joberg
Legendary Member
Androgyny leads to the decline of a society...look at the Greek, the Roman. Our Western civilization is decaying fast
Dungeons and Dragons Movie
- Thread starter AJTaliesen
- Start date
Oh, we're back around to that again...?
Solo4114
Master Member
A few caveats first:
1. I run a 5th Edition D&D game currently. Have been for the last 3 years and we're probably going to finish our campaign this year. Prior to that, one of our current players acted as our DM and ran a shorter campaign for about a year. We started offline in my basement, then when the pandemic hit, took our game online (started with Roll20, and transitioned to Fantasy Grounds Unity). I can talk your ear off about running 5e, as well as running it on those two virtual tabletops, if you care.
2. Although I didn't play earlier editions (other than as CRPGs, of which I've played and re-played many), I have owned copies of the Moldvay/Cook Basic books (B/X), and the 1e AD&D core books since about 1988. I also owned the 2e books back when they were new (gave them to my cousin, then re-bough copies a few years ago). I've read this stuff plenty and am very familiar with the older editions.
3. I collect old RPG stuff and have a pretty extensive collection of D&D material (as well as Star Wars RPGs, Babylon 5, Firefly, Middle Earth Roleplaying, Star Frontiers, Pathfinder, etc., etc., etc.). While I haven't read everything (or even most of it) that I own cover-to-cover, I'm familiar with all of it to a greater or lesser degree. I dig RPGs. I'm hoping to run more than just D&D for my table at some point, too.
All of this is to establish my own perspective on the film.
So, that said...
I really enjoyed it! To me, it felt like watching an actually entertaining version of that conversation people in the hobby have when they wanna tell you about their campaign. To them, the campaign is awesome, epic, has such fun and cool moments, has these really funny moments, too, etc., etc. Trouble is, most people aren't especially good storytellers, and it's led to a sort of hobby-wide trope about how nobody wants to hear about your campaign. Well, this film seemed to me like watching that story, but actually handled well.
The film is generally pretty lighthearted and, well, lightweight. There are stakes, of course, but partially because it feels like you're watching someone's story about their campaign, there's never any sense of "Will the bad guys win? Will our heroes survive?" Of course they will. That's never really in doubt (although individual character deaths are always possible). It's got some heart to it as well, but it's not a great drama for the ages -- because it isn't supposed to be.
Overall, I thought it was
Moreover, D&D itself has exploded in popularity with the combination of several factors (the release of 5th edition, the star of Stranger Things, and the rise of actual play podcasts/streaming shows like Critical Role), all of which massively popularized the game and brought it to much wider audiences than RPGs had enjoyed in decades past. The hobby as a whole has significantly broadened, and is being enjoyed by a wider range of players, and as a result the people who make the game are very, very careful to put diversity front and center. You can take issue with that, but as regards to the film, it's basically depicting exactly what the game is now and has been for a while.
There's also no "emasculation," but I'll get to that.
Now, it's true that D&D back in the earlier editions was a more lethal game, which I could see leading to certain tables running things more seriously, but even the old school adventures didn't take themselves all that seriously. Gary Gygax's home campaign was set on a planet called "Oerth" (which he pronounced kinda like Bugs Bunny saying "Earth"). A lot of characters in his home game were just he and his friends' names written backwards. Drawmij, a famous wizard, is Jim Ward, a designer for TSR (the company that originally created D&D). Gary had a wizard named Xagyg. Orcs originally had pig faces. Like, basically they looked like green versions of the pig Muppets that show up for the "In the Navy" sketch on the old Muppet Show.
The pre-written adventures could be sort of silly or at least not especially serious. I mean, there were plenty that were super cool, but if you look at them now, it seems laughable to take them especially seriously.
All in all, I think this film accurately reflects the tone of a D&D game, and was clearly made by people who are huge fans of the game and at least past players/DMs (if not current players/DMs). But I can also see how it'd be jarring if you're expecting a serious fantasy film set in the world of D&D.
The movie also maintains a pretty brisk pace, and I agree that certain moments aren't really given time to land too hard...but I think that's also by design.
