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

[Ruin Explorer]

Finally, any "flashy, high-magicy, silly (not "funny", but actually silly)" fantasy movie isn't going to appeal to me, which given the reviews and trailers, is pretty much what this "D&D" movie is. A plethora of animal-head peoples, renaissance-level tech, magic prevalent through the culture, etc. is NOT my D&D. Never has been, never will be.

I mean, you've got it mostly right, but the reality is, the D&D movie is extremely funny. If nothing else, when it's doing humour, it absolutely nails it, and it does a lot of humour. A lot lot. Is it silly - absolutely it is silly - but it's silly AND funny - and it's more funny than it is silly. It's not completely ridiculous.

I respect your decision not to watch it, but it's funny - and I didn't really expect it to be.

I mean, there's a reason why it's got an 91% Rotten Tomatoes rating (up from 89% a couple of days ago), and that is primarily that it's a very good-hearted and very funny movie.

But silly stuff and animal-people? (Particularly a certain Aarakocra) That's happening right from the outset of the movie. So yeah.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Don’t forget they put the Dragonborn and Tiefling in the 4e PHB because they were races they owned. I wouldn’t be surprised if the One PHB includes more of those, maybe Tabaxi and Aarakocra since they showed up in the movie.

I don't think that's the main reason why they put those in, personally.

I think they put those two in, because by 2008, it was obvious D&D was missing key archetypical fantasy races which had become broadly popular (particularly in videogames) - specifically, Big Guy, Animal Person, and Devil-like Person.

Obviously, when deciding what races to use to fill those gaps, they picked ones they owned on the IP, on rather than drawing in ones they didn't own IP on.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Ruin Explorer

I imagine it is akin to Guardians of the Galaxy movies. I don't care for them at all. Watched the 1st and felt it was more or less a waste of time for me. Yeah, it had some redeeming parts, but all in all I wished I had spent my time doing something else. Now, I like a lot of the MU movies, just like I enjoy many fantasy movies, but this is a case where I am sure I really won't care for it. Funny is fine, but as soon as it becomes (also) silly, not for me.

Thanks for the respectful response.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

5E reminds me of Shadowrun in the sense that binding spirits/Planar Binding are terrific ways to spend cash in both.

TELL ME MORE PLEASE!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My point is without fudging that side quest and boss fight is suicide at low levels.

Okay, I get your point, but I disagree. An optional side quest that is one way out of many to solve a problem BY DEFINITION cannot be a railroad, no matter how deadly it happens to be.

P.S. The smart thing to do would have been to hither-thither right out of there the minute evil was smelled. They already had the helmet. There was no reason not to break contact and leave.

 

[Clint_L]

Hmmm...for me D&D is a pretty good system for playing a generic high fantasy game. I like my D&D to include a lot of low level magic, but powerful artifacts are rare and impactful. I don't use alignment, so all sentient beings make decisions based on their culture, personalities, and agendas. Including the gods. I like that it allows a ton of freedom for players to express themselves.

I also like my games to be positive - grim and gritty is not my style of DMing, though I think playing in such a campaign would be fun. I simply disallow characters being actively horrible - I am not going to DM a "murderhobo" game. Not judging; it's just not for me. My games are also pretty PG, the ones at school for obvious reasons, and the ones at home because player preference. I like my game world to be really inclusive, so when a player has a vision for their character I do whatever I can to make it work as long as it doesn't unbalance the game or wreck the narrative for others.

Basically, Critical Role and Dimension 20 are how I like my D&D. As a DM. As a player, I don't really care. It's fun to play in someone else's sandbox and experience their take on the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

TELL ME MORE PLEASE!

It's been a long time since I played Shadowrun but what I remember is that instead of a duration measured in months, a la Planar Binding, it's measured in services akin to stereotypical genie "three wishes": "distract those guards" might be one service to ask from your air spirit, and "steal that car and bring it here" another. Different spirits have different stats and capabilities (e.g. air vs. plant vs. war), and a typical number of services to extract from a given spirit is low, around six IIRC. That's all I remember offhand.

