Hugh Grant's character was completely consistent, he's not just greedy, he's a narcissist. He didn't adopt Chris Pine's daughter because he loved her. He did it because he wanted to mold someone else to be like him, he actually says this. As you note, he's also greedy. He betrayed the party after getting the treasure, so he could get more treasure. And so they'd be out of the way when he and Sofina were taking over Neverwinter. Why he was logging the forest is unexplained, I'll grant you that. But it's also irrelevant to the story. Probably, it would give him more money. Or maybe there was some kind of internal political reason he had for it. He had to keep up appearances while he was half-assing being lord of neverwinter. But whatever the reason, that would be at best tangential to this story. What's important is that he was doing it and it gave a character a motivation. Explaining it would have just slowed down the pacing.
Yeah I get that Hugh Grant's character is a greedy narcissist and this can be used to explain why he initially betrayed the party but his actions after only really serve to hinder his goals and make enemies where it may have been more beneficial to keep them on friendlier terms, for instance the only thing Edgin seems to care about after escaping Revel's End is his daughter and that Tablet, I don't think Forge or the Red Wizard really have any need of the tablet (or if they do it is not explained) so letting Edgin have it and his daughter and letting them be on their way would have been a relatively small price to pay to avoid complications. Now you can always try to argue that Forge is so greedy that he would not give up any of the treasure and thus not be willing to part with the Tablet because he wants to sell it or has some sort of use for it later but even in this case the path of least resistance would be to lie about the tablet and say that they lost it due to some sort of complication and then give Edgin back his daughter as a sort of consolation however he does not even try this, instead he acts purely antagonistic lying and trying to turn Edgin's daughter against him for no real gain (and no I really do not buy the wanting to mould somebody into someone just like him as being a strong enough motivation for him to do this) and just makes enemies where none needed to be gained, Forge may be evil but he has an intelligence score of 15 so he isn't stupid, or at least he isn't supposed to be. Honestly if Forge simply wanted Holga and Edgin dead it would have been much smarter if he did not meet with them at all, just inform his guards that 2 wanted criminals had entered the castle and have them arrested on the spot instead of meeting with them and revealing his evil intentions and the fact that he is still working with Sofina.
As you said him logging the forests is completely unexplained and giving a drawn out explanation would have bogged down the story however if the actions made sense then they wouldn't need to explain it as it would be self evident, in this case it is just Forge acting like a tyrant because he is evil when given what we know about him and his plans it would have been much more beneficial and within character for him to keep his head low, avoid making unnecessary enemies and then when the time comes slip off with the gold. It is not so much that the actions of the character are unexplained, it is more that they go completely contrary to what we know about the character and their motivations.
Sofina put Lord Nevermeber out of commission with magic. NPCs don't have to follow PC rules, so its easy enough to say there was some homebrewed ritual or spell she was using. She puts Chris Pine in the arena because that means more zombies for her army (plus a good persuasion roll from Chris Pine). She knew this group from two years ago as a pack of bumbling fools, and they'd done nothing to alter that reputation. She had no reason to think them a threat, so why not get a few more zombies in the deal?
Yeah I gathered such, but as Simon keeps saying "Not everything can be solved with magic". Of course no doubt Lord Neverember's condition was caused by some sort of curse put on him by Sofina but cursing somebody like Lord Neverember is no easy feat (at least it shouldn't be) and requires at least some explanation or hint of how they managed to get close enough to do it, instead we get nothing, no explanation of how a red wizard infiltrated the court of Neverwinter, no explanation of what Lord Neverember's condition is, all we know that Forge is now Lord of Neverwinter and he got there..... somehow using money? And then at the end of the movie Lord Neverember just wakes from his slumber no explanations given. I think these are pretty vital points in the movie that warrant a bit more explanation.
As for Sofina putting them in the arena you really need to do a risk vs reward analysis, what does she get out of this? At best 4 extra zombies, woo hoo, but to get those zombies she is taking a massive risk that they will somehow pull something out of their arse and escape or even expose their plan and create a panic in the arena, there are so many things that could go against them and in the end do go against them that those 4 extra zombies out of the thousands they will already get really does not seem worth it. I mean sure you can justify it by saying this but the justification is just really stupid
In what way? Just asking out of curiosity as I was looking out for things like this and honestly can't recall many, only one that comes to mind is the Paladin remarking that there is evil about just before those assassins show up which I can only assume is a nod to the Paladin's divine sense ability? That and the speak to dead spell. Other than that I can't recall many nods to character features and abilities in the movie? The Druid's wildshape has her turning into an Owlbear which is not possible in the rules as written as Owlbears are technically monstrosities and in the scene where she turns into a fly to spy on the vault she burns 7 uses of wildshape as she turns into several different creatures in the one encounter when rules as written you can only use it twice per short rest, sure it is how I wished wild shape worked and it makes it more fun to watch as a movie but not an accurate nod to the ability as it is written in the rules, also this was the only aspect of the druid they showed there were no hints of the other druid abilities such as the spellcasting and speaking with animals and whatnot, same for the other characters, apart from Chris Pine playing the lute there were no real nod to any other Bardic abilities, no Barbarian rage, I don't recall any Wild Magic surges apart from the change of gravity when they first meet up with the sorcerer again but not sure if that was supposed to be a wild magic surge or just him flubbing the spell?
The directors (aka the DMs) said many times that they weren't trying to make a RAW movie. So, turning into an owlbear is a houserule. As is getting waaaaay more wildshapes than she should have. Maybe that's the deal the player made with the DM, extra wild shapes in exchange for spells?