It's worth remembering a few other things (which many here may not be aware of). First, this film was made with close cooperation from Wizards of the Coast. It's a cross-promotional opportunity for them, as well. So, I can see where they want to hit the absolute broadest audience possible, and that means probably erring on the side of keeping things kinda lightweight.
Second, Wizards of the Coast is going to be coming out with a new edition (6e) in the next year or two. They're working on it now as a kind of public beta test. BUT, the first steps in that process were an absolute disaster. Without getting too far into the weeds, WOTC tried to change some of the legal terms around how players and other content creators are allowed to make certain products that use the core rules of D&D to run other kinds of games. These legal terms have existed since the early 2000s, and while they were never what I as an attorney would call a model of clarity, they were widely accepted and there'd been common practice surrounding them for the last 20ish years. A little while before the film released, WOTC tried to massively alter that stuff, and it really pissed off a lot of people, both players and content creators alike. (If you want a more in-depth examination of this, I'm happy to explain, but it'll get into copyrights and licenses and such.) Anyway, long story short, this film also acts as a kind of PR move at a critical time for WOTC when they want to encourage people to try the latest edition of the game, which will be 6e in relatively short order. So, again, the goal is "Hit as big an audience target as possible," especially adolescent kids around 11-14 who are the prime target to get people interested in the game.
I think with those factors in mind, the kind of lightweight nature of the film make sense. Grownups aren't the primary target; adolescents and teens are.
--EDIT--
Oh, right. I forgot to get into the "emasculation" thing. Bottom line, nobody is emasculated in this film UNLESS what you want is a Conan film. Everyone is basically behaving exactly how you'd expect their character class to behave in the game. If seeing women be physically stronger and more ferocious warriors than men = emasculating, well, ok, yeah, I guess it is. But (1) get over it, and (2) especially within the context of "THIS IS A MOVIE BASED ON A GAME," the context in which it happens makes perfect sense within that game world. You can play a female character of any species and any character class (i.e., job, basically). So, there are female barbarians, fighters, paladins, warlocks, rangers, sorcerers, whatever. They can be half-orcs or elves or humans or half-giants or gnomes or whatever. It's all part of the game. Hell, it always has been. While old Basic D&D and 1e AD&D had strength scores modified by sex, by the publication of 2nd edition in 1989, that was dropped, and species-based ability score penalties have been gradually being phased out (in much later editions, notions of racial essentialism are likewise phased out, with the exception of things like being able to see in the dark). But again, all part of the game.
Bottom line: the Bard isn't going to be the big ass-kicker in your party, but the Barbarian is. If the Barbarian is a woman, ok, you've got a female ass-kicker. Nobody who actually plays the game bats an eye at this, because it's all based on party composition by role, rather than by sex.
1. I run a 5th Edition D&D game currently. Have been for the last 3 years and we're probably going to finish our campaign this year. Prior to that, one of our current players acted as our DM and ran a shorter campaign for about a year. We started offline in my basement, then when the pandemic hit, took our game online (started with Roll20, and transitioned to Fantasy Grounds Unity). I can talk your ear off about running 5e, as well as running it on those two virtual tabletops, if you care.
2. Although I didn't play earlier editions (other than as CRPGs, of which I've played and re-played many), I have owned copies of the Moldvay/Cook Basic books (B/X), and the 1e AD&D core books since about 1988. I also owned the 2e books back when they were new (gave them to my cousin, then re-bough copies a few years ago). I've read this stuff plenty and am very familiar with the older editions.
3. I collect old RPG stuff and have a pretty extensive collection of D&D material (as well as Star Wars RPGs, Babylon 5, Firefly, Middle Earth Roleplaying, Star Frontiers, Pathfinder, etc., etc., etc.). While I haven't read everything (or even most of it) that I own cover-to-cover, I'm familiar with all of it to a greater or lesser degree. I dig RPGs. I'm hoping to run more than just D&D for my table at some point, too.
All of this is to establish my own perspective on the film.
So, that said...
