The Gaming Den

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?

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.

I pick whichever answer makes D&D less like 2e.

shadzar is more imaginative than all of you.

Film at 11.

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.

Should a game like D&D try to emulate 2e D&D? Also no.

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.

Actually that is not true. Here is what the creator of D&D has to say about the afternoon before he started creating it:

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!

My guess: Shadzar's illustrator resigned, therefore Shad' tries to convince himself that RPG books shouldn't have any artwork.

I certainly think that there's room for a game like D&D to try to emulate fantasy movies, but D&D is its own genre at this point.

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?

GâtFromKI wrote:My guess: Shadzar's illustrator resigned, therefore Shad' tries to convince himself that RPG books shouldn't have any artwork.

Absurd. It would require him to work with another person in some fashion.

D&D should be more like movies, and 2nd edition is the worst edition for emulating movies. This is because T$R hates movies and fucked the game up terribly.

It's probably best just to avoid 2E all together, even if you don't want to emulate movies.

RobbyPants wrote:D&D should be more like movies,[...]

So you're all for the grognards' wish that characters win against the odds in the end every time, because giant frog?

zugschef wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:D&D should be more like movies,[...]

So you're all for the grognards' wish that characters win against the odds in the end every time, because giant frog?

From the context, he might be more for mocking shadzar's crazy.

zugschef wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:D&D should be more like movies,[...]

So you're all for the grognards' wish that characters win against the odds in the end every time, because giant frog?

Giant Frog.

Voss wrote: From the context, he might be more for mocking shadzar's crazy.

Yes, this. Shadthread is Shadthread, after all. You get what you get.

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?

If you show your players an illustration out of the monster manual instead of letting them imagine their own dragon, the Nazis have won.

Hmm. The sole resident of Shadzaria has already decreed both James Wyatt and myself to be Hitler, so I guess we have to share. But what do we win?

Should a movie imitate D&D?

Oh wait, they did three times, and it sucks.

sigma999 wrote:Should a movie imitate D&D?

Oh wait, they did three times, and it sucks.

Hey, Book of Vile Darkness was awesomely cheesey.

Leress wrote:

sigma999 wrote:Should a movie imitate D&D?

Oh wait, they did three times, and it sucks.

Hey, Book of Vile Darkness was awesomely cheesey.

QFT

That was the Sci-Fi special, right?
The black dragon was pretty awesome.

codeGlaze wrote:That was the Sci-Fi special, right?
The black dragon was pretty awesome.

all of them were SyFy "original" movies after the 2000 one.

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.

shadzar wrote: 2. black dragon/dracolich (mentions GToI, Jubilex; has the hot barbarian chick)

This is one of the rare times I agree with you, Shad.

RobbyPants wrote:

zugschef wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:D&D should be more like movies,[...]

So you're all for the grognards' wish that characters win against the odds in the end every time, because giant frog?

Giant Frog.

Voss wrote: From the context, he might be more for mocking shadzar's crazy.

Yes, this. Shadthread is Shadthread, after all. You get what you get.

Ah sorry, I really didn't get it.

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?

"The beholder looks at you with his desintegrating eye!
- 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.

zugschef wrote: Ah sorry, I really didn't get it.

Prolonged exposure to Shadthread does weird things to people. You are forgiven.