evoke a convincing world with the rules and assumptions of D&D. If I can justify the way things are in my campaign for as long as everyone is playing, then I don't care how much they can poke holes in it afterwards. It's not easy, as I can tell you know; I've looked at your D&D page. But I don't have to account for all the assumptions at once and I can get away with justifying counter-intuitive and even sometimes nonsensical D&D-isms by the way I deal with them on a case by case basis, tailored to the players. Having said all that, I love your other reason for getting rid of improved invisibility - that it undermines perfectly good visuals. I'd have pasted that one into my sig, if I was the kind of poster who used sigs. [/QUOTE]

Verification