I really enjoyed it! To me, it felt like watching an actually entertaining version of that conversation people in the hobby have when they wanna tell you about their campaign. To them, the campaign is awesome, epic, has such fun and cool moments, has these really funny moments, too, etc., etc. Trouble is, most people aren't especially good storytellers, and it's led to a sort of hobby-wide trope about how nobody wants to hear about your campaign. Well, this film seemed to me like watching that story, but actually handled well.
The film is generally pretty lighthearted and, well, lightweight. There are stakes, of course, but partially because it feels like you're watching someone's story about their campaign, there's never any sense of "Will the bad guys win? Will our heroes survive?" Of course they will. That's never really in doubt (although individual character deaths are always possible). It's got some heart to it as well, but it's not a great drama for the ages -- because it isn't supposed to be.
Overall, I thought it was
Within the D&D community, and the tabletop RPG community on a larger scale, none of this is new. Paizo publishing (The guys who do Pathfinder) have been creating inclusive adventures and rulebook artwork for about 20 years now. Wizards of the Coast -- the company that owns the rights to D&D and makes the current game -- has been very up front about inclusivity in their gaming.
Moreover, D&D itself has exploded in popularity with the combination of several factors (the release of 5th edition, the star of Stranger Things, and the rise of actual play podcasts/streaming shows like Critical Role), all of which massively popularized the game and brought it to much wider audiences than RPGs had enjoyed in decades past. The hobby as a whole has significantly broadened, and is being enjoyed by a wider range of players, and as a result the people who make the game are very, very careful to put diversity front and center. You can take issue with that, but as regards to the film, it's basically depicting exactly what the game is now and has been for a while.
There's also no "emasculation," but I'll get to that.
So, first, D&D when you were a kid was not "more serious." It may have seemed that way to you as a kid, and some tables might have run in a more serious tone, but the actual playing of D&D has always included a LOT of "Monty-Python-Esque" stuff. People were riffing on The Holy Grail back in the 70s and 80s.
Now, it's true that D&D back in the earlier editions was a more lethal game, which I could see leading to certain tables running things more seriously, but even the old school adventures didn't take themselves all that seriously. Gary Gygax's home campaign was set on a planet called "Oerth" (which he pronounced kinda like Bugs Bunny saying "Earth"). A lot of characters in his home game were just he and his friends' names written backwards. Drawmij, a famous wizard, is Jim Ward, a designer for TSR (the company that originally created D&D). Gary had a wizard named Xagyg. Orcs originally had pig faces. Like, basically they looked like green versions of the pig Muppets that show up for the "In the Navy" sketch on the old Muppet Show.
The pre-written adventures could be sort of silly or at least not especially serious. I mean, there were plenty that were super cool, but if you look at them now, it seems laughable to take them especially seriously.
All in all, I think this film accurately reflects the tone of a D&D game, and was clearly made by people who are huge fans of the game and at least past players/DMs (if not current players/DMs). But I can also see how it'd be jarring if you're expecting a serious fantasy film set in the world of D&D.
Yeah, I agree with the general sense of "It felt too easy" or "stuff just kind of wrapped up a little too tidily." But I think that's also true in games in many cases. There's something inherently a little silly if you are even a teensy bit self-conscious about what is essentially just playing pretend, but with a bunch of rules tacked on.
The movie also maintains a pretty brisk pace, and I agree that certain moments aren't really given time to land too hard...but I think that's also by design.
It's worth remembering a few other things (which many here may not be aware of). First, this film was made with close cooperation from Wizards of the Coast. It's a cross-promotional opportunity for them, as well. So, I can see where they want to hit the absolute broadest audience possible, and that means probably erring on the side of keeping things kinda lightweight.