Chris Pine was rolling high on tons of persuasion checks (not exclusively a bard thing, but definitely a thing bards do). You could make an argument for bardic inspiration in many of his interactions, particularly those with Holga. He nailed several performance checks. And maybe he did cast a spell or two, but they were charm person or something similar that wouldn't be as obvious.
In both cases, I can see story reasons for the directors not wanting to have either character using spells. It would completely undercut Justice Smith's arc if half the party is throwing around spells like it nothing while he can't manage to even attune to a helmet. It's one thing to make him seem not very good at magic, but if everyone else starts doing it, it would make him incompetent. Also, the other characters would know how magic works, so they wouldn't need to ask him how it works. So he wouldn't be able to explain to the other characters (and really, the audience) how magic works in D&D.
Holga was definitely raging in the two fights where she solo'd 5-6 guys. She just didn't go all anime and yell "barbarian rage" before she started. Rage can look a lot of different ways.
As far as wild surges. Only one seems about right. They are pretty rare in game, in my experience. I'm playing in a party with a wild magic sorcerer right now, we're well into 5th level, and they've not had one even once -- and they roll for it a lot.
So the post you are quoting is replying to somebody saying that they thought the movie did a good job of representing the character classes and abilities within the game, now I can get why they changed a few things to make the movie more fun to watch and understand that it may be hard to portray abilities such as Bardic inspiration in a way that seems obvious, but as far as rules as written I don't think the movie did a good job of portraying the classes, it was really a much more superficial portrayal than a rules and lore accurate portrayal.
ly the villains, I mean Sofina is pretty self explanatory but Hugh Grant's character? I know he is greedy and wanted the treasure which is why he was working with Sofina and why he betrayed the rest of the group, but why take on the adoptive father role of Chris Pine's daughter and why lie and betray the party after he had already gotten the treasure? Why was he logging the forest pissing off the Emerald Enclave if he was only playing the role of Lord of Neverwinter to abscond with the treasure? And how exactly did he and Sofina put Lord Neverember out of commission in the first place? Also there is a scene where he is about to kill Chris Pine's character and then Sofina convinces him to let Chris Pine participate in the Arena for some reason? What reason would Sofina have to allow the party to live just to participate in the arena other than the fact that the movie needs the party to foil her plans? In the end she becomes the engineer of her own downfall yet there is no practical reason for her to do so? I know every story has plot holes and I try to be forgiving to an extent as most stories need some semblance of suspension of disbelief but there are so many moments in the movie where the plot holes are so gapingly huge and frequent that they become impossible to ignore.
I'll take a crack at these.
Hugh Grant's character was completely consistent, he's not just greedy, he's a narcissist. He didn't adopt Chris Pine's daughter because he loved her. He did it because he wanted to mold someone else to be like him, he actually says this. As you note, he's also greedy. He betrayed the party after getting the treasure, so he could get more treasure. And so they'd be out of the way when he and Sofina were taking over Neverwinter. Why he was logging the forest is unexplained, I'll grant you that. But it's also irrelevant to the story. Probably, it would give him more money. Or maybe there was some kind of internal political reason he had for it. He had to keep up appearances while he was half-assing being lord of neverwinter. But whatever the reason, that would be at best tangential to this story. What's important is that he was doing it and it gave a character a motivation. Explaining it would have just slowed down the pacing.
Sofina put Lord Nevermeber out of commission with magic. NPCs don't have to follow PC rules, so its easy enough to say there was some homebrewed ritual or spell she was using. She puts Chris Pine in the arena because that means more zombies for her army (plus a good persuasion roll from Chris Pine). She knew this group from two years ago as a pack of bumbling fools, and they'd done nothing to alter that reputation. She had no reason to think them a threat, so why not get a few more zombies in the deal?
In what way? Just asking out of curiosity as I was looking out for things like this and honestly can't recall many, only one that comes to mind is the Paladin remarking that there is evil about just before those assassins show up which I can only assume is a nod to the Paladin's divine sense ability? That and the speak to dead spell. Other than that I can't recall many nods to character features and abilities in the movie? The Druid's wildshape has her turning into an Owlbear which is not possible in the rules as written as Owlbears are technically monstrosities and in the scene where she turns into a fly to spy on the vault she burns 7 uses of wildshape as she turns into several different creatures in the one encounter when rules as written you can only use it twice per short rest, sure it is how I wished wild shape worked and it makes it more fun to watch as a movie but not an accurate nod to the ability as it is written in the rules, also this was the only aspect of the druid they showed there were no hints of the other druid abilities such as the spellcasting and speaking with animals and whatnot, same for the other characters, apart from Chris Pine playing the lute there were no real nod to any other Bardic abilities, no Barbarian rage, I don't recall any Wild Magic surges apart from the change of gravity when they first meet up with the sorcerer again but not sure if that was supposed to be a wild magic surge or just him flubbing the spell?
The directors (aka the DMs) said many times that they weren't trying to make a RAW movie. So, turning into an owlbear is a houserule. As is getting waaaaay more wildshapes than she should have. Maybe that's the deal the player made with the DM, extra wild shapes in exchange for spells?
Chris Pine was rolling high on tons of persuasion checks (not exclusively a bard thing, but definitely a thing bards do). You could make an argument for bardic inspiration in many of his interactions, particularly those with Holga. He nailed several performance checks. And maybe he did cast a spell or two, but they were charm person or something similar that wouldn't be as obvious.