In 5E, starting around 9th level, it becomes possible for adventures to cooperate on summoning + Planar Binding elementals for 24 hours (and more at 11th level). A Conjure Elemental lasts for just long enough (1 hour) to cast Planar Binding for 24 hours, which extends the duration of the Conjure Elemental to 24 hours too. This in turn enables some fun tricks and combos on your next adventuring day, e.g. Earth Elementals have tremorsense and immunity to poison, so depending on how your DM runs tremorsense you can potentially give advantage to all your Earth elemental's attacks while nerfing enemy action economy with a Stinking Cloud spell, which you wouldn't be free to concentrate on if not for Planar Binding. Mage Armor on an Air elemental is also fun; ditto Haste on a Fire elemental against a mob of enemies (imagine Disengaging through 100' of orcs, setting them all on fire, while still finding time for a regular Multiattack at the end).

Is that enough detail or do I need to talk about Summon Greater Demon?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

When five pages of this thread is you saying everyone else isn't getting your point, it might be worth considering that your point isn't being expressed as clearly as you think it is, @Micah Sweet.

Hey, some of us get the points being made on both sides. You're not wrong but neither is Micah. You're not disagreeing with each other substantively; you just think Micah is saying sometime different than Micah thinks Micah is saying, and you disagree with that other thing. So does Micah incidentally.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is never enough time, is there....


It isn't the same thing as being familiar with the game system the movie is "based on" (so to say...).


Not everyone in the world always wants to branch out and try new things. Most people like what they know and are comfortable with. I have enough demands on my time (in general anyway) doing the things I know I'm likely to enjoy to waste any time on something I won't.

Finally, any "flashy, high-magicy, silly (not "funny", but actually silly)" fantasy movie isn't going to appeal to me, which given the reviews and trailers, is pretty much what this "D&D" movie is. A plethora of animal-head peoples, renaissance-level tech, magic prevalent through the culture, etc. is NOT my D&D. Never has been, never will be.

For instance, IIRC one of the D&D setting cities had "Griffon Patrols" (Waterdeep? Maybe Greyhawk? I can't remember) flying through the skies. You would never encounter such a mundane use of magical and fantasical things in my D&D games. I don't want "commonplace" magic. I don't have a cleric in every town, etc. My city streets are not lit up by continual flame/light spells. Magic items are (and should be IMO) rare and unique. When I read about "common magic items" in Xanathar's I cringed.

Now, there are specific areas, etc. where magic might be more common, but in general those are few and far between. That is how I like my D&D. I am not "missing out" on anything by not seeing the movie, just as I am not missing out by not listening to music I don't like, or eating food I don't like, or doing anything else I don't like, and in fact I am saving some money.

So, if you want to engage, branch out, etc. into things you think you won't like, go nuts. But please respect that not everyone is like that, nor do they want to try to be like that. Call me "set in my ways" if you want, but that is just who I am. Cheers!

I don't necessarily agree with this completely, but I fully support feeling this way.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

@Ruin Explorer

I imagine it is akin to Guardians of the Galaxy movies. I don't care for them at all. Watched the 1st and felt it was more or less a waste of time for me. Yeah, it had some redeeming parts, but all in all I wished I had spent my time doing something else. Now, I like a lot of the MU movies, just like I enjoy many fantasy movies, but this is a case where I am sure I really won't care for it. Funny is fine, but as soon as it becomes (also) silly, not for me.

Thanks for the respectful response.

I'm not trying to change your mind, just responding to the ideas here:

In most respects I feel that Honor Among Thieves was more serious and less Guardians-like than I expected. There was definitely some verbal humor but a lot of the gonzo stuff I saw in the trailers turned out to be from backstory/exposition rather than from the mainline plot, which was played pretty straight.

Mainly though I want to comment on the magic level. There was kind of a weird disjunct where the protagonists have an expectation of high magic and casually talk of wizards, resurrections, "knowing a druid," etc., and yet regular people still stare in wide-eyed amazement at a cat turning into a human. It seemed inconsistent and a bit too... protagonist-centric(?) for my tastes. I enjoyed the movie but tonally I found that odd in the same way I found the casual horse thievery odd and somewhat alarming.