Making D&D (specifically) games more fun to hear about.

[Maj]

So, tussock... You hated Michael Clayton then, right?

[Darth Rabbitt]

Is there even one line in the prequels that gets quoted? Ever?

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Also, "Killing Younglings?" and "Yippee!"

[MGuy]

Tussok you're well on your way to convincing me that you're trolling. No one cares much about combat unless there's a lot of context to it. I hated the star wars prequels because what was happening was boring. If someone asked me how Batman took people down in the DK I wouldn't be able to tell you. If someone asked me how the scene with joker/Harvey played out I'd be able to recite it all from memory.

[MGuy]

Is there even one line in the prequels that gets quoted? Ever?

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Also, "Killing Younglings?" and "Yippee!"

You underestimate my power! (I say this a lot personally but it is also a meme I believe)

[Darth Rabbitt]

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Also, "Killing Younglings?" and "Yippee!"

You underestimate my power! (I say this a lot personally but it is also a meme I believe)

"If you're not with me, then you're my enemy!"

Pretty much anything Anakin or Palpatine say in Episode 3 is comedy gold.

I suppose the real question is whether or not there's even one line in the prequels that's quoted unironically.

[Koumei]

I suppose the real question is whether or not there's even one line in the prequels that's quoted unironically.

And that is where it gets shot down. Because all E1-3 quotes are due to the cheesiness, or as memes, not because they are classic lines that conveyed the scene well and made us go "Awesome!"

[FatR]

The Star Wars prequels being shit is because the non-action was shit - that's the point. If you walked away saying "I liked that, the fights were awesome", then might I recommend Ritalin?

People are not saying "Look at SWEp1-3, they're great and not because of the action!" They're saying "Look at SWEp1-3, they're shit, and if only there was a good story there they could have been good!"

No one of those who actually watches and rewatches Star Wars in any form does it for anything other than action and SFX. Except, maybe, for people who have severe nostalgic feelings for OT and therefore convince themselves that it has good plot and acting. Never encountered any of such personally, though.

[FatR]

The most famous AD&D modules I can think of (Tomb of Horrors, Against the Giants, Queen of the Demonweb Pits, TOEE, Slavers series) are just dungeon crawls with an incredibly thin veneer of plot on top.

As far as I know these all are for ODnD, not for ADnD 2.

Those are all for 1st edition AD&D. If you mean 2nd edition AD&D (and specifically Planescape), that's a very specific subset of "AD&D".

However, ADnD 2 is the subset that we're talking about from the beginning. From where you got "specifically Planescape" I don't know.

[Stubbazubba]

If you think the Dark Knight was so riveting because

Wow, assumption much?

No, 94% on Rotten Tomatoes (96 from audiences) and 82 on Metacritic (8.9 from audiences) indicates that both critics and the general populace found TDK really, really good to watch, it drew them in.

I watched the Dark Knight, and was not riveted at all.

So you're an objectively bad barometer for good movies.

You know what the worst bits of Star Wars are? It's where we learn more about Luke and his feelings.

Y'know what, I agree. They are the most uncomfortable parts to watch, because Mark Hamill is a mediocre actor and George Lucas is a mediocre writer and director. I wish they were done better. That does not make them unnecessary. It is precisely those scenes which set up the context for the action scenes that the movies did do so well. Empty action scenes, on the other hand, are completely forgettable. No one cares when the Nubian ship is blown up in the first scene of Episode II, nor do they care about the speeder chase through Coruscant a few scenes later, because they're both totally or near-totally context-less action scenes. No one even remembers them by the end of the movie.

"Hulk, smash." Then the Hulk hangs a lampshade on it by smiling to the camera. It's in all the adds, the sheer brilliance of a comma. That's what people are paying money to see. The smashing, with the clever quip.

So the only reason we don't cheer for the Hulk when he's breaking the helicarrier is because he didn't smile enough? Not enough one-liners being thrown his direction?

That's what fans will remember for decades to come.

Yes, but you are blissfully ignorant of the 'why.' It is not because of the obviously hammy quip or the goofy smile. Honestly, to think that that little scene succeeds due to its intrinsic merit is nothing short of a gratuitous display of willful ignorance. That scene makes us happy (and we forgive how hammy it is) because of all that has come before it. AKA the context, Ignoratus.

But an oldschool dungeon crawl is plenty urgent, with all the running and the dying and the instant no-save death traps, and the story of how that was like 3000 XP and went up a level and got Stinking Cloud.

That's only interesting in a game context, though. And that's all fine and dandy for other players of the game, but to the uninitiated, it's just gibberish. You ever notice how sports movies spend way more screen time off the field than on? That's because to make non-players care about the outcome of that game, it has to have additional emotional context that anyone can relate to. It has to be tied up with civil rights and integration, determination in the face of impossible odds (the ever-popular underdog story), or the strength of an inter-personal (often romantic) relationship. Not that victory in the literal game has to mean victory in the context, but that what happens in the game and what happens out of it are connected somehow.

tl;dr - Action only works because of the way non-action sets it up. Any examples of memorable action/quippy protagonist scenes are dependent on the non-action scenes before them, even if said non-action scenes aren't very well-done (as in the case of OT Star Wars).

[virgil]

tl;dr - Action only works because of the way non-action sets it up. Any examples of memorable action/quippy protagonist scenes are dependent on the non-action scenes before them, even if said non-action scenes aren't very well-done (as in the case of OT Star Wars).

Ultimate Showdowns have their place though. Dead Fantasy is one particularly memorable example of this.

[Stubbazubba]

tl;dr - Action only works because of the way non-action sets it up. Any examples of memorable action/quippy protagonist scenes are dependent on the non-action scenes before them, even if said non-action scenes aren't very well-done (as in the case of OT Star Wars).

Ultimate Showdowns have their place though. Dead Fantasy is one particularly memorable example of this.

I think this falls into the same category of 'cool for players/fans of said ultimate showdown's constituent elements, but not cool for outsiders,' though.

[virgil]

I've never actually played anything from the Dead or Alive series (didn't even know they were from it until told later), my experience with FFVII is hearing other people talk about it, and I actively dislike FFX. So the context surrounding those characters to me is "they fight stuff, apparently with magic sometimes." The over-the-top moves and such are what got me; unless the fact I've played games in the same genre makes me not an outsider, in which case you've set the limitations rather broad.

[Stubbazubba]

I've never actually played anything from the Dead or Alive series (didn't even know they were from it until told later), my experience with FFVII is hearing other people talk about it, and I actively dislike FFX. So the context surrounding those characters to me is "they fight stuff, apparently with magic sometimes." The over-the-top moves and such are what got me; unless the fact I've played games in the same genre makes me not an outsider, in which case you've set the limitations rather broad.

OK. So did you care who won? Could you describe it to someone else and make them care? If you read an after-action report, would it draw you in? The Dead Fantasy thing isn't even a story, it's a single, well-done action scene. But it's completely forgettable, because there's no context. All you could possibly say to bring someone to this is, "This is way cool, check it out." But guess what? After watching the first 5-10 minutes, I'm getting bored. It's not going anywhere, and I don't care about the outcome anyway.

Empty action scenes are stimulating when you're watching them, but they're not engaging, they don't actually draw you into the experience, and they certainly don't leave an impression.

[hogarth]

However, ADnD 2 is the subset that we're talking about from the beginning.

Just say "2E" then.

From where you got "specifically Planescape" I don't know.

Your examples were "the Grand Conjunction series or various Planescape adventures". To be honest, I've never heard of the Grand Conjunction, but it seems that that's a Ravenloft thing.

Maybe those are great modules in terms of story. Of course, the fact that I've never heard of them (despite the fact that I've been a fairly avid D&D player since 1981) isn't a huge vote of confidence in their popularity to me.

[RobbyPants]

"Luke, I am your father" is one of the most famous lines in movie history and it is not a quippy one-liner. Hell, it's so iconic that few people realize that it's a misquote of the actual line, "No, I am your father."

That's funny. I read the first half of your sentence, and was about to jump in, hit quote, and correct you, then I read the second half.

Is there even one line in the prequels that gets quoted? Ever?

"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

"Do not want!", if mistranslated subtitles count.

[/me getting off topic on an already off topic discussion]

[John Magnum]

One of the things about movies and video games that allegedly get by with nothing but action and special effects is that they can show you the action and special effects.

[virgil]

Empty action scenes are stimulating when you're watching them, but they're not engaging, they don't actually draw you into the experience, and they certainly don't leave an impression.

It most certainly did leave an impression, as it's something I saw two or three years ago and remember fondly enough as something awesome to have watched, enough to be able to find it readily after a year of not thinking about it. No, I didn't care about who won, nor would I be drawn in by an after-action report; that action scene is something that needs to be shown.

This is tangential to my point anyway. It has its place, and that there is a situation where action can work without non-action or substantial context. As stated by John, it works because it can show the action.

[tussock]

it works because it can show the action.

You're confusing the medium for the effect. You remember those things visually because you received them visually, but D&D is inherently narrative in it's presentation and that is the way we remember it.

Not the mechanics or the action economy, but the actual scene itself. Got surprised by goblin archers and when the Barbarian ran forward to engage them he disappeared under a mound of them piling in from the sides. We left him there. End scene.



Also, y'all need to learn more about how stories work.

[*]There's the reason the characters both pro and anti are participating, any MacGuffin will do, a mysterious quest-giver is fine.
[*]There's what moves characters from scene to scene, their motivations, highlighted by paths not taken, which only need to be less than startlingly disconcerting. But you can just hang a lampshade on the weird ones, it's not that big of a deal.
[*]Then there's the rewards for the audience, the pay-offs, money shots, which are our action scenes (and other conflict resolutions).

There's people here saying we like action scenes because of character motivations, but that's simply not how the professionals compose stories. Stories are about a protagonist overcoming a series of conflicts. Motivation is just how we explain the scenes all being in the same story, it's not something that actually matters.

Not trolling, this shit has been studied. You have to avoid breaking people's immersion, triggering their sense of disbelief, but it's a very low bar. What's hard, what they spend real money on doing, is action (conflict resolution) scenes and someone who can deliver a good one-liner. That's the money. That's what sells. That's what people like.


Oh, and http://www.google.com/trends/?q=Darth+Maul,+Qui-Gon

People really don't care about good acting and depth of character. They want to more about the awesome action guy who was barely even on screen. For reals.

[FatR]

People really don't care about good acting and depth of character.

They do, just not when watching action movies (I do enjoy numerous books/manga with complex plot and characters, but when I go to cinema, I usually go there for explosions). Or just not the people who primarily watch action movies. But yeah, I think when people start complaining about poor plot and characterization in action movies this often means they are dissatisfied with something else (maybe the plot actually offends their sensibilities, maybe the action sucked) because, really, all of them have holey plots and shallow characters. For an example of my personal dislike, I can probably make an extensive list of dumb shit in Michael Bay's Transformers movies, but I realize that I only bothered to notice it in the first place, because these movies were both way too long and mostly consisting of padding I didn't care about.

[Winnah]

For fucks sake. I watch a movie once. Action, explosions, car chases, beautiful people kicking ass while cracking one liners, etc. I enjoy the movie. That 2 hours may or may not leave me engrossed.

I watch the same movie again. I get less from the experience. Repeat ad nauseum. It gets stale very fucking quickly. Ultimately it is forgettable. Unless it is total shit; I'll have to drink bleach if I'm going to forget Uwe Boll's Alone in the Dark.

You should not be looking toward this summers blockbuster for ideas about story. If you have to reference the idiot box as a comparitive medium at all, you should be looking to successful long running serials for inspiration.

[ishy]

Hey, cool. I watched a movie once too. More often than once in fact.

I used to hate many action movies because the plot was so stupid. But then I learned to turn off my brain, while watching the expendables at a festival where everybody would cheer at the action scenes.
I do remember some action parts of movies while not caring about the story part of those if they are well done, but I personally prefer movies with a great story.

But different people like different things and a game doesn't have to be engaging or even fun. People do prefer to have fun though.
And if you want to tell stories about games, you need either special, rare action or fun stories. Fuck you effects can often make for entertaining stories, but risk the fun of the game. In fact, terrible games often have more entertaining stories, see the always popular raging at grognard threads.

[Mistborn]

In fact, terrible games often have more entertaining stories, see the always popular raging at grognard threads.

+1 to this

I'm sure people enjoyed Apparently Expeditious Retreat, Swift is broken far more than I enjoyed the events that inspired it.

Ya know I wonder if it's possible to create a game designed to make that sort of play enjoyable, some kind of game of inspired stupidity. Someone other than me has to do it though. I alerady have a project to work on plus another one on the back burner.

[shadzar]

with 3rd edition it had actually MORE places to tell storyies then 2nd, but the problem lies with cutting out the crap. and more also meant in some cases bland, as with 4th. take item crafting or whatever you call it. 2nd you needed to find the right person to make a make item, while in 3rd and 4th, or also games with Ye Olde Magick Shoppe, there is a lot of story lost.

while you could still quest for magic item X, it was easier to just make it in 3rd. also the way combat worked with its in-your-face-detailed-solutions, and for my example of stoneshape from when i played.. people jsut didnt like taking chances to do anything. like that spell, the magic lost magic, because people tried to define things so tightly that any use becomes redundant to hear about..

the more nit-picky the rules are for magic use, especially like 4th, the less interesting things you can do with them.

the initial jRPG refernce isnt that far off if you look at it since 3rd was looking at the way computer games were played to get that kind of attention from those players that might have played TTRPG had it not been for MMOs.

really the best way is to have a good DM and a group of players that looks at the "rules" and says.. this is a tool. a screwdriver isnt only used to make a chair, you can make a table, etc, whatever you want with it, and like it the game is a similar tool. it has its limits, but then there are limitless possibilities within those limits, IF you seek to make them work. again like my stoneshape spell use.