Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1756190" data-attributes="member: 10201">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.</blockquote>

Verification