| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 02 Feb 2022 : 02:26:10
http://www.sageadvice.eu/rawson-thurber-will-write-and-direct-the-dd-tv-series/amp/
Deadline refers to it as the Flagship show, so basically it's going to be to the D&D multiverse, what the TV show Arrow is to the Arrowverse. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Azar |
Posted - 16 Feb 2022 : 04:52:04
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
In a D&D TV show.....does anyone expect them to follow the rules of the game?
A.The writers/producers/Etc will have READ and USE the rules. Any idiotic wacky idea will just be immediately dismissed with a "look this is a D&D based show, go make your own show to do wacky whatever." So each character gets a character sheet that LIMITS their abilities, skills, powers and spells. So it would be "Sora is a 4th level wizard that can ONLY do what is on her character sheet so...NO, she can't bend time and space like Play-Dough just because your a bad writer and backed yourself into an idiotic writers corner."
Or
B. Anything goes. Whatever random spam anyone writes, just slap "D&D show" on it. A "spell caster" and wiggle their fingers and cast any spell(random magic spam) needed for the plot and then forget magic exists for the plot. Any character on the show can do anything, if needed by the plot.
Of course they're abiding by the rules...
Rule Zero. |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 16 Feb 2022 : 02:25:26
In a D&D TV show.....does anyone expect them to follow the rules of the game?
A.The writers/producers/Etc will have READ and USE the rules. Any idiotic wacky idea will just be immediately dismissed with a "look this is a D&D based show, go make your own show to do wacky whatever." So each character gets a character sheet that LIMITS their abilities, skills, powers and spells. So it would be "Sora is a 4th level wizard that can ONLY do what is on her character sheet so...NO, she can't bend time and space like Play-Dough just because your a bad writer and backed yourself into an idiotic writers corner."
Or
B. Anything goes. Whatever random spam anyone writes, just slap "D&D show" on it. A "spell caster" and wiggle their fingers and cast any spell(random magic spam) needed for the plot and then forget magic exists for the plot. Any character on the show can do anything, if needed by the plot. |
| Azar |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 04:58:24
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
bad guy kid naps princess, good guys stumble around like idiots, then randomly stumble and free the princess and the bad guy runs away "I'll get you next time".
These days, it's the other way around: the good guys are barely heroic and the bad guy is highly sympathetic. The princess is...hm...well, she's something of a crapshoot. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 04:31:03
Fair enough.
I'd not expect anything approaching the rules to be in the show itself, though I'm sure WotC will be quick to put out some companion product or two with character stats and other relevant material from the show. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 04:08:32
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't recall the old D&D cartoon or movies making any mention of game rules and mechanics. The characters did things "in character". The DM never asked them to roll dice, never assigned modifiers, never argued about the wording of spell descriptions.
It's the D&D-playing fans who interpreted the character abilities and actions in terms of rulesets.
Actually, the characters from the D&D cartoon were statted up, in 3E, when the series came out on DVD.
My point was that the characters were not statted up in the show itself. It was presented to them (and to the audience) as a series of adventure stories, not as a series of adventure gaming sessions.
The stats were published (long) after the fact. As a gaming product. Not part of the show itself.
So why should we expect a new D&D show to be different? To have an on-screen focus on the stats and rules? It would focus on soft cartoony kids entertainment stuff, not on hard-rules Dorkness Rising meta stuff. |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 03:14:23
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
To be fair, on this point, I'll blame D&D's non-existent magic system. D&D magic has no rhyme or reason, nor it has a theme. It's just "yeah, magic can do whatever", and when you have that kind of stuff, how do you limit it in a way that enhances the narrative (aka creates conflict meaningful to the character's transformation arcs)?
I don't get what the problem you see with the D&D magic system. Other then you don't like it. D&D magic has tons of limits, and tons of rules, so it works fine for limiting things. Though sure 5E magic is just super lazy writing that says "magic goes pew pew", but 1/2/3 E magic common sense rules make more sense...plus the ton of ton of Realmslore(specifically the writings of Ed Greenwood).