In both cases, I can see story reasons for the directors not wanting to have either character using spells. It would completely undercut Justice Smith's arc if half the party is throwing around spells like it nothing while he can't manage to even attune to a helmet. It's one thing to make him seem not very good at magic, but if everyone else starts doing it, it would make him incompetent. Also, the other characters would know how magic works, so they wouldn't need to ask him how it works. So he wouldn't be able to explain to the other characters (and really, the audience) how magic works in D&D.
Holga was definitely raging in the two fights where she solo'd 5-6 guys. She just didn't go all anime and yell "barbarian rage" before she started. Rage can look a lot of different ways.
As far as wild surges. Only one seems about right. They are pretty rare in game, in my experience. I'm playing in a party with a wild magic sorcerer right now, we're well into 5th level, and they've not had one even once -- and they roll for it a lot.
College of eloquence is the bard explanation for how he is film portrayed.
I really hope the typical fan looking for a popcorn movie with plenty of fun DnD easter eggs is not put off going to the film because of the OP's original post and multiple responses on why this is a "bad movie". When someone is worried about minor details like it not being explicitly explained why the outrageously greedy co-BBEG is logging a forest (gonna guess the answer is GOLD - either through direct sales of lumber or expansion of industries, take your pick) then I think the expectations for endless exposition are a bit unreasonable. The level of detail in their campaigns must be intense.
The only thing I was really disappointed about with Honor Among Thieves (HAT lol) was the tabaxi characters in the background. They looked a lot like puppets especially compared to the dragonborn or even to the Aarakocra.
Everything else was pretty great though, and even though I saw it a second time (1st time was early screening and 2nd time was with a friend) I actually thought some parts were funnier the 2nd time bc I knew what was happening with the plot.
I think my favorite part was when the party was being chased by Themberchonk (I mean, did you see how chubby his cheeks were?)
I enjoyed the dry humor. It had plenty of Easter eggs for Forgotten Realms nerds like me. My favorites was the Hanging Gnome City in the Underdark, the baby Rust Monsters fighting over a piece of armor in Neverwinter, and the painting of Volo. Was it the perfect movie? Of course not. But it was good.
Is the storytelling strong enough to stand on its own without the IP attached?
I think so. (Storytelling includes story, but it's also more than the story. Great storytelling can save a lousy story.)
Did adding the IP to it affect it negatively?
There are so many movies out there that would be better off without the IP attached and suffered by trying to prybar/crowbar a story into an IP that doesn't fit.
...but does this apply here?
That's not so easy to state. D&D is different things to different people. Along with character roleplay, I favor both the rules-minded style and the rules-loose style of D&D campaigns, considering nuance when it comes to rules-minded and not going completely into absurdity when it comes to rules-loose. I'm not into the extremes of either style, and to me, middle-ground feels like there's not enough of either.
A style that trends to either works for me. I feel the movie one trended to the latter (rules-loose) and, likewise, works for me. If I only wanted the former (rules-minded), I would find myself disappointed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I'm not sure but I thought that the gelatinous cube thing was she made space in the cube with her arm and hand then poked a hole through the side of the cube then turned into a snake sliding through the space from her arm and hand, then exiting through the hole. I dunno.
My goal isn't to overanalyze even aspect of the movie.
Why would Hugh grant possibly give up the tablet. Its an item that, in game terms, allows anyone to cast True Resurrection. Even if its not on you spell list, even, its implied, if you can't cast spells. Anyone can cast a 9th level spell. that's artifact-level gear. You don't give that up to make friends with someone. Especially not someone who, at that point, was just an escaped prisoner who you'd duped before and who you're about to send back to jail. You have no reason to think they're going to be able to beat up half a dozen of your guards and you've got an allied level 17 (at least) wizard standing next to you. Hugh Grant was holding all the cards. He got cocky. it's called hubris, and it is the downfall of many a character in many a story. And wanting to make the daughter be like him wasn't his initial motivation, but its become that over time. It feeds his ego. You don't buy it, that's fair, but its a reasonable explanation which completely fits with his character.
And KenMarable makes a good point about the zombie thing. A different reason than I came up with, but a good reason which gets us to the same place.
As far as the logging and the curse not being explained. Not everything is or needs to be explained in every story. Sometimes its enough that it happened. We don't know how Leia got the plans for the Death Star (or we didn't know for like 30 years), but it wasn't necessary for the purposes of that story. We don't know how Jorah Mormont got the dragon eggs to give to Danerys. We don't know how Gollum got the ring, at least not in The Hobbit. Background details aren't always needed or good, they can bog down pacing with something that's not relevant to the plot of the current story. For example with the logging, it is the reason Doric is willing to go on an adventure. The logging is the explanation, it doesn't need one. Do we really want to know what he's using the lumber for? It would have just slowed thing down. Imagine it: Why is he logging? To build ships. Well, why is he building ships? Because he wants to triple the size of the navy. Well, why does he want to triple the size of the navy? And so on. It just starts you going down a rabbit hole that has no impact on the current story. It may have been that ordering the logging was actually making him friends with whoever needed the lumber, and so he was avoiding making them an enemy. Heck, it could have been he didn't order it and it was some underling acting in the name of the Lord of Neverwinter for reasons all their own, and blaming it on Hugh Grant. No matter what it was, knowing details about the logging would have changed nothing in this story. Just like knowing how Sofina cursed Neverember would not have changed anything. She did. That's all we need to know. The intricacies of her sneaking past security, both physical and magical, would not have changed anything about Edgin and Holga's story.
And I think, with the exception of wild shape going crazy and attunement being much harder than it is in game, it did a pretty good version of showing how the game can work. It might not have been fully RAW, but has any game ever been played fully RAW? Seems like some house rules combined with the occasional rule of cool is pretty well in keeping with the way most people play D&D.