Second, Wizards of the Coast is going to be coming out with a new edition (6e) in the next year or two. They're working on it now as a kind of public beta test. BUT, the first steps in that process were an absolute disaster. Without getting too far into the weeds, WOTC tried to change some of the legal terms around how players and other content creators are allowed to make certain products that use the core rules of D&D to run other kinds of games. These legal terms have existed since the early 2000s, and while they were never what I as an attorney would call a model of clarity, they were widely accepted and there'd been common practice surrounding them for the last 20ish years. A little while before the film released, WOTC tried to massively alter that stuff, and it really pissed off a lot of people, both players and content creators alike. (If you want a more in-depth examination of this, I'm happy to explain, but it'll get into copyrights and licenses and such.) Anyway, long story short, this film also acts as a kind of PR move at a critical time for WOTC when they want to encourage people to try the latest edition of the game, which will be 6e in relatively short order. So, again, the goal is "Hit as big an audience target as possible," especially adolescent kids around 11-14 who are the prime target to get people interested in the game.
I think with those factors in mind, the kind of lightweight nature of the film make sense. Grownups aren't the primary target; adolescents and teens are.
--EDIT--
Oh, right. I forgot to get into the "emasculation" thing. Bottom line, nobody is emasculated in this film UNLESS what you want is a Conan film. Everyone is basically behaving exactly how you'd expect their character class to behave in the game. If seeing women be physically stronger and more ferocious warriors than men = emasculating, well, ok, yeah, I guess it is. But (1) get over it, and (2) especially within the context of "THIS IS A MOVIE BASED ON A GAME," the context in which it happens makes perfect sense within that game world. You can play a female character of any species and any character class (i.e., job, basically). So, there are female barbarians, fighters, paladins, warlocks, rangers, sorcerers, whatever. They can be half-orcs or elves or humans or half-giants or gnomes or whatever. It's all part of the game. Hell, it always has been. While old Basic D&D and 1e AD&D had strength scores modified by sex, by the publication of 2nd edition in 1989, that was dropped, and species-based ability score penalties have been gradually being phased out (in much later editions, notions of racial essentialism are likewise phased out, with the exception of things like being able to see in the dark). But again, all part of the game.
Bottom line: the Bard isn't going to be the big ass-kicker in your party, but the Barbarian is. If the Barbarian is a woman, ok, you've got a female ass-kicker. Nobody who actually plays the game bats an eye at this, because it's all based on party composition by role, rather than by sex.
Last edited:
Thank you for the well thought out response. It's hard to think back 40 plus years ago...lol, atleast for me anyways.
Solo4114
Master Member
I hear ya! If you haven't actively engaged with the material for a while, it's easy to understand why you might have a different image of it. Our minds can do funny things to our memories.
My kid is currently doing a summer camp at my old school. I drove her out there for the first day and, by God, the place has SHRUNK!! I dunno how they did it, but all the buildings got smaller, and the trees got shorter and such!
(In truth, it was kinda surreal being back on campus and it all just feeling...different. Didn't bother me, but it was definitely noticeable.)
My cousin was heavy into D&D and he introduced it to me and i was fascinated at the time...it wasn't too long that a lot of stuff got out in the news about slayings and such and my Mom just shut it down completely for fear of some craziness but yet it was ok for me to watch Jason Voorhees ...lol,I hear ya! If you haven't actively engaged with the material for a while, it's easy to understand why you might have a different image of it. Our minds can do funny things to our memories.
My kid is currently doing a summer camp at my old school. I drove her out there for the first day and, by God, the place has SHRUNK!! I dunno how they did it, but all the buildings got smaller, and the trees got shorter and such!
Solo4114
Master Member
Ah yes, the "Satanic Panic" of the late 80s. That prompted a bunch of changes in the game (many of which have since been reversed). But yeah, a LOT of people wound up having their D&D games shut down around that time.
I think that, too, can lend this notion of "It seemed so serious." I mean, I'm sure it did if your folks were worried you'd turn into a devil worshipper just from playing the game! But no, it was always just nerds rolling funny dice and quoting a lot of Monty Python.
Or at least, if you actually could learn real magic, nobody ever taught me any, and now I feel deprived.
I really need to put my comment into the proper context. I was responding to an earlier post, and I thought I was just being funny. I haven't even seen the movie and I have no idea if anyone was "emasculated" in it or not.
