Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9677685" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I would agree... mostly. There are a few tropes and scopes that need to be taken into account. For example:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The hero often has a look (perhaps shirtless, definitely helmetless) that they stick with throughout the movie. If they put on a guard's armor to sneak into the castle, they get rid of it as soon as possible. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They may get knocked out in a fight (or by someone that catches them off guard while sneaking around). They will inevitably wake up in chains or a prison cell (that can readily be broken out of, or with helpful villain's daughter who will fall in love with the protagonist). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">They will escape into the night or off a waterfall with nothing but the clothes on their back. They will appear in the next scene (perhaps weeks and hundreds of miles away) looking no more than one meal hungry (and with no lasting wounds).</li> </ul>Point being, some games have mechanics ill suited to the genre. Such as games that treat as important careful tracking of equipment and resources, their acquisition, and their depletion/recovery over time. Also those where combat failure generally leads to death. Interestingly, the careful-logistics-and-cautious-dungeoncrawling/death-is-cheap game the TSR/OSR D&D ruleset incentivized is actually something of a poor fit (mind you, the A/D&D a lot of us actually played at the time often was not). This is something I've noticed in discussions about appendix N -- EGG (Gygax, not Embry) indicated that Pulp/Sword and Sandal epics like Conan and Fafhrd & Grey Mouser might have been the thematic inspiration for the game, but the gameplay still played out like a different form of fantasy.There's a period of fantasy/historical fiction movies that covers the mid-70s to the mid-90s* where the genre was not much used for expensive or serious films. Excalibur was something of a high-minded and serious epic film (gorgeous and weighty and deliberately ponderous in a David Lynch Dune or Star Trek the (slow) Motion Picture kind of way). Clash of the Titans was a throwback/homage to moviemaking of the 50s and 60s. Willow and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves were expensive summer blockbuster attempts. Beyond that, most of the stuff was solidly b-movie material, or at best disposable popcorn fare. And yes, a huge amount of them, even the ones that are likable, aren't what I'd call actually good. It's notable that the exceptions I can think of during that era are 1) the exception to type (Excalibur), 2) the throwback (Clash of the Titans), 3) parodies or action-comedies (Holy Grail, Princess Bride), and 4) a children's/family film (Neverending Story). *basically, I'm trying to exclude all the 50s&60s Jason and the Argonauts/Ben-Hur stuff where actors still talked like stage actors and the (non-stop-motion) special effects are bad-by-modern-standards(but-we-understand-why). Also excluding things post Jackson LotR on the other end.</blockquote>

Verification