I'm not trying to say this was Citizen Kane, but that wasn't what it was trying to be. Is it something that film school students will study for decades? No. But it was a good story, and it was fun, and it very much felt like it could have been a D&D campaign.
It's not a good standalone movie in that it did suffer from the various nods to D&S and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who had no part in D&D. The setup, to a neutral audience, was actually pretty poor.
However, as a person who enjoys D&D and recognises the culture...it was definitely enjoyable and I liked it. The obvious mocking of people who come up backstories that aren't...quite worthy of Shakespeare or other high literature was funny to me because I saw the rubbing that was going on (and I'm not being snobbish...I saw myself and a couple of my characters being poked at by that). To someone that wasn't versed in D&D and its culture, that would have been weird, awkward and not great.
As a result, it's good if you're on the inside. If you're a D&D fan (and not so AR that you can't let a couple of rule interactions fly), then it was good fun. Not something I'd watch many times...but something I'd break out occasionally for some light entertainment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The setup, to a neutral audience, was actually pretty poor.
I saw it with someone who knows nothing about D&D other than vague memories of the 80s cartoon and they loved it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The setup, to a neutral audience, was actually pretty poor.
I saw it with someone who knows nothing about D&D other than vague memories of the 80s cartoon and they loved it
This was my experience, too, and they didn't even have the 80s cartoon background! :)
Between D&Disms being so ingrained in other fantasy, superhero movies dominating Hollywood for years, video games, etc. - the average person seeing this movie could also probably talk off the top of their head about the politics of Rohan vs Gondor, wonder if Steve Rogers went back in time was it a separate timeline or did he just ignore Hydra taking over SHIELD, or figure unless told otherwise "nature magic" is usually different from "book/wizard magic", etc. They might miss a lot of nuance, but just indicating "the Red Wizards of Thay are super evil, are led by an undead-looking guy named Szass Tam who only has power in Thay (apparently a country), and has a magic horn that turns everyone nearby into undead" is enough for most audience members to just nod and accept it even if they only get the basics.
Rudimentary sci-fi/fantasy/superhero genre literacy is the norm now.
Why would Hugh grant possibly give up the tablet. Its an item that, in game terms, allows anyone to cast True Resurrection. Even if its not on you spell list, even, its implied, if you can't cast spells. Anyone can cast a 9th level spell. that's artifact-level gear. You don't give that up to make friends with someone. Especially not someone who, at that point, was just an escaped prisoner who you'd duped before and who you're about to send back to jail. You have no reason to think they're going to be able to beat up half a dozen of your guards and you've got an allied level 17 (at least) wizard standing next to you. Hugh Grant was holding all the cards. He got cocky. it's called hubris, and it is the downfall of many a character in many a story. And wanting to make the daughter be like him wasn't his initial motivation, but its become that over time. It feeds his ego. You don't buy it, that's fair, but its a reasonable explanation which completely fits with his character.
And KenMarable makes a good point about the zombie thing. A different reason than I came up with, but a good reason which gets us to the same place.
Ok maybe I am underestimating the value of the tablet a little bit but even if he was not willing to give up the tablet I did already explain in my previous post several ways he could have handled things that avoid pointlessly antagonizing the heroes to the point where you make enemies for no reason and avoid giving away sensitive information that clues the heroes in to your plans.
There is hubris and then there is sheer stupidity and Forge's actions go beyond hubris into sheer stupidity
Also even if we buy the hubris and ego thing as the reason he pointlessly gloats generally you would expect the villains to only make that mistake once, even if Sofina considered them potentially valuable zombies I really don't think they are valuable enough to let them run amok in the high sun games and potentially ruin your overall plan. Risk vs reward and the risks vastly outweigh the potential rewards here.
As far as the logging and the curse not being explained. Not everything is or needs to be explained in every story. Sometimes its enough that it happened. We don't know how Leia got the plans for the Death Star (or we didn't know for like 30 years), but it wasn't necessary for the purposes of that story. We don't know how Jorah Mormont got the dragon eggs to give to Danerys. We don't know how Gollum got the ring, at least not in The Hobbit. Background details aren't always needed or good, they can bog down pacing with something that's not relevant to the plot of the current story. For example with the logging, it is the reason Doric is willing to go on an adventure. The logging is the explanation, it doesn't need one. Do we really want to know what he's using the lumber for? It would have just slowed thing down. Imagine it: Why is he logging? To build ships. Well, why is he building ships? Because he wants to triple the size of the navy. Well, why does he want to triple the size of the navy? And so on. It just starts you going down a rabbit hole that has no impact on the current story. It may have been that ordering the logging was actually making him friends with whoever needed the lumber, and so he was avoiding making them an enemy. Heck, it could have been he didn't order it and it was some underling acting in the name of the Lord of Neverwinter for reasons all their own, and blaming it on Hugh Grant. No matter what it was, knowing details about the logging would have changed nothing in this story. Just like knowing how Sofina cursed Neverember would not have changed anything. She did. That's all we need to know. The intricacies of her sneaking past security, both physical and magical, would not have changed anything about Edgin and Holga's story.
As I said before the logging wouldn't necessarily need to be explained if it made at least some sense, for instance if we look at something like Lord of the Rings for example it does not really need extra scenes to explain why Saruman is logging the surrounding forests, it is all pretty self evident and everything is tied together in a neat little bow, Saruman is logging the forest to fuel the forges of his war machine and breed Uruk Hai to wage war on Rohan, however his logging gives the Ents reason to act and in the end contributes to his downfall. In Honor Among Thieves we know that Forge is only Lord of Neverwinter because he wants the treasure and plans to escape before the Red Wizards put their plan in motion, logging the forest does nothing to aid him in this plan and only serves to antagonize more enemies that he simply does not need at this point, there is simply no logical reason for him to do this other than for the movie to give flimsy motivation for another character to enter the plot, I can forgive this sort of thing maybe once or twice in a movie but this sort of thing happens so many times in the movie it is hard to consider it anything but bad writing.
As for Lord Neverember being disposed of this kind of warrants a bit more explanation, having the villains curse the king and seize power is not a minor plot point you just gloss over, I would say that this is a pretty vital plot point that warrants at least some explanation, however Lord Neverember barely even gets any mention in the movie beyond Hugh Grant saying he fell ill and the scene at the end where he just inexplicably wakes up with Chris Pine narrating saying "oh yeah looks like his illness was caused by Sofina's magic, no I am not going to elaborate", just feels like they gave very little thought to the plot of the movie, things just happen because the movie needs them to happen regardless of how much sense it makes for these things to happen and the only reason we are given for why they happen is because the movie needed them to happen to move the plot, it is just really sloppy storytelling, I feel like the creators of South Park explain it better with their avoidance of "and then" storytelling.
Things like Leia getting the death star plans is already kind of explained in that they managed to get the information from Bothan spies, sure there is probably more of a story there but the explanation given is enough for the purposes of the story told in that movie, how Gollum got the ring is hinted at in many parts of the story and revealed in Lord of the Rings, what the ring was and how it passed from owner to owner was supposed to be a mystery spanning several books, as for how Jorah got the eggs it wasn't him that had the eggs but Illyrio the wealthy magister who gave the eggs to Daenerys and we know that the eggs came from the Shadow Lands beyond Asshai which is supposed to be a fairly mysterious place, GRR Martin gives some hints of what to expect there but I think it is one of those mysteries that is best left to the imagination, as for how Illyio might have gotten the eggs well it is pretty self evident that he is a wealthy person with a lot of connections and getting artifacts from Old Valerya and the Shadowlands beyond Asshai would not be such a difficult thing for him.
I am not saying they need to go into full bullet point detail of how Sofina and Forge managed to get close to and get rid of Lord Neverember but at least some hint or allusion to how they pulled it off is sorely needed to give at least some impression that the writers did not just lazily pull the plot point from their behinds with little though to how it happened.
And I think, with the exception of wild shape going crazy and attunement being much harder than it is in game, it did a pretty good version of showing how the game can work. It might not have been fully RAW, but has any game ever been played fully RAW? Seems like some house rules combined with the occasional rule of cool is pretty well in keeping with the way most people play D&D.
I am not going to argue rules as written here as I have already conceded that some changes were inevitable and may be needed to be more conducive to making a good movie, I would have liked to see more nods to the rules but I understand why things were changed and I am not going to hold this against the movie too much, it is really more the other stuff I take issue with.
I loved the movie. I did not go into it with a "rules lawyer" attitude. I wanted to see a film to entertain me. It succeeded. I wanted to be able to identify stuff from the game in the movie and I could. But even in 2023 I know that there are things in the game that special effects can not pull off without blowing the budget. So all in all I gave it a 9 out of 10.
The logging is a direct punishment for the Emerald Enclave questioning Forge's rise to rule; Forge is killing their people under flimsy pretenses and destroying their homes. That's made pretty explicit in the movie, not sure how people are missing that.
The logging is a direct punishment for the Emerald Enclave questioning Forge's rise to rule; Forge is killing their people under flimsy pretenses and destroying their homes. That's made pretty explicit in the movie, not sure how people are missing that.
Where exactly is it made explicit? I must have missed the scene?
I am not going to argue rules as written here as I have already conceded that some changes were inevitable and may be needed to be more conducive to making a good movie, I would have liked to see more nods to the rules but I understand why things were changed and I am not going to hold this against the movie too much, it is really more the other stuff I take issue with.
I don't understand why anyone would take a Rules Lawyer approach to analyzing the movie, when every single DM running a table does the same type of minor rule bending all the time in the name of making the session more fun.
Druid wants to be an Owlbear but technically it's not a beast? I actually had this happen before the movie ever came out - I said absolutely the player could just use the Dire Wolf statblock and say they're an Owlbear because it sounds way more cool
Druid wild shaped too many times? To me this whole scene plays out like one of those sessions where a character attempts something risky, gets into trouble, and the whole table is laughing as the shenanigans keep escalating more and more absurd. She was changing from a rat into a axebeak into a cat back into a rat into a deer (or something like that), I'd absolutely allow that as a DM it's not like any of those changes even helped her out. I could just imagine the DM saying "sure go ahead, she still sees you no matter what you turn into!" every time the player tried some new form. This isn't changing the rules to make a better movie - it's showing the rules exactly as intended (guidelines)
Intellect devourers wouldn't actually pass by them? This is absolutely the type of thing I would do as a DM just as a joke to make players laugh.
My only problem with how they presented the rules was how the Bard never used a single Bardic ability, no spells, no vicious mockery, no bardic inspiration, he's basically not a Bard at all. Also the Druid never casting any spells was nearly as bad although at least they did feature Wild Shape.
The logging is a direct punishment for the Emerald Enclave questioning Forge's rise to rule; Forge is killing their people under flimsy pretenses and destroying their homes. That's made pretty explicit in the movie, not sure how people are missing that.
Where exactly is it made explicit? I must have missed the scene?
They mentioned it when the party tries to recruit Doric into the party, and Holga made a joke that she wants to keep Doric's share because Doric is not doing it for the money.
Yeah I get that Hugh Grant's character is a greedy narcissist and this can be used to explain why he initially betrayed the party but his actions after only really serve to hinder his goals and make enemies where it may have been more beneficial to keep them on friendlier terms, for instance the only thing Edgin seems to care about after escaping Revel's End is his daughter and that Tablet, I don't think Forge or the Red Wizard really have any need of the tablet (or if they do it is not explained) so letting Edgin have it and his daughter and letting them be on their way would have been a relatively small price to pay to avoid complications. Now you can always try to argue that Forge is so greedy that he would not give up any of the treasure and thus not be willing to part with the Tablet because he wants to sell it or has some sort of use for it later but even in this case the path of least resistance would be to lie about the tablet and say that they lost it due to some sort of complication and then give Edgin back his daughter as a sort of consolation however he does not even try this, instead he acts purely antagonistic lying and trying to turn Edgin's daughter against him for no real gain (and no I really do not buy the wanting to mould somebody into someone just like him as being a strong enough motivation for him to do this) and just makes enemies where none needed to be gained, Forge may be evil but he has an intelligence score of 15 so he isn't stupid, or at least he isn't supposed to be. Honestly if Forge simply wanted Holga and Edgin dead it would have been much smarter if he did not meet with them at all, just inform his guards that 2 wanted criminals had entered the castle and have them arrested on the spot instead of meeting with them and revealing his evil intentions and the fact that he is still working with Sofina.
As you said him logging the forests is completely unexplained and giving a drawn out explanation would have bogged down the story however if the actions made sense then they wouldn't need to explain it as it would be self evident, in this case it is just Forge acting like a tyrant because he is evil when given what we know about him and his plans it would have been much more beneficial and within character for him to keep his head low, avoid making unnecessary enemies and then when the time comes slip off with the gold. It is not so much that the actions of the character are unexplained, it is more that they go completely contrary to what we know about the character and their motivations.
Yeah I gathered such, but as Simon keeps saying "Not everything can be solved with magic". Of course no doubt Lord Neverember's condition was caused by some sort of curse put on him by Sofina but cursing somebody like Lord Neverember is no easy feat (at least it shouldn't be) and requires at least some explanation or hint of how they managed to get close enough to do it, instead we get nothing, no explanation of how a red wizard infiltrated the court of Neverwinter, no explanation of what Lord Neverember's condition is, all we know that Forge is now Lord of Neverwinter and he got there..... somehow using money? And then at the end of the movie Lord Neverember just wakes from his slumber no explanations given. I think these are pretty vital points in the movie that warrant a bit more explanation.
As for Sofina putting them in the arena you really need to do a risk vs reward analysis, what does she get out of this? At best 4 extra zombies, woo hoo, but to get those zombies she is taking a massive risk that they will somehow pull something out of their arse and escape or even expose their plan and create a panic in the arena, there are so many things that could go against them and in the end do go against them that those 4 extra zombies out of the thousands they will already get really does not seem worth it. I mean sure you can justify it by saying this but the justification is just really stupid
So the post you are quoting is replying to somebody saying that they thought the movie did a good job of representing the character classes and abilities within the game, now I can get why they changed a few things to make the movie more fun to watch and understand that it may be hard to portray abilities such as Bardic inspiration in a way that seems obvious, but as far as rules as written I don't think the movie did a good job of portraying the classes, it was really a much more superficial portrayal than a rules and lore accurate portrayal.
College of eloquence is the bard explanation for how he is film portrayed.
Blank
I really hope the typical fan looking for a popcorn movie with plenty of fun DnD easter eggs is not put off going to the film because of the OP's original post and multiple responses on why this is a "bad movie". When someone is worried about minor details like it not being explicitly explained why the outrageously greedy co-BBEG is logging a forest (gonna guess the answer is GOLD - either through direct sales of lumber or expansion of industries, take your pick) then I think the expectations for endless exposition are a bit unreasonable. The level of detail in their campaigns must be intense.
The only thing I was really disappointed about with Honor Among Thieves (HAT lol) was the tabaxi characters in the background. They looked a lot like puppets especially compared to the dragonborn or even to the Aarakocra.
Everything else was pretty great though, and even though I saw it a second time (1st time was early screening and 2nd time was with a friend) I actually thought some parts were funnier the 2nd time bc I knew what was happening with the plot.
I think my favorite part was when the party was being chased by Themberchonk (I mean, did you see how chubby his cheeks were?)
Visit my extended profile --> here <--
Hehe uwu
I enjoyed the dry humor. It had plenty of Easter eggs for Forgotten Realms nerds like me. My favorites was the Hanging Gnome City in the Underdark, the baby Rust Monsters fighting over a piece of armor in Neverwinter, and the painting of Volo. Was it the perfect movie? Of course not. But it was good.
Is the storytelling strong enough to stand on its own without the IP attached?
I think so. (Storytelling includes story, but it's also more than the story. Great storytelling can save a lousy story.)
Did adding the IP to it affect it negatively?
There are so many movies out there that would be better off without the IP attached and suffered by trying to prybar/crowbar a story into an IP that doesn't fit.
...but does this apply here?
That's not so easy to state. D&D is different things to different people. Along with character roleplay, I favor both the rules-minded style and the rules-loose style of D&D campaigns, considering nuance when it comes to rules-minded and not going completely into absurdity when it comes to rules-loose. I'm not into the extremes of either style, and to me, middle-ground feels like there's not enough of either.