When it comes to the RPG game itself, I don't even see how anyone could possibly have any issues with representation or lack thereof in the rulebooks/resources since it really is up to the DM/GM on how to shape the campaign.
Anyway, if there's a debate going on in this thread, I wasn't trying to be a part of it.
FWIW in the 70's and 80's, while I loved the breadth of AD&D I didn't like their melee system as much. Instead we preferred SPI's Dragon Quest, FGU's Aftermath!, Runequest and a little bit of FGU's Space Opera.
Last edited:
CT1138
Sr Member
I enjoyed this movie immensely. I never played the game, but I enjoy old fashioned 1980s sword and sorcery stuff and this was great! Campy, but with plenty of humor to let you know to relax and have some fun. In the end, the movie was extremely entertaining and it didn't need to be anything but.
Solos blaster
Sr Member
All this and I enjoyed it immensely too. Loved the easter eggs and I honestly kept thinking/hoping for a post credit scene of the actors getting up from a table in a basement or a local shop after it ended because that is what it felt like.. It felt like a full on, an acted out live weekend running game, rather than a more serious fantasy movie.
Solo4114
Master Member
Sorry, I, too, should be clearer in my comment. I figured you were kidding (and should've acknowledged that to avoid confusion). I was just using your comment as a jumping-off point to discuss the whole "emasculation" controversy (I'm not actually sure it even rises to that, or whether it was just people trying to boost their youtube profile and other folks discussing it after the fact).
The representation stuff in D&D at least actually goes to other aspects, with things like published adventures/campaigns (WOTC doesn't really do individual modules anymore, just campaign books, rule books, and supplement books -- but all bound hardcovers, likely for ease of printing), the art they use in their books, and how some supplemental rules are structured. For example, they created (well, I gather actually took from a third party creator) rules for wheelchair-bound combat. They hired a diverse group of folks to write a collection of adventure seeds for Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel which are all based on different mythologies from around the world (and is SUPER cool, I should add). This is meant to address the whole "The world is more than just Western Europe and Feudal Japan" thing, and to make these other cultures less "exotic" and more just part of the overall fabric.
The artwork in the books really is varied (when it comes to humans) showing different races. I mentioned they've already started moving away from "racial essentialism" in their rulebooks, too. You can still use the old style rules where, like, Dwarves get a +2 to CON or whatever (they mostly eliminated the maluses to attributes), but with the publication of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, you can choose to just pick a +2 to one attribute and a +1 to another, or three +1s. Other stuff survives (e.g., XYZ has darkvision, ABC is immune to charm or whatever), but they're shifting that to a concept called "Ancestry & Culture" (I think) for 6e. And there was a ridiculous kerfuffle where the old "Oriental Adventures" book was made available as a PDF on DrivethruRPG, but was accompanied (along with some other older stuff) by a disclaimer that noted the culturally insensitive stuff (by today's standards) that generally permeated the 1980s, which in turn spawned a bunch of doofuses claiming that WOTC was going to pull Oriental Adventures altogether, and which in turn caused the secondhand market prices for copies of it to leap by at least 100% (they'd been selling for like $25 and jumped to $50+ for about a year or two) in spite of there being no actual shortage of old copies floating around.
Anyway, I absolutely agree that the actual player experience is entirely dependent upon the DM and how they run their game, but the company is trying to put forward a very, very welcoming face, so as to better sell their product to the broadest group of people possible.
I'd love to pick your brain about the other systems you played, though. AD&D 1e is absolutely a clunky system (always has been, really), but I never played the others. I've paged through some Rolemaster and MERP books (which seems like "Oh, you wanted a crunchy system? Hold my beer") and I've heard the legend of Traveller characters actually being able to die in the character creation process, which always gave me a chuckle. I see copies of Dragonquest and Runequest pop up now and then, though. The artwork was always gorgeous for those two. Aftermath and Space Opera I remember seeing ads for in old copies of Dragon Magazine.
And yes, my beard actually is grey (with just a hint left of auburn -- which leaves me thinking I may do a "middle-aged Obi-Wan" costume one of these days).
I'd also like to point out that as the Drow (pronounced "drow" as in "throw", not "drow" as in "scow", according to Gygax -- it's a cognate of the Scottish/Gaelic "trow" meaning troll) were developed from being only a legend to an actual playable race through the late '80s, their society turned out to be extremely matriarchal. As in, to the point males were slave labor and breeding stock. They've shifted away from that in more recent years -- making that just one example of Drow culture in the Underdark -- but it never even was mentioned in the slightest that that was emasculating or anything like that. Almost like many of the people playing the game understand it's a fantasy setting and the arbitrary "rules" we're used to here don't apply there.
ANYONE CAN BE ANYTHING.
D&D in a nutshell.
ANYONE CAN BE ANYTHING.
D&D in a nutshell.
Solo4114
Master Member
There's been pushback against Drow in both D&D and Pathfinder. Pathfinder is apparently basically retconning them out of existence as a separate race of elves. The concern is, again, the racial essentialism (e.g. "EVERYONE in this race is inherently evil"), coupled with the whole "they have black skin" thing is getting harder and harder to justify, even if it derives from old folklore (there's some Norse folklore to which the Drow -- which I say like "plow" and nobody's gonna change my mind
-- can be linked as well). But yes, the flipside of that is that in both games, they began as scoffed-at legends, then became a real threat, and then became, you know, just another PC race/species you could play as, and at least in Pathfinder are now returning to "Pshhh. There's no such thing as underground-living evil black-skinned elves."
Riceball
Master Member
From a biological standpoint, the Drow make no sense. In the real world we've seen all manner of things that live solely in caves and other subterranean environments and they're all either pure white or near transparent. So for the Drow toi have pure black skin, even though they live solely underground, is very odd to say the least.There's been pushback against Drow in both D&D and Pathfinder. Pathfinder is apparently basically retconning them out of existence as a separate race of elves. The concern is, again, the racial essentialism (e.g. "EVERYONE in this race is inherently evil"), coupled with the whole "they have black skin" thing is getting harder and harder to justify, even if it derives from old folklore (there's some Norse folklore to which the Drow -- which I say like "plow" and nobody's gonna change my mind
But yes, the flipside of that is that in both games, they began as scoffed-at legends, then became a real threat, and then became, you know, just another PC race/species you could play as, and at least in Pathfinder are now returning to "Pshhh. There's no such thing as underground-living evil black-skinned elves."
As far as they're all evil, it makes sense given their culture. But having read most or all of the Drizz't book, they've moved away some from the idea of all Drow being evil, just 99.999% of them are, there are the occasional exceptions like Drizz't and his father, but they are still the exceptions and anybody who is openly like those 2 are not a welcome part of Drow society, at least not in Menzoberranzan, and other Drow cities in the Underdark, the exception being Jarlaxle who's tolerated because he is useful. But in one of the more recent novels they did introduce a group of good Drow living in the far northern reaches of Faerun, but they're as isolated as their Underdark kin and don't associate with the rest of Faerun.
Solo4114
Master Member
Agreed. That's where it's the folklore thing. I think the issue with modern interpretations of this stuff -- and Paizo is doing a bunch of this as well -- is that monocultures and racial characteristics are problematic, even in a fantasy world. Like, depicting all dwarves as heavy drinkers or whatever, or, like, all oriented around craft and such. Or that the elves are all tall and fair and graceful and beautiful and inherently good or whatever.
All that stuff derives from Tolkien, Howard, and a lot of the "Appendix N" authors of the 1930s up through the 1960s, and is very much a product of those eras. The two biggest TTRPGs are moving away from that and trying to make cultures a bit more differentiated, and allow for more variation within them. You may still have political entities with certain characteristics (e.g., the nation of Cheliax in Pathfinder is a nation that literally made a pact with the devils for continued power), but not everyone in the nation is "Lawful Evil." (Actually, I hear that Pathfinder is getting rid of alignment altogether.)
Riceball
Master Member
The thing about all Drow being evil, to me, makes sense when you read the various Drizz't books. They're that way because it's a cultural trait and not a racial trait. They're literally raised to be the way they are and the people in charge are all that way and are quick to stamp out any heresy, which is what they consider any "good" behavior amongst the populace. Even the very few "good" Drow that we know, mainly Zakanafein (father of Drizz't) and Jarlaxle, but not Drizz't, conform to certain Drow societal norms even if they aren't as evil as the vast majority of their kin are. Drizz't is the lone exception that we're told exists because he didn't spend his entire life in Menzoberranzan and wasn't as indoctrinated as other Drow were and was free to explore and expand upon his goodly nature.
I actually think that monocultures aren't necessarily a bad thing. You just have to accept these cultural norms as representative of the majority of a culture/race but not representative of every last individual. A clever GM/and/or player can actually create exceptions for interesting characters and interactions. You can have an Elven character or NPC who doesn't fit the standard Elven body type and/or isn't a big nature lover and prefers cities and like studying human architecture. And you have a Dwarf who's a teetotaler, can't stand alcohol, and would rather spend their time reading and studying instead of working as miner, a blacksmith, or fighting.
I'd love to pick your brain about the other systems you played, though. AD&D 1e is absolutely a clunky system (always has been, really), but I never played the others. I've paged through some Rolemaster and MERP books (which seems like "Oh, you wanted a crunchy system? Hold my beer") and I've heard the legend of Traveller characters actually being able to die in the character creation process, which always gave me a chuckle. I see copies of Dragonquest and Runequest pop up now and then, though. The artwork was always gorgeous for those two. Aftermath and Space Opera I remember seeing ads for in old copies of Dragon Magazine.
This would be in the late 80's. I could say a lot about SPI's Dragonquest because it was probably our favorite system.
Dragonquest's melee system is great for folks who want to get more out of the fighter class. You get a good feel for battles swing-by-swing with evading, grappling, parrying, riposte etc. As a result, a sword duel can feel a lot more momentous than just "attack then roll dice" of AD&D.
The leveling system is also more realistic and interesting. There aren't strict classes as much as individual skills you can master. In fact, you have to level your weapons individually. (I always thought there should be some limited experience that rolled over from, say, a falchion to a scimitar. A person who mastered one weapon shouldn't be a complete novice with the other. Then again DQ compensates by making it dirt cheap in experience to get basic proficiency in most weapons - even if you preferred to swing around a claymore. )
In DQ you don't level up to get fat on HP and modifiers to godlike levels. Abilities such as heal, ranger, thieving, troubadour (bard) etc. can be developed as separate skills. They aren't restricted to class. There's more incentive to make your character unique in this regard. Also skills can only rank up if used and can regress if not used. You can hone some useful skills to very high levels as you discover your character's development but you're not going to go around brandishing your class level.
The magic system is great. It's a really nice, intricate system. A magic user is aligned with one of several Colleges of Magic - they can specialize in Necromancy, Greater Summoning, Enchantments, Illusions, Naming Incantations, Celestial Magics, one of the elemental magics, Black Magics and others. And each College is organized differently with their own unique structure, rules and requirements.
Our Dragonquest scenarios played out much differently than AD&D campaigns that we tried. First of all, there were only 3 or 4 of us. Our scenarios were less Tolkien and more Robert E. Howard. DQ's skill system discourages "Monty Haul" style gameplay. I was the GM and our scenarios were very heavily dialogue and interaction-driven over exploration and grinding. Our campaigns were completely "open world" so my friends would frequently stray far from the main plotline or split apart to have separate adventures or just get into trouble in, say, the local brothels. Sometimes that meant taking huge breaks for hours just so I can do heavy rewriting around their antics and figure out how I might organically redirect them to some part of the main plot. It didn't help that my friends were always trying to find atypical ways to manipulate or cheat core NPCs. My friends basically abhorred any sense of being channeled into a scripted narrative so they took full advantage of the open world concept. It was hilarious when, say, they played out grudges in the game and foul each other up. And, when it came down to climactic swordplay against a nemesis, the melee system just made it epic. Great times.
Last edited:
