Should a game like D&D try to emulate movies?
Moderator: Moderators
Should a game like D&D try to emulate movies?
i set forth the idea that a movie and a book are different. one of the key differences is that a movie provides all the visuals you expect to see on the screen, while a book provides only partial material to let your imagination fill in the gaps.
D&D was made during a time when movies had been in use for many years, yet it still was made with the idea of a book in mind, so that the "reader"/"player" could allow his imagination to fill in the gaps.
now, clearly a video game can offer the movie experience with all visuals presented, but should D&D and other books-story based imagination games strive to follow technological advances so that ALL visuals are given up front for the player to just be able to play through without having to fill in any gaps with their imagination?
many board games remove the gaps by just not having things that need filling, the "orc" pawn is the orc you see and everyone else sees. the "explosion" has a "marker" that looks like an explosion, so you need not imagine it as it takes up the required space with its "template" or "marker".
has D&D tried to follow technology to become more of a board game and movie representation than that of reading a book? should it continue to do so?
now this doesn't speak to other games or what they should do, but just D&D, should it abandon its roots in order keep up with technology in other media formats?
now you can say it always allowed for the movie style visual in game with maps and battle grids and handouts, etc; but also it doesnt provide for every visual. something like 3rd or 4th with its "flavor text" often include the visual right there so as not to allow someone to see it a different way with their own interpretation.
so should everyone be forced to see Smaug, Tiamat etc the same way or should they be able to see them in their own imagination, and does designing the game around the shared identical visuals change more than just those visuals like maybe the mechanics in order to support or force those visuals?
is something loss when you are handed the "image" rather than letting you view it through your own minds eye?
D&D was made during a time when movies had been in use for many years, yet it still was made with the idea of a book in mind, so that the "reader"/"player" could allow his imagination to fill in the gaps.
now, clearly a video game can offer the movie experience with all visuals presented, but should D&D and other books-story based imagination games strive to follow technological advances so that ALL visuals are given up front for the player to just be able to play through without having to fill in any gaps with their imagination?
many board games remove the gaps by just not having things that need filling, the "orc" pawn is the orc you see and everyone else sees. the "explosion" has a "marker" that looks like an explosion, so you need not imagine it as it takes up the required space with its "template" or "marker".
has D&D tried to follow technology to become more of a board game and movie representation than that of reading a book? should it continue to do so?
now this doesn't speak to other games or what they should do, but just D&D, should it abandon its roots in order keep up with technology in other media formats?
now you can say it always allowed for the movie style visual in game with maps and battle grids and handouts, etc; but also it doesnt provide for every visual. something like 3rd or 4th with its "flavor text" often include the visual right there so as not to allow someone to see it a different way with their own interpretation.
so should everyone be forced to see Smaug, Tiamat etc the same way or should they be able to see them in their own imagination, and does designing the game around the shared identical visuals change more than just those visuals like maybe the mechanics in order to support or force those visuals?
is something loss when you are handed the "image" rather than letting you view it through your own minds eye?
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
Nah, it should keep its roots by chasing movies. Especially The Hobbit. D&D needs its Bilbo Baggins after all.
Plus the film version is a lot closer to D&D anyway. Less singing, more Greenskin (or post-apocalyptic mutant hillbilly) murdering.
Plus the film version is a lot closer to D&D anyway. Less singing, more Greenskin (or post-apocalyptic mutant hillbilly) murdering.
Last edited by Voss on Wed Dec 18, 2013 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Stinktopus
- Master
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:07 am
The answer to the above question is no.
The answer has literally nothing to do with books vs movie or imagination vs image presented.
The answer has everything to do with the fact that D&D is a cooperative storytelling game, not a authorial based story with passive observers.
The answer to the question: Should a game like D&D try to emulate books? Is also No.
The answer has literally nothing to do with books vs movie or imagination vs image presented.
The answer has everything to do with the fact that D&D is a cooperative storytelling game, not a authorial based story with passive observers.
