Dnd magic vs LOTR magic
Oct. 11th, 2009 10:24 pmIf you're attempting to codify a set of rules for a semi-competitive game (eg. Dungeons and Dragons roleplaying) the requirements are quite different, and in some cases diametrically opposed, to those for creating a good epic blood-stirring story (eg. LOTR), even if some things attempt to do both.
I think most primary school children work this out, even if they couldn't articulate the differences in abstract. For instance, in football, you have a lot more specific rules than you do in playing make believe.
The primary difference which would probably be obvious, even if you've never seen either of the two works in question, should include: In DnD, magic will have specific effects. In LOTR, it will be a lot more narrative driven.
Now, DnD is quite horribly balanced in many respects, especially in terms of representing a balanced pseudo-medieval economy, because that's not really what it's there for. Many people think (with some but not total justification) this makes DnD suck. Many people think LOTR also sucks.
But the point I'm aiming at is, most people find it obvious these differences exist.
Given that, I'm not sure why anybody considers it an interesting punchline to a fantasy comic to have:
Panel 1: Character is in a situation, which in LOTR was dire.
Panel 2: But if it were a 20th level character in DnD, it wouldn't be.
Panel 3: Ha ha ha!
Examples I've seen include: "If Gandalf were a 20th level wizard, and Mordor is supposedly an incredibly dangerous place to penetrate, but rather than giving any in-game justification why teleporting into the middle of the stronghold of a minor deity is dangerous, the GM just says 'it works, well done', that wouldn't have made a very good story". And, um, the same thing, but with Saruman and the white tower instead of Sauron.
I mean, it's funny once, when you realise that if you give characters superpowers, you need to make sure that plot obstacles for normal people are still obstacles. But it doesn't seem like a great insight :)
I think most primary school children work this out, even if they couldn't articulate the differences in abstract. For instance, in football, you have a lot more specific rules than you do in playing make believe.
The primary difference which would probably be obvious, even if you've never seen either of the two works in question, should include: In DnD, magic will have specific effects. In LOTR, it will be a lot more narrative driven.
Now, DnD is quite horribly balanced in many respects, especially in terms of representing a balanced pseudo-medieval economy, because that's not really what it's there for. Many people think (with some but not total justification) this makes DnD suck. Many people think LOTR also sucks.
But the point I'm aiming at is, most people find it obvious these differences exist.
Given that, I'm not sure why anybody considers it an interesting punchline to a fantasy comic to have:
Panel 1: Character is in a situation, which in LOTR was dire.
Panel 2: But if it were a 20th level character in DnD, it wouldn't be.
Panel 3: Ha ha ha!
Examples I've seen include: "If Gandalf were a 20th level wizard, and Mordor is supposedly an incredibly dangerous place to penetrate, but rather than giving any in-game justification why teleporting into the middle of the stronghold of a minor deity is dangerous, the GM just says 'it works, well done', that wouldn't have made a very good story". And, um, the same thing, but with Saruman and the white tower instead of Sauron.
I mean, it's funny once, when you realise that if you give characters superpowers, you need to make sure that plot obstacles for normal people are still obstacles. But it doesn't seem like a great insight :)