Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6678611" data-attributes="member: 7006">Well, I'd say it really depends on what would be considered both an &quot;in-joke&quot; and what would be considered &quot;stupid&quot;.For instance... having some things occur in the film specifically because they are following D&amp;D-isms (rather than generic fantasy-isms) that D&amp;D players would understand even if no one else did.&nbsp; Like if the spellcaster throws a spell that sends three balls of magical &quot;force&quot; at a monster.&nbsp; The monster tries to duck or run away, gets nailed once... gets nailed twice... then is able to completely turn a corner out of sight and yet the third ball of force follows him around the corner to hit him the third time.Everyone else just thinks this is what the magic attack did... but we D&amp;Ders would instantly recognize the attack as a Magic Missile, and many of use would also note the fact that the spell hit unerringly even though the monster got away from the mage.By the same token... would it be a &quot;stupid inside joke&quot; if the same spellcaster extended his fingers with thumbs touching and sent out a short cone of fire out from his fingertips?&nbsp; That's the universal Burning Hands that we all know about, and as &quot;inside&quot; as you could get.&nbsp; Should that not be used?&nbsp; Or is that a nod to the tropes of D&amp;D that should appear in the film so long as no big deal is made about it to &quot;call it out&quot; as occurring?&nbsp; (In other words, no one need to then shout to the caster &quot;Great use of your Burning Hands spell!&quot;).I think the movie can show many of the tropes of D&amp;D so long as the characters don't go out of their way to calling them out as tropes so the rest of the audience can &quot;get them&quot;.&nbsp; Therein I agree, lies madness (or at least a poor narrative.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6678611, member: 7006"] Well, I'd say it really depends on what would be considered both an "in-joke" and what would be considered "stupid". For instance... having some things occur in the film specifically because they are following D&D-isms (rather than generic fantasy-isms) that D&D players would understand even if no one else did. Like if the spellcaster throws a spell that sends three balls of magical "force" at a monster. The monster tries to duck or run away, gets nailed once... gets nailed twice... then is able to completely turn a corner out of sight and yet the third ball of force [i]follows[/i] him around the corner to hit him the third time. Everyone else just thinks this is what the magic attack did... but we D&Ders would instantly recognize the attack as a Magic Missile, and many of use would also note the fact that the spell hit unerringly even though the monster got away from the mage. By the same token... would it be a "stupid inside joke" if the same spellcaster extended his fingers with thumbs touching and sent out a short cone of fire out from his fingertips? That's the universal Burning Hands that we all know about, and as "inside" as you could get. Should that not be used? Or is that a nod to the tropes of D&D that [i]should[/i] appear in the film so long as no big deal is made about it to "call it out" as occurring? (In other words, no one need to then shout to the caster "Great use of your Burning Hands spell!"). I think the movie can show many of the tropes of D&D so long as the characters don't go out of their way to calling them out as tropes so the rest of the audience can "get them". Therein I agree, lies madness (or at least a poor narrative.) [/QUOTE]

Verification