The answer to the question: Should a game like D&D try to emulate books? Is also No.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Re: Should a game like D&D try to emulate movies?
Actually that is not true. Here is what the creator of D&D has to say about the afternoon before he started creating it:shadzar wrote:D&D was made during a time when movies had been in use for many years, yet it still was made with the idea of a book in mind, so that the "reader"/"player" could allow his imagination to fill in the gaps.
Arneson wrote:One day, about thirty-five years ago now, I discovered that I was bored. Faced with a long weekend without gaming, I turned to the television. I tried to occupy my time sitting on a couch, watching cheesy 50’s monster movies and reading “fantasy hero” novels until I could find something better to do.
I noted that the hero in the movie I was watching had again failed to pick up the gun and blast the monster. Even if such a puny weapon did not stop the critter, it would probably slow it down. Why didn’t the heroes make better decisions? The fantasy hero in my novel had once again dodged the magic spell and solved his problems with a sword. All this in the face of clear indicators that told him (and the reader) exactly what he must do to destroy the evil menace through an easier route! Even I could write better junk than this!
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
and can you define that genre? does the genre include implied visuals that don't allow newcomers to have their own visuals but are required to use those presented?
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
Giant Frog.zugschef wrote:So you're all for the grognards' wish that characters win against the odds in the end every time, because giant frog?RobbyPants wrote:D&D should be more like movies,[...]
Yes, this. Shadthread is Shadthread, after all. You get what you get.Voss wrote: From the context, he might be more for mocking shadzar's crazy.
If you show your players an illustration out of the monster manual instead of letting them imagine their own dragon, the Nazis have won.shadzar wrote:and can you define that genre? does the genre include implied visuals that don't allow newcomers to have their own visuals but are required to use those presented?
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5579
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
Hey, Book of Vile Darkness was awesomely cheesey.sigma999 wrote:Should a movie imitate D&D?
Oh wait, they did three times, and it sucks.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
QFTLeress wrote:Hey, Book of Vile Darkness was awesomely cheesey.sigma999 wrote:Should a movie imitate D&D?
Oh wait, they did three times, and it sucks.
That was the Sci-Fi special, right?
The black dragon was pretty awesome.
Phlebotinum : fleh-bot-ih-nuhm • A glossary of RPG/Dennizen terminology • Favorite replies: [1]
nockermensch wrote:Advantage will lead to dicepools in D&D. Remember, you read this here first!
all of them were SyFy "original" movies after the 2000 one.codeGlaze wrote:That was the Sci-Fi special, right?
The black dragon was pretty awesome.
there was barely a dragon in this one, i think you are thinking of the sequel to 2000 called "Wrath of the Dragon God", where Damodar returned and such.
BoVD has the sex scene with the whatever thing type of class from eBerron, and the purple Goliath, and they actually went into Ye Olde Magick Shoppe to buy items before going on the adventure.
1. Wayans brother, lots of red and gold dragons
2. black dragon/dracolich (mentions GToI, Jubilex; has the hot barbarian chick)
3. trying to get the BoVD to give to some BBEG and had an evil PC party.
Play the game, not the rules.
good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.
Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.
This is one of the rare times I agree with you, Shad.shadzar wrote: 2. black dragon/dracolich (mentions GToI, Jubilex; has the hot barbarian chick)
Last edited by Leress on Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
Ah sorry, I really didn't get it.RobbyPants wrote:Giant Frog.zugschef wrote:So you're all for the grognards' wish that characters win against the odds in the end every time, because giant frog?RobbyPants wrote:D&D should be more like movies,[...]Yes, this. Shadthread is Shadthread, after all. You get what you get.Voss wrote: From the context, he might be more for mocking shadzar's crazy.
"The beholder looks at you with his desintegrating eye!shadzar wrote:and can you define that genre? does the genre include implied visuals that don't allow newcomers to have their own visuals but are required to use those presented?
- No. As I said, I stand behind him. He can't look behind, can he?"
OD&D already required newcomers to use the visual presented in the book.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm