Poll: What is the worst depection of "true DnD"?

[jmucchiello]

Um, yes, the cartoon is more entertaining that the movie. (So is a root canal.) But the poll asks about DEPICTION of D&D. The movie is a bad homebrew brought to screen. The cartoon is just NOT D&D. No matter how much you like the bleating unicorn, or the COOL energy bow, the cartoon does not depict how D&D is. If the poll was which is more popular, then the cartoon could have all the votes it has (and more). Start your own poll to find that out.

 

[Truth Seeker]

Ah...a prelude before my playing days.

The Cartoon was the great influence during that time.

Ah....the memories.

Now, can someone rid me the nightmare (not Venger's horse), to that thing a called a 'movie' almost did to me.

 

[woodelf]

The cartoon has one thing in it that will always make it my vote: The Dungeon Master as a character.

The movie on the other hand had lots of things that make it accurate for D&D, it had:
1) A group of people travelling together with no motivation to do so
2) Character wildly changing their stance on things, probably because of meta-game information that couldn't be seen in the movie
3) A battle in which the characters are meaningless (the big dragon battle) which shows how uber the DM is.
4) Amateurish acting
5) Anachronistic references
6) Dumb guards/monsters not helping out their fellows in the same location.
7) An obscure plot that could only be discovered by asking the DM afterward (or in this case, watching the DVD extras -- if you have not watched the DVD extras spend the $2.99 at Blockbuster and rent the DVD. They do explain 1 or 2 of the various egregous plot holes in the movie. The other 7-8 are left unexplained but these are the most glaring ones that are filled.)

Those things are D&D.

Except for #4, those things are also all characteristics of bad fiction--point is, they're not definitive of D&D, because they are common characteristics of a whole lot of things.

Some things that distinguish D&D genre from most [high fantasy] fiction:
1: true ensemble cast
2: dragons that are intelligent and spell-casting
3: elves and dwarves that are on roughly the same level, metaphysically, as humans, and roughly as powerful individually
4: wizards that aren't really any more powerful than non-magic-users
5: strong line between magic-users and non-magic-users
6: polytheistic priests who are basically co-equal with other social roles
7: priests who are spellcasters much like wizards
8: other than priests-as-spellcasters, exceedingly minimal impact of religion on society

Some things that distinguish D&D from most other RPGs:
A: priests who are spellcasters much like wizards
B: ill-defined setting, pretty much requiring significant player creation, but with certain common tropes
C: absolute alignments
D: higher-level characters are better at everything, even outside of their niche
E: strong dependence of character power on magic items (moreso in D&D3E)
F: significant focus on defeating foes to improve in capabilities

Neither of those are exhaustive lists--they're just what came to mind off the top of my head. No single item is absolute, either, but taken together, they begin to frame a picture of what D&D is. The movie missed points 1-6, and didn't even have religion or preists of any sort (and thus couldn't fulfill points 7 or 8). It also missed point A (since it's a repeat), and arguably didn't depict C, D, E, or F. But those matter less--for a mainstream movie, depicting the differences between D&D, or RPGs in general, and fiction is much more important for getting to the heart of the matter, than trynig to depict how D&D differs from other RPGs.

Now, the cartoon managed to portray pretty much every one of those points, except for C, F, and arguably 6/7 (very little depiction of religion or priests in the cartoon--though we had several paladin/holy knight type figures at various points). And, given the mutability of setting, as mentioned in point B, it was no further removed from "proper" D&D than most actual homebrew D&D settings i've known (and since almost everyone i've ever known used homebrews rather than published settings, i suspect homebrew settings are more the norm, especially when the cartoon was still in first run). And at least it shared a lot of the significant elements, which is more than can be said for the movie (which had some trappings--particular monsters--but almost none of the underlying elements). Oh, and i've personally known of at least two D&D campaigns that started with the players statting up themselves, and those alternate selves being somehow sucked into the D&D world. Not to mention, apparently that's how the original Blackmoor campaign began (with those characters being replaced by Blackmoor-native characters as they were killed or retired). Or the various classic D&D scenarios that revolved around crossovers between the D&D world and teh real world. So i don't think you can count the regular-kids-sucked-into-fantasy-world thing against the cartoon as "un-D&D-like". That really only leaves Dungeon Master as a point against the cartoon. And while the actual DM doesn't appear to the characters in any D&D game i've ever heard of, overpowered, excessively-informed, annoyingly-cryptic NPCs are a staple of D&D (Elminster or Fizzban, anyone?). So, ignore his name, and he's perfectly appropriate.

 

[woodelf]

Actually, it was based on 1e up to the original Unearthed Arcana; the reason that they couldn't have demons and violence was Network Standards & Practices, the same thing that emasculated action/adventure cartoons throughout the 70s and early-to-mid 80s.

If we're gonna be picky, it was already in at least it's second season by the time Unearthed Arcana came out. Because those of us who were playing the game, but hadn't been reading Dragon long enough to see the cavalier, barbarian, or thief-acrobat, had no idea why there were characters of those classes in the cartoon, until UA showed up. So, yeah, it was based on AD&D1, but with a bunch of stuff from EGG that had been in Dragon, not UA itself. And, even then, it played with the details considerably (thus inspiring me to make skeleton warriors like the cool one in the cartoon, rather than the lame one in the FF (or was it MMII?), frex).

 

[woodelf]

I haven't seen the DnD movie, but as bad as I'm sure it is, it's hard for me to believe it beats Mazes and Monsters (starring Tom Hanks!) as the worst depiction of "true DnD."

Mazes and Monsters had (1) acting, (2) dialogue, and (3) a plot. As a movie, it is far superior. While it was a horrendous depiction of D&D, at least it didn't claim to be a depiction of D&D (not that anyone didn't know it was supposed to be D&D they were playing). So, yeah, a worse depiction of RPing--but then the D&D movie didn't try and portray RPing. And Mazes and Monsters was a better depiction of the world of the characters in D&D than the D&D movie.

So it depends what you're talking about. Worst depiction of RPing [with D&D]? Might be Mazes and Monsters. Worst depiction of the world we RP in with D&D [by a film attempting to depict the world of D&D]? The D&D movie.

 

[woodelf]

Um, yes, the cartoon is more entertaining that the movie. (So is a root canal.) But the poll asks about DEPICTION of D&D. The movie is a bad homebrew brought to screen. The cartoon is just NOT D&D. No matter how much you like the bleating unicorn, or the COOL energy bow, the cartoon does not depict how D&D is.

Examples? How is the cartoon "not D&D"? How is the movie "D&D" (and i mean things that make it more "D&D" than other explicitly non-D&D films--your previous list describes most B-grade fantasy flicks)?

 

[woodelf]

The movie was BAD but it was a least related to D&D. The cartoon was both bad and unrelated to D&D in any way but the name and the monsters. It should have it's own EPA superfund cleanup. Good God, but I can't find the words adequate to express my marrow-deep loathing of that insipid tripe.

See my other post: how is the D&D movie any more related to D&D, sans the title, than any other fantasy film (such as The Sword and the Sorcerer, Krull, or a host of others)? How is the cartoon any less related to D&D than someone's homebrew?