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

[FarBeyondC]

Absolutely. And it's not an uncommon trajectory in cinema/TV generally either - there are movies from the 1950s and 1960s featuring the same "reluctant heroes" tropes.

It isn't though. He cast some kind of globe-shaped shielding spell that OUTRIGHT BLOCKS a meteor from Meteor Swarm. It doesn't like "reduce the damage" as they have in the statblock in DDB, it just stops it dead. It's not a Wild Surge either (unless the Surge just uplevels it), it's the spell he meant to cast. My guess would be that is Globe of Invulnerability, but it'd need to be cast at 10th level (!!!) to block a Meteor Swarm. Either way that puts him at at least 11th.

Haven't seen the movie (yet), but Wall of Force should be able to block a Meteor Swarm meteor, can be shaped like a globe (despite being called Wall of Force), and is only a 5th level spell (thus is accessible at 9th level).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think you may have interpreted an analogy intended to make a point as if it were a general aversion to learning. I don't think DND_Reborn meant the football analogy as a statement of general principle, just an illustration of how their lack of interest in this movie is not intended as an attack on other people's interest in it.

(FTR: I say "their" because "they" has a centuries-long history as the English pronoun for indeterminate gender, despite what your grade school teacher may have told you, but I am 90% certain DND-Reborn is male.)

You put my name on the wrong quote - it's far too polite for a blunt-speaking northerner like me!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think what’s getting the most push back is that the DnD movie represents a change in what DnD means. As if in the past DnD was one thing and now it is different.

I really disagree with that. DnD has always been gonzo weird. It didn’t have to be, of course. Any table could do what it wanted. But the gonzo was always there.

But that doesn’t fit with the”kids these days” narrative that gets heavily pushed to resist what is seen as changes in the game. So gonzo weird gets painted as “not really DnD” in order to try to make a particular style of DnD the “true DnD”.

This.

People are free to play D&D however they like, like whatever movie they like, but saying things like "It's not D&D to me" carries the implication, perhaps inadvertent, that the D&D depicted in the movie is not "proper" D&D. Which is insulting to the great many people whose D&D is so accurately depicted in the movie.

I suggest that if people are not looking for an argument, they avoid gatekeeping language, and in instead use inclusive language, such as "It's not the style of D&D I like".


And in the current climate, with objective truth coming under attack from so many different directions, there are those of us who feel it's vitally important to set the record straight when someone says something verifiably false about early D&D. It's about much more than just D&D. There is no intention to attack peoples preferences or perceptions, and if anyone feels that we have done so, I, and I'm sure others, apologise profusely.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Haven't seen the movie (yet), but Wall of Force should be able to block a Meteor Swarm meteor, can be shaped like a globe (despite being called Wall of Force), and is only a 5th level spell (thus is accessible at 9th level).

That'd do it! I forgot Wall of Force could go Globe Mode!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You put my name on the wrong quote - it's far too polite for a blunt-speaking northerner like me!

Oh, THAT explains why the name came up "wrong" initially. I've been having issues with Enworld on my phone and I thought I was responding to you, but it also included a partial quote from ilgatto. I double-checked before fixing the quote but apparently I should have triple checked.

Sorry for the misattribution, Paul. My bad.

 

[Minigiant]

I've wondered what a "D&D movie" should look like and I can't really come to a conclusion. I mean, there's so many things one can consider D&D that the whole thing is probably a matter of taste. I suppose one could even argue that the first D&D movie is actually very much D&D because of its attempt to tell a heroic and fantastic story ... and then failing.

I think one of the thing many forget is that D&D was originally a mish mash. Every class, race, and monster were just popular theme, meme, or being from a popular work at the time... jammed into a world with trap monster and treasure filled dungeons. The sources for Original D&D didn't have dungeons nor half the races and classes.

It was very Justice League or Avengers. Supergroups of Popular heroes.

So as the relationship of the separate pieces coalesce over fiddy years coalesced, more things were added. Nohing over 50 year remains the same.

So it makes sense that the 2000 movie that tried to roll back to older ideas on top of a stereotypical and bad movie plot felt disjointed and was bad. Whereas the new movie is called good. It's the new DC live action movies vs the new Marvel live action movies.

 

[Clint_L]

I've seen the 2000 film. It's not bad because of its paradigm. It's bad because the script, direction, acting, and effects are all terrible! Terrible, terrible, terrible. The plot doesn't make any sense, the actors all seem embarrassed to be there (except Jeremy Irons who just shameless chews the scenery) and it looks dreadful.

The new film is well made with a script that is mostly cohesive and a cast with good chemistry who gamely buy into the film. It's not high art, but it is a very well crafted action comedy.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Of course, in Unfinished Tales Tolkien makes it clear that Gandalf was motivated all along by a desire to dispose of the dragon.

I'm just glad that Tolkien didn't live long enough to tweet that Gandalf pooped all over Middle-Earth and just teleported the feces away.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think what’s getting the most push back is that the DnD movie represents a change in what DnD means. As if in the past DnD was one thing and now it is different.

I really disagree with that. DnD has always been gonzo weird. It didn’t have to be, of course. Any table could do what it wanted. But the gonzo was always there.

But that doesn’t fit with the”kids these days” narrative that gets heavily pushed to resist what is seen as changes in the game. So gonzo weird gets painted as “not really DnD” in order to try to make a particular style of DnD the “true DnD”.

I don't think anyone here has painted the new film as "not really D&D". As has been said, D&D is a lot of things, some of which aren't especially compatible with each other, and some of which are more or less popular than they used to be.

 

[Minigiant]

I've seen the 2000 film. It's not bad because of its paradigm. It's bad because the script, direction, acting, and effects are all terrible! Terrible, terrible, terrible. The plot doesn't make any sense, the actors all seem embarrassed to be there (except Jeremy Irons who just shameless chews the scenery) and it looks dreadful.

The new film is well made with a script that is mostly cohesive and a cast with good chemistry who gamely buy into the film. It's not high art, but it is a very well crafted action comedy.

Oh all of that is true.

My point is there wasnt and isn't a paradigm to turn Old School D&D's style into a successful movie. At least no one thought of one yet.

So it was doomed from the start