Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

New Premium Module: Tyrants of the Moonsea! Read More
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

It's too bad we don't have a Ravenloft Infinity Engine game

24

Comments

  • brunardobrunardo Member Posts: 514
    Had this exact topic back in 2015

    https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/41083/castle-ravenloft-ie-game-beamdog-wotc-why-not-or-at-least-dragon-lance#latest

    and yes so many reasons this could be the best IE game ever and been proven with castle ravenloft module...mix it up a bit like they did with it recently but the foundation is there for success!

    themazingness
  • chimericchimeric Member Posts: 1,163
    Fardragon said:

    Well, you are obvioulsy a fan, but IMO kender, gully dwarves, etc belong in Noddy stories, not allegedly "adult" fantasy.

    It's called "sense of humor."

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,461
    edited October 2017
    Fardragon said:

    It's just consistantly twee, shmaltzy and childish.

    I mean, Dragonlance is intentionally written for tweens/young teens, so I don't see that as a problem. It's authors generally know what they are writing, and who the audience is.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited October 2017

    Fardragon said:

    It's just consistantly twee, shmaltzy and childish.

    I mean, Dragonlance is intentionally written for tweens/young teens, so I don't see that as a problem. It's authors generally know what they are writing, and who the audience is.
    IME (as a teacher) teens hate being talked down to like that. Phillip Pullman and and J. K. Rowling manage to write for thst age group without being patronising. Even Dobby the house elf has more depth than Tasslehoff Burrfoot.

    But if you are talking target agegroup, what is the target agegroup for the infinity engine games? I very much doubt it is teens, who are all playing MBOAs on thier Xbox1s. More like 40s, who rember 2nd edition D&D.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    chimeric said:

    Fardragon said:

    Well, you are obvioulsy a fan, but IMO kender, gully dwarves, etc belong in Noddy stories, not allegedly "adult" fantasy.

    It's called "sense of humor."
    No, in order to be called "sense of humour" it is required to be funny. Discworld is funny. Dragonlance aint.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,461
    edited October 2017
    Fardragon said:

    Fardragon said:

    It's just consistantly twee, shmaltzy and childish.

    I mean, Dragonlance is intentionally written for tweens/young teens, so I don't see that as a problem. It's authors generally know what they are writing, and who the audience is.
    IME (as a teacher) teens hate being talked down to like that. Phillip Pullman and and J. K. Rowling manage to write for thst age group without being patronising. Even Dobby the house elf has more depth than Tasslehoff Burrfoot.
    Aiming at an audience does not mean talking down to it. Are Dr. Suess books talking down to toddlers? Are Roald Dahl books talking down to children?

    I honestly think you're kind of crazy. Dobby is barely verbal, much less possessing of any personality or characterization. He's basically a stuffed animal who died to create artificial emotional oomph in a story that had gotten stuck in authorial doldrums. Harry Potter in general is vapid crud that mistakes plotting for plot, and stereotyping for characterization.

    Tasslehoff Burrfoot's character arc is poignant and sad - like soldiers who do too many tours of duty, he is changed by his ordeals and becomes a stranger in his homeland.

    For readers familiar with the basic tropes of fantasy, Dragonlance threw some curveballs: paladins reviled for their failure to do their duty; political opportunists using lies to fan the flames of resentment and cement their wealth and power; priests who should represent the conscience of the people instead are corrupt and deceitful. On a more personal level the "Dragons of [insert season here]" books were typical generic adventuring, but the follow-up Twins trilogy was great, and the inability of Tanis to redeem whatshername (and his inability to expunge her from his heart even after he was happily married) was sad but realistic.

    Maybe my view is rose-hued because I'm remembering stuff I read when I was like 11... but that's the point. For an 11 year-old it's good stuff. (Unlike Harry Potter which is utter trash.)

    ThacoBellDev6
  • themazingnessthemazingness Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 547
    I'm not sure I'd call Harry Potter utter trash. It isn't literary genius, but it got a lot of people reading who normally would not have and a lot of people into fantasy that would have avoided it. It is way more influential than Dragonlance ever will be. That said, as a piece of fantasy literature it is overrated. But so is Tolkien who couldn't stop rambling for pages on end. Sometimes the flaws in fantasy literature are overshadowed by the fun of the fantastical worlds and characters. Back to Dragonlance, you could argue its virtues and vices all day. If it influenced you, you are going to love it. If you hated the flaws, that's that. Facts are it is a great setting with interesting stories. I'd love to see them adapted to the Infinite Engine. I'd even love to see the Gold Box games given an Enhanced Edition treatment.

  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    Harry Potter is pretty well done. I've read some fantasy series', and its better than most. Its big fault imho is its a bit cheesey how literally everything is done with magic, but thats the nature of the setting.

    I'm known to be very partial to Thieves' World, but that *is* Adult oriented, and pretty funny. Harry Potter never leaves me feeling dirty though!

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    Fardragon said:

    Fardragon said:

    It's just consistantly twee, shmaltzy and childish.

    I mean, Dragonlance is intentionally written for tweens/young teens, so I don't see that as a problem. It's authors generally know what they are writing, and who the audience is.
    IME (as a teacher) teens hate being talked down to like that. Phillip Pullman and and J. K. Rowling manage to write for thst age group without being patronising. Even Dobby the house elf has more depth than Tasslehoff Burrfoot.
    Aiming at an audience does not mean talking down to it. Are Dr. Suess books talking down to toddlers? Are Roald Dahl books talking down to children?
    You have made my point for me. Neither Dr. Suess nor Roald Dahl talk down to their readers.

    Which is probably why they remain popular long after they where written, whilst Dragonlance has come and gone.

  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 11,461
    Dragonlance was never as popular to begin with so that's meaningless. And if your argument is "every book that isn't popular, talks down to its readers" then that's senseless. So we are left with this conclusory criticism which you merely implied, without factual support or any explanation of how or where or even who you think "talked down" to 11-year-olds.

    As far as Harry Potter, yeah, I am keenly aware that my views on it make me an outlier. But I do think it's silly to suggest it is of high quality for being "influential." It was extremely popular and made a ton of money... but, should we similarly say that Frozen was "influential?" Or [insert vapid-but-popular product of the media here]?

    "Popular" and "influential" and "high quality" are three different things... it doesn't bear conflating them.

    Dev6ThacoBell
  • MortiannaMortianna Member Posts: 1,355
    A Ravenloft IE game with 2e rules would be a dream come true for me, especially if the classes from Domains of Dread were included (Arcanist, Anchorite, Elementalist, etc.). I'm sure 5e rules would have to be implemented if a new game were made, which is understandable.

    A little gothic horror would certainly spice up Beamdog's repertoire ~.^

    Dev6themazingnessThacoBellbrunardo
  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 707
    Harry Potter is nothing more than a bunch of previously used ideas and predictable clichés thrown together under a blanket of pseudo-intelect.
    They're books for children, read by adults with the intellects of children, who pretend they're reading proper fantasy books.
    I understand the huge impact it had on pop culture, and the fact that it got a lot of kids interested in (better) books, but let's not confuse being a monetary success with being quality literature.
    Mind you that there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying HP. I watched the movies and read the books myself, but try not to let your taste in books get in the way of proper judgement. See things for what they are, not what you wish them to be.

    Hopefully in 100 years noone will remember what the hell Harry Potter ever was. But people will still be reading Lord of the Rings.

    I understand this post will probably make some people mad but I honestly couldn't care less. I've had this argument many many times in my life.

    subtledoctor
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859

    Dragonlance was never as popular to begin with so that's meaningless. And if your argument is "every book that isn't popular, talks down to its readers" then that's senseless. So we are left with this conclusory criticism which you merely implied, without factual support or any explanation of how or where or even who you think "talked down" to 11-year-olds.

    As far as Harry Potter, yeah, I am keenly aware that my views on it make me an outlier. But I do think it's silly to suggest it is of high quality for being "influential." It was extremely popular and made a ton of money... but, should we similarly say that Frozen was "influential?" Or [insert vapid-but-popular product of the media here]?

    "Popular" and "influential" and "high quality" are three different things... it doesn't bear conflating them.

    Confirmed! Frozen will be coming to the IE!

    subtledoctor
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,142
    Dev6 said:

    Harry Potter is nothing more than a bunch of previously used ideas and predictable clichés thrown together under a blanket of pseudo-intelect.
    They're books for children, read by adults with the intellects of children, who pretend they're reading proper fantasy books.
    I understand the huge impact it had on pop culture, and the fact that it got a lot of kids interested in (better) books, but let's not confuse being a monetary success with being quality literature.
    Mind you that there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying HP. I watched the movies and read the books myself, but try not to let your taste in books get in the way of proper judgement. See things for what they are, not what you wish them to be.

    Hopefully in 100 years noone will remember what the hell Harry Potter ever was. But people will still be reading Lord of the Rings.

    I understand this post will probably make some people mad but I honestly couldn't care less. I've had this argument many many times in my life.

    Yet at no point did HP have something as innane, condescending and outright insulting to the intelligence as calling a pub "The Prancing Pony" .

    Had a lot else that made any thinking adult want to throw up but don't hold up LOTR as an example of great litrature.

    In a hundred years time, I would much prefer children being children and reading HP than adults reading LOTR and taking it seriously.

  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,918
    edited October 2017
    Harry Potter is written in the same style as other popular English literature for young adolescents that started in the 70/80s. It is basically The Five with magic. The main selling point for the world wide market is the notion that there is a hidden UK society of which children of comparable age can learn magic in schools.
    Of course the 20/30s will read the series once they started it back when they were in their teens, and parents will read it to their kids.

    Now Frozen was popular for the songs, but Tangled gets way too little credit! Anyway, the new Disney movies get more attraction now that they changed from damsel in distress towards fully emancipated young women. It's a change to reflect current society changes and that makes it embraced by many.

    None of the DnD books ever got this much exposure for the simple fact that the topics are either not current or are too niche. Or even, the magic world of DnD is just too complex. And the movies were shitty too, which does not help. Marvel/DC etc are doing a much smarter thing.

    Post edited by lroumen on
    ThacoBellOrlonKronsteen
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    edited October 2017
    That's not quite accurate. Harry Potter is written in the style of the "Boarding School" sub-genre of children's literature, which dates back to the 1930s (at least). Whist Enid Blyton did write in that sub-genre (Mallory Towers, St. Clare's) the Famous Five don't rightly belong there. However, Rowling greatly increased the threat level - no one is killed in the earlier stories, and she also added a highly politicised sub-text, which would be missed by both it's younger readers and non-British adults. The Order of the Phoenix, in particular, is a swinging polemic against the state of the British education system. Rowling is not a reader of fantasy literature, and never set out to write it - something that led to a spat with the late Terry Pratchett. The "Robert Galbraith" novels are written in a genre that Rowling actually chooses to read.

    Frozen is largely know for presenting an alternative female role-model than traditional Disney films, and one that makes more sense to pre-adolescents (and it's a lot less boring than the ballet based on the same story). Tangled aint bad either (I do think Disney needs to think more about it's male role-models now though). Something doesn't have to be quality to be popular (Twilight, 50 Shades) but it does help. In particular, the mark of quality children's literature is that it can also be appreciated by adults. Which is where Tolkien went wrong with The Hobbit, which was self-consciously written for children. After that he got over it and wrote for himself.

    I agree that the niche nature of D&D limited the market for the novels, and prevented them from being judged on their own merits - the good, the bad and the ugly. Stranger Things has given D&D more exposure than the novels and movies ever did.


    But we are getting off topic here - Ravenloft can claim Dracula and Frankenstein as it's literary antecedents, which puts it on firmer footing.

    lroumenOrlonKronsteenUnderstandMouseMagic
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,918
    Thanks for the nuance on genre, subgenre.

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511
    My wife is kind of an expert on children's literature.

    lroumen
  • themazingnessthemazingness Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 547
    @Iroumen I know what you mean about Tangled. It had much better writing behind it than Frozen had, yet lives in its shadow.

    ThacoBell
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 1,823
    I tried to read Dragonlance at about the same time I read (and liked) simple stuff like the Belgariad. Absolutely did not enjoy it. Boring characters that felt flat and formulaic even to a child that had just started reading fantasy, and awful, dull writing - even worse than Tolkien in that regard. I can't remember how far into it I managed to force myself to read, but I remember I did not finish it.

    Oh, and kender is just plain awful. No, there's few things I'm less interested in than a Dragonlance game, and most of those involve paint drying watching simulators.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 10,031
    So much shameful Tolkien slander going on in this thread.

    Dev6Mantis37OrlonKronsteenArdul
  • Dev6Dev6 Member Posts: 707
    ThacoBell said:

    So much shameful Tolkien slander going on in this thread.

    People confuse deep world-building and proper prose with dull writing.
    Now I understand why Harry Potter is so popular.

    ThacoBell
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,859
    Harry Potter is popular because its very entertaining. Its really that simple. Likewise with Tolkien, and even Dragonlance, even if you personally don't see the appeal.

    themazingness
  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 734
    I've always found it amusing that fans of more recent fantasy, e.g. Terry Brooks, David Eddings etc., are often dismissive of Tolkien on the grounds that, 'while his works are admittedly influential, he wasn't a very good writer.' - despite that Tolkien, while obviously not perfect, was still a much better writer than any number of contemporary fantasy authors, including the ones that Tolkien's critics are fans of.

    Dev6themazingnesstbone1ThacoBell
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 1,995
    edited October 2017
    I thought the best fantasy book ever was Harvard Lampoon’s “Bored of the Rings”.

    BuI then I read Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series. You can see what it owes to PG Wodehouse and The Goon Show, not just Tolkien.

    OrlonKronsteenFardragon
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 1,918
    There is a stylistic difference between Tolkien and many other writers. Tolkien chose to write very descriptive to get across the way of the world and his books are less open to interpretation. Others leave it up to the imagination of the reader.

    Which writers you like has nothing to do with writing skill but more with personal perception of the reader.

    UnderstandMouseMagicThacoBelltbone1
  • OrlonKronsteenOrlonKronsteen Member Posts: 734
    For many of us writing skill is very important, but personal tastes are of course also a factor.

    ThacoBelltbone1
  • UnderstandMouseMagicUnderstandMouseMagic Member Posts: 2,142
    lroumen said:

    There is a stylistic difference between Tolkien and many other writers. Tolkien chose to write very descriptive to get across the way of the world and his books are less open to interpretation. Others leave it up to the imagination of the reader.

    Which writers you like has nothing to do with writing skill but more with personal perception of the reader.

    Well said.

    If "deep world-building" results in a world that the reader thinks is a bunch of bollox, to the reader it is a bunch of bollox.

    And that charge can be levelled at HP and LOTR.

  • brunardobrunardo Member Posts: 514
    Just saw the release of ravenloft expansion on DDO which I never tried (PLayed NWN...meh) but now will have to for this alone...better than nothing at least until one day it comes to IE

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,511

    For many of us writing skill is very important, but personal tastes are of course also a factor.

    It depends what you mean by "skill". Someone can decide they want to be a writer, spend three years learning the craft, and then come up with something that is technically correct, follows all the rules of plot development and story structure, but feels entierly soulless.

    Dev6OrlonKronsteen
Sign In or Register to comment.