A style that trends to either works for me. I feel the movie one trended to the latter (rules-loose) and, likewise, works for me. If I only wanted the former (rules-minded), I would find myself disappointed.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I'm not sure but I thought that the gelatinous cube thing was she made space in the cube with her arm and hand then poked a hole through the side of the cube then turned into a snake sliding through the space from her arm and hand, then exiting through the hole. I dunno.
My goal isn't to overanalyze even aspect of the movie.
Why would Hugh grant possibly give up the tablet. Its an item that, in game terms, allows anyone to cast True Resurrection. Even if its not on you spell list, even, its implied, if you can't cast spells. Anyone can cast a 9th level spell. that's artifact-level gear. You don't give that up to make friends with someone. Especially not someone who, at that point, was just an escaped prisoner who you'd duped before and who you're about to send back to jail. You have no reason to think they're going to be able to beat up half a dozen of your guards and you've got an allied level 17 (at least) wizard standing next to you. Hugh Grant was holding all the cards. He got cocky. it's called hubris, and it is the downfall of many a character in many a story. And wanting to make the daughter be like him wasn't his initial motivation, but its become that over time. It feeds his ego. You don't buy it, that's fair, but its a reasonable explanation which completely fits with his character.
And KenMarable makes a good point about the zombie thing. A different reason than I came up with, but a good reason which gets us to the same place.
As far as the logging and the curse not being explained. Not everything is or needs to be explained in every story. Sometimes its enough that it happened. We don't know how Leia got the plans for the Death Star (or we didn't know for like 30 years), but it wasn't necessary for the purposes of that story. We don't know how Jorah Mormont got the dragon eggs to give to Danerys. We don't know how Gollum got the ring, at least not in The Hobbit. Background details aren't always needed or good, they can bog down pacing with something that's not relevant to the plot of the current story. For example with the logging, it is the reason Doric is willing to go on an adventure. The logging is the explanation, it doesn't need one. Do we really want to know what he's using the lumber for? It would have just slowed thing down. Imagine it: Why is he logging? To build ships. Well, why is he building ships? Because he wants to triple the size of the navy. Well, why does he want to triple the size of the navy? And so on. It just starts you going down a rabbit hole that has no impact on the current story. It may have been that ordering the logging was actually making him friends with whoever needed the lumber, and so he was avoiding making them an enemy. Heck, it could have been he didn't order it and it was some underling acting in the name of the Lord of Neverwinter for reasons all their own, and blaming it on Hugh Grant. No matter what it was, knowing details about the logging would have changed nothing in this story. Just like knowing how Sofina cursed Neverember would not have changed anything. She did. That's all we need to know. The intricacies of her sneaking past security, both physical and magical, would not have changed anything about Edgin and Holga's story.
And I think, with the exception of wild shape going crazy and attunement being much harder than it is in game, it did a pretty good version of showing how the game can work. It might not have been fully RAW, but has any game ever been played fully RAW? Seems like some house rules combined with the occasional rule of cool is pretty well in keeping with the way most people play D&D.
I'm not trying to say this was Citizen Kane, but that wasn't what it was trying to be. Is it something that film school students will study for decades? No. But it was a good story, and it was fun, and it very much felt like it could have been a D&D campaign.
It was fine.
It's not a good standalone movie in that it did suffer from the various nods to D&S and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who had no part in D&D. The setup, to a neutral audience, was actually pretty poor.
However, as a person who enjoys D&D and recognises the culture...it was definitely enjoyable and I liked it. The obvious mocking of people who come up backstories that aren't...quite worthy of Shakespeare or other high literature was funny to me because I saw the rubbing that was going on (and I'm not being snobbish...I saw myself and a couple of my characters being poked at by that). To someone that wasn't versed in D&D and its culture, that would have been weird, awkward and not great.
As a result, it's good if you're on the inside. If you're a D&D fan (and not so AR that you can't let a couple of rule interactions fly), then it was good fun. Not something I'd watch many times...but something I'd break out occasionally for some light entertainment.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I saw it with someone who knows nothing about D&D other than vague memories of the 80s cartoon and they loved it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This was my experience, too, and they didn't even have the 80s cartoon background! :)
Between D&Disms being so ingrained in other fantasy, superhero movies dominating Hollywood for years, video games, etc. - the average person seeing this movie could also probably talk off the top of their head about the politics of Rohan vs Gondor, wonder if Steve Rogers went back in time was it a separate timeline or did he just ignore Hydra taking over SHIELD, or figure unless told otherwise "nature magic" is usually different from "book/wizard magic", etc. They might miss a lot of nuance, but just indicating "the Red Wizards of Thay are super evil, are led by an undead-looking guy named Szass Tam who only has power in Thay (apparently a country), and has a magic horn that turns everyone nearby into undead" is enough for most audience members to just nod and accept it even if they only get the basics.
Rudimentary sci-fi/fantasy/superhero genre literacy is the norm now.
Ok maybe I am underestimating the value of the tablet a little bit but even if he was not willing to give up the tablet I did already explain in my previous post several ways he could have handled things that avoid pointlessly antagonizing the heroes to the point where you make enemies for no reason and avoid giving away sensitive information that clues the heroes in to your plans.
There is hubris and then there is sheer stupidity and Forge's actions go beyond hubris into sheer stupidity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYZqC7EGMfM
Also even if we buy the hubris and ego thing as the reason he pointlessly gloats generally you would expect the villains to only make that mistake once, even if Sofina considered them potentially valuable zombies I really don't think they are valuable enough to let them run amok in the high sun games and potentially ruin your overall plan. Risk vs reward and the risks vastly outweigh the potential rewards here.