The problem I see is bad writers. The VAST majority of TV writers are bad: they just want to slap together a show for a pay check. So, sigh: bad guy kid naps princess, good guys stumble around like idiots, then randomly stumble and free the princess and the bad guy runs away "I'll get you next time". Bam..done...where is my check.
It's bad enough with real world shows where the writer does zero research and just has random stuff happen. It gets a hundred times worse when they are told they must follow "fictional reality rules" .
To compensate for magic you need a good writer with skill and intelligence and mastery. It's possible....but it's hard. |
| Azar |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 03:08:47
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't recall the old D&D cartoon or movies making any mention of game rules and mechanics. The characters did things "in character". The DM never asked them to roll dice, never assigned modifiers, never argued about the wording of spell descriptions.
It's the D&D-playing fans who interpreted the character abilities and actions in terms of rulesets.
Actually, the characters from the D&D cartoon were statted up, in 3E, when the series came out on DVD.
Sadly, I can't find my copy of the DVDs at the moment, so I don't have the stats handy.
https://fdocuments.in/document/dd-35e-animated-series-handbook.html |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 14 Feb 2022 : 02:48:33
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I don't recall the old D&D cartoon or movies making any mention of game rules and mechanics. The characters did things "in character". The DM never asked them to roll dice, never assigned modifiers, never argued about the wording of spell descriptions.
It's the D&D-playing fans who interpreted the character abilities and actions in terms of rulesets.
Actually, the characters from the D&D cartoon were statted up, in 3E, when the series came out on DVD.
Sadly, I can't find my copy of the DVDs at the moment, so I don't have the stats handy. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 23:22:54
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I'll blame D&D's non-existent magic system....
...
(Yeah, the Harry Potter magic system isn't good).
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're bad or non-existent.
I explained the issues with it, which aren't related to my taste. If there's anything I couldn't see that makes the D&D magic system a good choice for a story (games are a different matter), I'll certainly listen.
To summarize, I said that the system is bad because it's "magic can do basically anything", with no theme or internal logic that ties the system together, except a X/day mechanic (which presents that issues that I have explained in my post). This is an obstacle to building good conflict, because when your magic can do all or is gamebreaking, either you instawin, or you do nothing (you ran out of those spells, or your spell gets nullified by some other spell or effect), which makes successfully using magic prone to author-bias/conveniency. The absence of an internal theme means that magic is generic and doesn't contribute to supporting the theme of your transformation arc by providing pertinent conflict (stupid example: a magic system based on communal casting and empathy can provide good conflict for a character that is sociopathic, wants the power of magic, but can't quite control it because they'll just exploit other people). The absence of an internal logic means that this kind of magic system is also prone to deus-ex-machina moments, with the right spell to save the day being discovered or prepared at a very convenient time- That's because there's no well defined limit to what magic can do, nor there's any logic that helps you understand what a character will be able to do, which in turn is essential to have some tension, because it makes you immediately understand if a certain situation is an actual threat. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 22:37:04
I don't recall the old D&D cartoon or movies making any mention of game rules and mechanics. The characters did things "in character". The DM never asked them to roll dice, never assigned modifiers, never argued about the wording of spell descriptions.
It's the D&D-playing fans who interpreted the character abilities and actions in terms of rulesets. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 22:21:00
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I'll blame D&D's non-existent magic system....
...
(Yeah, the Harry Potter magic system isn't good).
Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're bad or non-existent. |
| Azar |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 05:51:50
Some folks love to be contrary for the sake of being contrary; they find contentment only in contention. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 02:39:52
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
Magic. Might even be worse. They have to keep the good guys magic weak...and beyond dumb...just so the standard simple TV plots can happen. Even low level magic can ruin and simple plot, by a clueless writer. And every spellcaster in D&D gets lots of at will magic, plus many more spells. Even just the Player's Handbook spells can ruin everything. So even though a hero will have say the spell Fireball...and THAT would have them have AT LEAST ten or so other spells...they will just STAND AROUND and let the plot happen. And that is IF they even sort of stick to the D&D rules....and likely they will not anyway. Oh, and the bad guys will have epic level god like magic...when the plot calls for it, but will "forget" they have it so the heroes will win.
And the show just gets worse from there.....
To be fair, on this point, I'll blame D&D's non-existent magic system. D&D magic has no rhyme or reason, nor it has a theme. It's just "yeah, magic can do whatever", and when you have that kind of stuff, how do you limit it in a way that enhances the narrative (aka creates conflict meaningful to the character's transformation arcs)?
You may say "you only get to do X once per day", but that means that if you have one of those powers like "teleport" or "dominate X", you win, and therefore there's no conflict. The only significant conflict happens when you don't have those, and since narrative should only includes scenes with conflict, it's good to ask ourselves how adding elements that don't favor it impact our story. Basically, this is the "Avada Kedavra" issue all over (Yeah, the Harry Potter magic system isn't good).
You may throw things like anti-magic areas, or dimensional locks, or mind blanks, or creatures who are resistant to certain stuff, and all you want. However 1)those are pretty much the same situation as not having magic, because those spells make your magic useless 2)They still follow no logic--the audience won't go "aha! It makes sense that stuff goes like this", it will feel like more arbitrary things put there in an attempt to limit the characters or create conflict. And when you're dealing with arbitrary spells, that will also grow more and more varied and powerful the more the story goes on, it's really easy to create a mess with no real tension, because it's not immediate for the audience to know what this character can and can't do, and therefore if the situation at hand is an actual threat or not.
Coming up with a reason and a way magic does things is fundamental to a good fantasy story, because it gives you a lot of ways to create conflict. Heck, the way magic works should ideally be linked to the theme of your story. On that note, the only kind of plotline (that I can see) where D&D magic adds something is that your character has a fatal flaw related to recklessness/impulsiveness (this they waste all their resources quickly, and having no magic is a meaningful conflict for them), or a fatal flaw related to arrogance and overconfidence in their magic (so getting their magic countered and therefore rendered useless IS a meaningful conflict for their fatal flaw). Even in these cases, using D&D's magic isn't optimal. |
| LordofBones |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 02:16:08
Look, we all know Venger gets redeemed and the kids go home. No point reinventing the wheel. |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 13 Feb 2022 : 00:55:58
Well, A D&D TV show will happen, sooner or later. I don't hold much hope though...as it will be horrible. Much like most TV shows. The big problem with D&D is: The Kidz.
Ask nearly anyone involved with a D&D TV show the question "What is D&D?" and the brainwashed zombie like answer you will get is "It is a silly game for kids". And that will make for the HUGE problem. Even assuming they want to make a good Tv show and not just a cheep mess to make money. Sure they watched Game of Thrones and say "lets do that for D&D....BUT for KIDZ!"
Now sure they could make a great kidz show...have some young actors and silly kidz plots like "we need to buy Uni the Unicorn a birthday present!" But in their delusion they want to make a Kidz show for "everyone", not just kids. And that is of course impossible. Kidz shows are only for kidz, the people that like that (low) level of non-entertainment and parents(that pretend to like it for their kids).
So they will attempt to make a "cool show" but then water down everything just about 100%...to be safe for kids. It's D&D so it has to start in a cool tavern "bar", because EVERY kidz loves to pretend that. And a tavern is in a city...so that adds in a cool street gang....but not a "real" one, a goofy cartoonish one. The show has to have cool drugs...but as drugs are bad for kids....they will water it down to something like "spice".
Combat. This will be the worst. A kidz show can't have more then a tiny bit blood and just about no injury and only simple easy "fall down and sleep" deaths. You get the classic Wolverine problem: he pops out his claws and looks and acts cool....runs at the foe....and THEN....SHEATH HIS CLAWS and punches them. And that will be bad enough: everyone will have DEADLY weapons....and never use them. Maybe they will sort of fake stab and "put foes to sleep". Though chances are they will much more the warrior swings the sword and TRIPS AND KNOCKS DOWN THE FOE...and then they lay on the ground and take a nap. At the very worst, they will descend into beyond dumb Slapstick. Like the good guy will cut the rope and...gentility...drop the candle chandelier on the foe...and they will fall asleep under it.
Magic. Might even be worse. They have to keep the good guys magic weak...and beyond dumb...just so the standard simple TV plots can happen. Even low level magic can ruin and simple plot, by a clueless writer. And every spellcaster in D&D gets lots of at will magic, plus many more spells. Even just the Player's Handbook spells can ruin everything. So even though a hero will have say the spell Fireball...and THAT would have them have AT LEAST ten or so other spells...they will just STAND AROUND and let the plot happen. And that is IF they even sort of stick to the D&D rules....and likely they will not anyway. Oh, and the bad guys will have epic level god like magic...when the plot calls for it, but will "forget" they have it so the heroes will win.
And the show just gets worse from there..... |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 07 Feb 2022 : 02:27:31
Entertainment One/eOne is a major film and television company that's made a lot of things, and has been bought by Hasbro to make shows on their toys and games (some of which, like Operation and Play-Doh, have been more than barrel-scraping):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_One
I've sifted through and rounded up all the legitimate news on the development here, with all the sources:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_(television_series)
Two previous stories on a series last year were of pitches that were requested by eOne and don't appear to have panned out, but the Thurber project is official and the one they're going ahead with, since they've declared they've closed a deal on it and announced it in their press release. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 23:02:09
Well eOne released a press notice
https://www.entertainmentone.com/press/rawson-marshall-thurber-to-spearhead-flagship-dungeons-dragons-tv-seri/
I however do not know anything about this company though it appears to claim to be owned by Hasbro.
We of course know absolutely every thing on the web is true *shrugs* |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 21:40:44
I think a more accurate title for this scroll would be "Rawson Thurber wants to write and direct D&D TV show".
All the "official" sources are not official, they're hearsay. Sites like IMDb and Wikipedia are conspicuously lacking any mention of this series.
I've seen this happen before, many times. The production is more of a pitch than a project. They're "leaking" all over the media to feel out a response, hopefully generate hype, maybe attract some fandom investors.
It might actually happen. It's more likely to end up being rumour and vapour which gets "shelved" and forgotten. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 21:29:25
I will have to research Rawson Thurber because I never heard of this person before now. |
| Azar |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 21:05:30
quote:
Originally posted by sno4wy
Most people are stupid. It's why poor quality things like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey are immensely popular. Just sayin'. #175;\_(#12484;)_/#175;
Who else is going to consume those Sturgeon's (Law's) eggs? |
| Irennan |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 20:46:50
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
You should write a novel
I was writing one, but then I realized I didn't know what I was doing, so I started studying. When I'll be done studying, I'll get back at it, but thanks for the trust you placed in me.
quote:
If all it takes is knowing what people want...I mean, why not write...right?
If your goal is just selling, precisely, yes. But you're speaking like that was an easy thing, especially in this era, and not like it required research and work on your side. Of course, in this era, the marketing aspect is even more important: you not only have a saturated market (if you want to do fantasy or scifi), you also face fierce competition from tons of dopaminergic entertainment sources--people have little time, so why should they read your book, rather than watching a movie, playing a game, and so on? But generally speaking, yes, if selling is your goal, knowing what your audience wants, how to deliver the knowledge of your product to them, and persuade them to give it a chance, is more important than the quality of your writing. If you're starting nowadays, if you still don't have your reader base, you have to cultivate all those skills, you have to maintain an active presence online, and actively reach to your audience, otherwise you won't be making a living out of writing.
I mean, like they say, if you want to make something your profession, learn how to monetize it first, and then learn how to actually do the thing (or do both at the same time; the point is the priority order if your goal is to make money out of it).
That said, I'm not sure how telling me this had anything to do with our discussion. |
| sno4wy |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 18:36:27
Most people are stupid. It's why poor quality things like Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey are immensely popular. Just sayin'. #175;\_(#12484;)_/#175; |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 06 Feb 2022 : 17:50:55
You should write a novel
If all it takes is knowing what people want...I mean, why not write...right? |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 03:10:01
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
The Crystal Shard...nobody "knew what they wanted" at all...
Why? Choosing your audience and knowing what your audience wants even before you write a book is an essential skill if you want to be remotely successful.
Now, I know the old tale about Drizzt initially being a side character, but look at this: a book targeted mostly to the late 80's geeks, a time where D&D and fantasy well looked down upon (or even condmned--the satanic panic thingy), and where the people who enjoyed that didn't find many others to share their passion, and could even be bullied for what they liked. It's easy to see how Drizzt could become popular among them.
quote:
Let's give credit where credit is due. It was a good novel.
Do I think the ol' Dark Elf is past his prime...sure, but a good novel doesn't have to be a literary masterpiece in my thinking...YMMV
A lot of Salvatore's writing is bad. Does this mean he can't do anything good? No, not at all. Dark Elf trilogy was good, IIRC (though I'd have to reread it to express a judgement).
quote:
Some of us just really like what others consider junk...taste is individual...and calling my taste junk just sucks.
Taste is personal, sure, but quality isn't. Taste is mostly related to the subject of the story, or to the presence of something that interests you (like action).
Quality means writing a story that causes you to "become" the character, even when said character is different from you, or is about something that you don't find particularly interesting. It's about being able to make you experience the world from a viewpoint that is entirely different from yours, as if you were in the character's head. Quality alsmo means writing a story that drives home a solid tale of the transformation of a person, and that makes you feel the pain and struggle of that transformation along with the character. All of this in turn means following certain principles, that aren't based on "some dude said this centuries ago", but find confirmation in tons of (relatively) recent neuroscience discoveries (starting from that phrase that everyone knows: "show, don't tell"). Speaking of which, quality also means taking the time to read about your topic, because to make a reader experience the viewpoint of--say--an engineer, a trauma victim, a soldier, a musician etc... in a way that is believable and immersive, you need to know what being an engineer, a taruma victim, a soldier, and a musician look like from their PoV, in detail. If you don't know that in detail, then what are you going to put in your story? You won't be able to show, only to provide a gross summary of the actions, like "he repaired the tank", or outright non believable stuff (like it happens a lot when describing how people respond to trauma, loss, etc...)
A lot of stories that are successful (i.e. they sold well) don't do any of this. They aren't good. For example, returning to Drizzt, correct me if I'm wrong/remember wrongly, but one of the things that Drizzt lacks is a meaningful transformation. At the end, at his core, he's the same person that he's at the beginning, just more powerful. What he can do at the end, he could do at the beginning mindset-wise, he just learned cool moves. He hasn't understood any truth pertinent to his stakes, he didn't have to "sacrifice" a piece of himself, a core worldview/survival system, and rebuild it anew to keep his stakes or reach his goal. He has always been 100% right, and the world 100% wrong (which I suspect is the true reason why he's often labeled as a Mary Sue, even though people often talk about things that can't make a character into a Mary Sue by themselves).
If we don't have any principles, we can't judge art, in any way. We can never say "this is good", only "I like this". But this obviously doesn't correspond to reality. A good skill to have is to recognize when something we don't like is good, and vice-versa.
You may say "if the purpose of art is to entertain and create stuff that people enjoy, then why do we even care about anything other than the subjective experience--aka I like/don't like this?" We care about the principles and we judge creative stuff because the goal is to determine how to make the subjective experience the best possible. What if a badly written hit had been well written? It would have been a much better experience for those who liked it, even if a lot of the people who didn't like it would still not like it. That's because, as I said, the reason for liking and not liking something boils down more to what we look for in the content we consume, than the quality of said content. Though a good number of people who didn't like a badly written hit may come to like it, if it was well written. Heck, a well written story about something--say, gardening--can make some people willing to try it. Or yet, a well written story about a topic like racism, can be the spark that starts a change in a racist (I mean, it's likely that a racist will experience extreme discomfort reading a well written story from the PoV of a victim of racism, but if they can get to the end of it, maybe an idea has been planted in their head).
quote:
When someone gets hundreds of thousands of novels published, it isn't "just" anything. It is a hit.
A "hit" is determined by the subject massively more than it is by quality. There are many awfully written books out there (books that rely on infodumps and telling rather than on showing, or with flat characters, or badly designed worlds) that are massively more popular than certain classics, or than Drizzt, and so on. That's because of their subject and the audience they were intended for. Does this mean that all popular stuff is written badly? No. It means that something doesn't have to be well written to become a hit. Like, this is the exact same argument as "the fact that many people believe something to be true, doesn't mean that it's actually true". |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 02:42:24
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
TL; DR--the problem isn't the straightforwardness or the tropes, the problem is that due to the lack of central conflicts and themes, using &D as a setting for a good story can be done, but it's not going to make the story shine at its best. It will pose the risk of falling into clichés, because it forces you to use dated tropes for your scenes, and those can easily turn into clichés.
How do you reconcile this with the existence of over 300 D&D novels, some of them bestsellers?
I already did in my post: it's not like you can't write good stories in D&D (you can write a good story in basically any setting, as long as you keep in mind the principles that make stories click with the human brain), it's that those stories would have been better off if the setting had been built for the kind of character or idea that led to them.
Basically, choosing to set your novel in the D&D setting is like giving yourself a disadvantage (in terms of quality; brand, ease, or being passionate about D&D are a different matter).
quote:
some of them bestsellers?
Some of those bestsellers are cases of poor writing, and that's not even related to D&D. Popularity is more related to the subject than it is to the writing quality (Drizzt is a good example of this: it's a character written to appease a specific audience, and RAS has been good at giving the audience what they wanted).
The Crystal Shard...nobody "knew what they wanted" at all...it was a hit.
Let's give credit where credit is due. It was a good novel.
Do I think the ol' Dark Elf is past his prime...sure, but a good novel doesn't have to be a literary masterpiece in my thinking...YMMV
I mean, Howard's Conan?
Some of us just really like what others consider junk...taste is individual...and calling my taste junk just sucks.
When someone gets hundreds of thousands of novels published, it isn't "just" anything. It is a hit. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 02:37:25
No, no, as I tried to explain (admittedly, it took me quite a lot of edits, because I had to make orders in my thoughts) tropes by themselves aren't the problem, and characters are the heart of your story, even if your planning starts from a scenario, or from a "what if". I also said that it's obviously possible to write a good story set in the D&D multiverse, or that a D&D trope could even be the best solution for one of your scenes.
The problem is that D&D is mostly a collection of tropes that are there "just because", with no coherent theme to connect them together and, most importantly, to the meaning of the transformation that the main character has to undergo, and of their stakes (side note: kitchen-sinking fantasy stereotypes is a kind of approach that you see more often in older tales--and doesn't jive well with core principles of story planning--which is why I used "dated").
This means that your story will have more risks of including some D&D tropes just because "it's fantasy, so why not" (thus making them cliché), rather than because that trope was necessary for a scene that is key to the conflict that the character has to face, and rather than because that trope is logically and thematically connected to the other elements of your story world. It also means that your story would thrive more if you built your setting around the character--not as in around the person, but around the theme that their transformation is delivering, to create conflict that goes well with your viewpoint in regards to that theme. I'll explain it with an example.
Example:
-Your theme is freedom of expression (or authenticity vs. what is expected of you), your viewpoint is "staying true to yourself is the way to experience genuine affection".
-Your character is some young person who has border tendencies due to some event in their childhood making them feeling unlovable, unless they suppress their anger, suppress their own desires, and become what the other person "likes" . This is their flawed survival system: "in order to be safe (aka loved, or maybe even physically safe, if their parents were violent), I must be what other people want out of me". So, their stakes, aka the human need that they're fighting for, is "to be loved for what I am", even though--due to their survival system--what they want is to have the attention of other people, manipulating people into liking, or perhaps even needing, them.
With this premise, your setting can be--say--a super authoritarian school that forces certain roles and mindset on its students, has an internal hierarchy that is full of toxic constructs (like elitist clubs, mindset focused on competition, rather than on learning and finding your path, etc...), where the value/"lovability" of a person is based on how many checkboxes you tick, thus feeding into the character's fatal flaw. That's going to provide pertinent conflict that your character must overcome in order to 1)actually build/discover a "yourself" first (they may do everything to become the "model person", even succeed at it, only to feel neglected along the way, and to still feel miserable and alone despite the attention once they get what they believed to want) 2)stay true to it, and be accepted and loved for it by some people that they care about (the environment will make them believe that whatever they do, it would never get them actual affection--maybe they realize that they can't go on being a pleaser, but they'll be also lost, not know what to do, and at the same time still pressured by all the rules of the school, expectations of their peers, etc... until they collapse. At that point, the actual change can happen).
This kind of approach provides you with a clear direction to further detail what will be in your world, how the different organizations work and interact with each other (maybe even a "power system", like it's often the case for fantasy), and everything will be reflective of the theme and the trasnformation the character has to undergo. Everything will work to give the suffering of your character and the pain of their transformation much more meaning, and meaning is one of the main things the human brain looks for in a story (well, in anything: it's not for nothing that the correlation=/=causality fallacy exists and is so common. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint).
With D&D, you have a bunch of things that you can work with, but that are only an approximation of the right solution to your storytelling problem (that is: what kind of environment can ht my character closest to hwere it hurts, and in the way that is most pertinent to my theme?) Not only that, but making the elements feel connected and working together will require extra work for an inferior result, because the D&D elements weren't added with a story goal in mind, but with the goal of providing options for adventures. Basically, a D&D game world and a story world look very different.
TL; DR, in terms of quality, D&D presents more risks than gains (because of the reasons that I've explained), and it's easier to create a story that doesn't take itself too seriously based on it, than a good serious story. With the approach that usually goes into D&D stories (let's show everything that "makes D&D" to the viewers!), a serious story has even more chances to fall flat. That was my point in a nutshell, not that's impossible to write good stories using D&D tropes. |
| Azar |
Posted - 05 Feb 2022 : 01:26:46
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
dated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Ok, let's assume that I don't know what "dated" actually means. Even then, I explained what I mean in my post, so this is just semantics.
The sense I got from your perspective - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that you treat "dated" synonymously with "unfeasible" or "untenable" in the context of modern entertainment. Look, even if the heart of the story itself is fundamental (and assuming you don't bother sprinkling in a consistent amount of small twists), you still have at least two strengths to rely on: characters and setting. Hell, this method worked for George Lucas. Give the audience characters to care about while making the world stand out with its own touches (e.g., cats in Cormyr!) and you'd be surprised at what "deficiencies" will be overlooked. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 04 Feb 2022 : 04:52:42
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
dated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Ok, let's assume that I don't know what "dated" actually means. Even then, I explained what I mean in my post, so this is just semantics. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 04 Feb 2022 : 04:50:28
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
TL; DR--the problem isn't the straightforwardness or the tropes, the problem is that due to the lack of central conflicts and themes, using &D as a setting for a good story can be done, but it's not going to make the story shine at its best. It will pose the risk of falling into clichés, because it forces you to use dated tropes for your scenes, and those can easily turn into clichés.
How do you reconcile this with the existence of over 300 D&D novels, some of them bestsellers?
I already did in my post: it's not like you can't write good stories in D&D (you can write a good story in basically any setting, as long as you keep in mind the principles that make stories click with the human brain), it's that those stories would have been better off if the setting had been built for the kind of character or idea that led to them.
Basically, choosing to set your novel in the D&D setting is like giving yourself a disadvantage (in terms of quality; brand, ease, or being passionate about D&D are a different matter).
quote:
some of them bestsellers?
Some of those bestsellers are cases of poor writing, and that's not even related to D&D. Popularity is more related to the subject than it is to the writing quality (Drizzt is a good example of this: it's a character written to appease a specific audience, and RAS has been good at giving the audience what they wanted). |
| HighOne |
Posted - 03 Feb 2022 : 20:51:02
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
TL; DR--the problem isn't the straightforwardness or the tropes, the problem is that due to the lack of central conflicts and themes, using &D as a setting for a good story can be done, but it's not going to make the story shine at its best. It will pose the risk of falling into clichés, because it forces you to use dated tropes for your scenes, and those can easily turn into clichés.
How do you reconcile this with the existence of over 300 D&D novels, some of them bestsellers? |
|
|