As I said before the logging wouldn't necessarily need to be explained if it made at least some sense, for instance if we look at something like Lord of the Rings for example it does not really need extra scenes to explain why Saruman is logging the surrounding forests, it is all pretty self evident and everything is tied together in a neat little bow, Saruman is logging the forest to fuel the forges of his war machine and breed Uruk Hai to wage war on Rohan, however his logging gives the Ents reason to act and in the end contributes to his downfall. In Honor Among Thieves we know that Forge is only Lord of Neverwinter because he wants the treasure and plans to escape before the Red Wizards put their plan in motion, logging the forest does nothing to aid him in this plan and only serves to antagonize more enemies that he simply does not need at this point, there is simply no logical reason for him to do this other than for the movie to give flimsy motivation for another character to enter the plot, I can forgive this sort of thing maybe once or twice in a movie but this sort of thing happens so many times in the movie it is hard to consider it anything but bad writing.
As for Lord Neverember being disposed of this kind of warrants a bit more explanation, having the villains curse the king and seize power is not a minor plot point you just gloss over, I would say that this is a pretty vital plot point that warrants at least some explanation, however Lord Neverember barely even gets any mention in the movie beyond Hugh Grant saying he fell ill and the scene at the end where he just inexplicably wakes up with Chris Pine narrating saying "oh yeah looks like his illness was caused by Sofina's magic, no I am not going to elaborate", just feels like they gave very little thought to the plot of the movie, things just happen because the movie needs them to happen regardless of how much sense it makes for these things to happen and the only reason we are given for why they happen is because the movie needed them to happen to move the plot, it is just really sloppy storytelling, I feel like the creators of South Park explain it better with their avoidance of "and then" storytelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGUNqq3jVLg
Things like Leia getting the death star plans is already kind of explained in that they managed to get the information from Bothan spies, sure there is probably more of a story there but the explanation given is enough for the purposes of the story told in that movie, how Gollum got the ring is hinted at in many parts of the story and revealed in Lord of the Rings, what the ring was and how it passed from owner to owner was supposed to be a mystery spanning several books, as for how Jorah got the eggs it wasn't him that had the eggs but Illyrio the wealthy magister who gave the eggs to Daenerys and we know that the eggs came from the Shadow Lands beyond Asshai which is supposed to be a fairly mysterious place, GRR Martin gives some hints of what to expect there but I think it is one of those mysteries that is best left to the imagination, as for how Illyio might have gotten the eggs well it is pretty self evident that he is a wealthy person with a lot of connections and getting artifacts from Old Valerya and the Shadowlands beyond Asshai would not be such a difficult thing for him.
I am not saying they need to go into full bullet point detail of how Sofina and Forge managed to get close to and get rid of Lord Neverember but at least some hint or allusion to how they pulled it off is sorely needed to give at least some impression that the writers did not just lazily pull the plot point from their behinds with little though to how it happened.
I am not going to argue rules as written here as I have already conceded that some changes were inevitable and may be needed to be more conducive to making a good movie, I would have liked to see more nods to the rules but I understand why things were changed and I am not going to hold this against the movie too much, it is really more the other stuff I take issue with.
I loved the movie. I did not go into it with a "rules lawyer" attitude. I wanted to see a film to entertain me. It succeeded. I wanted to be able to identify stuff from the game in the movie and I could. But even in 2023 I know that there are things in the game that special effects can not pull off without blowing the budget. So all in all I gave it a 9 out of 10.
The logging is a direct punishment for the Emerald Enclave questioning Forge's rise to rule; Forge is killing their people under flimsy pretenses and destroying their homes. That's made pretty explicit in the movie, not sure how people are missing that.
Anyway, good movie, liked it a lot.
Hey what was the name of that song Holga and Ed were singing? I can't find the name of it online anywhere
Visit my extended profile --> here <--
Hehe uwu
Just watched it. I would give it a damn good time/10.
Really enjoyable.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Where exactly is it made explicit? I must have missed the scene?
I don't understand why anyone would take a Rules Lawyer approach to analyzing the movie, when every single DM running a table does the same type of minor rule bending all the time in the name of making the session more fun.
Druid wants to be an Owlbear but technically it's not a beast? I actually had this happen before the movie ever came out - I said absolutely the player could just use the Dire Wolf statblock and say they're an Owlbear because it sounds way more cool
Druid wild shaped too many times? To me this whole scene plays out like one of those sessions where a character attempts something risky, gets into trouble, and the whole table is laughing as the shenanigans keep escalating more and more absurd. She was changing from a rat into a axebeak into a cat back into a rat into a deer (or something like that), I'd absolutely allow that as a DM it's not like any of those changes even helped her out. I could just imagine the DM saying "sure go ahead, she still sees you no matter what you turn into!" every time the player tried some new form. This isn't changing the rules to make a better movie - it's showing the rules exactly as intended (guidelines)
Intellect devourers wouldn't actually pass by them? This is absolutely the type of thing I would do as a DM just as a joke to make players laugh.
My only problem with how they presented the rules was how the Bard never used a single Bardic ability, no spells, no vicious mockery, no bardic inspiration, he's basically not a Bard at all. Also the Druid never casting any spells was nearly as bad although at least they did feature Wild Shape.
3/10 I don't like comedies.
They mentioned it when the party tries to recruit Doric into the party, and Holga made a joke that she wants to keep Doric's share because Doric is not doing it for the money.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >