Dungeons and Dragons (2022)

[Tom Kalbfus]

Making a generic sword&sorcery flick and slapping the D&D logo on it is doomed to bomb. To have any chance at making money the movie has to break the 4th wall in some way and sell the fact that it's a game. The only fully in-universe thing that would have any chance of making money is a Drizzt movie, and even then it's unlikely. Either way, teaching moviegoers the arcana of class divisions is the last thing they should worry about.

Most swords & sorcery movies are short on sorcery and are mostly swords. Usually the hero is a fighter or a rogue and the villain is a wizard or sorcerer, D&D differentiates from this by having heroic magic using characters, spells and magic are more routine than Lord of the Rings, as Gandolf casts very few spells and mostly fights with a sword except for the most dramatic scenes.

[dancrilis]

I suppose if they wanted - and they didn't want block buster but rather a thought piece on the nature of Evil, Good, Law and Chaos while explaining the cosmology they could use The Blood War as a backdrop and how all the planes are affected by it and how people are harmed by it in direct and indirect ways.

That way they could bring in multiple worlds explain how they are all linked and have an conflict raging in the background (almost unnoticed by most mortals) across all of them - tie the worlds together then they can have various stories set in the various worlds afterwards with everyone having an idea that this is only one small part of a whole.

[EggKookoo]

In all honest, I think Eberron may be the best bet. 'In the world of Eberron, where magic is studied as science, a relentless army of magical robots known as warforged are undergoing job interviews for a new receptionist position in Sharn. Meanwhile our story begins with the explosion of a lowly artificer's workshop...' (except, you know, not written for comedic value.)

Aesthetically, I think a non-Jumanji'd (I really need to come up with a better term for it) D&D movie would do worse than to ape Star Wars, and just visually reflavor the technology to have more of a Renaissance flair. Not make it authentic Ren, I just mean flavor it that way. More fantasy bronze than sci-fi steel, the occasional hat-feather. That sort of thing. But squint your eyes and it could be aliens and droids in Coruscant.

Another problem with D&D is that there's no single One Ring plotline. D&D is, by design, a tapestry of smaller sagas. One for each table, at least. Any big One Ring plotline will be welcomed by those who are aware of it and like it from the mythology, and met by shrugs by the much larger portion of the audience who has never heard of Drizzt or is grumpy that their pet mythic storyline wasn't featured. Again, a reason to have an ongoing D&D show rather than a single movie. But I suspect that airship has sailed.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yes, like not getting the Demiplane of Dread's name wrong

In all honest, I think Eberron may be the best bet. 'In the world of Eberron, where magic is studied as science, a relentless army of magical robots known as warforged are undergoing job interviews for a new receptionist position in Sharn. Meanwhile our story begins with the explosion of a lowly artificer's workshop...' (except, you know, not written for comedic value.)

They've hitched their wagon to the Realms, come Hades or flood waters. Given the amount of set up needed for Eberron, that might not even work as a series.

So is it going to be that Dragonlance movie I heard about?

That came and went years ago. How it did can be inferred from the fact they dropped the entire series.

[Psyren]

Let me know when Cinema Sins pulls in $460,000,000.

Just to indulge my inner pedant - would it have failed to make that without the narration? I'd wager that "this is a roman colosseum movie!" is all most audiences would need to know to shell out, and is substantially less setup than you'd need for a concept as convoluted as Eberron.

As for Castlevania Redux, it's not like the Venn Diagram of Castlevania fans and D&D fans has a small overlap, ya know? The ones who notice won't mind and the ones who mind won't notice, for the most part at least.

As long as Strahd is remade into an anime pretty boy I'd agree with you

There, that should be enough after the Gladiator reference to distract from the fact that it's a terrible analog here. [/QUOTE]

Ha

[Dilvish]

As for showing the difference between wizards and sorcerers, their appearance could be a big part of that. I've been thinking, the games that have the different kinds of arcane and divine casters, the rule books make a point of showing the different classes dressing and equipping differently. Weapons would be another point of difference, I think. Wizards have their walking sticks, daggers, and such, and always have their spell books.

In a party with a wizard, a sorcerer, and a cleric, there could be a conversation early in the movie where they are discussing the wizard's and cleric's spell loadouts for the next day.

[EggKookoo]

In a party with a wizard, a sorcerer, and a cleric, there could be a conversation early in the movie where they are discussing the wizard's and cleric's spell loadouts for the next day.

It better be done in Tarantino style, like the Madonna conversation in Reservoir Dogs.

[Peelee]

Just to indulge my inner pedant - would it have failed to make that without the narration? I'd wager that "this is a roman colosseum movie!" is all most audiences would need to know to shell out, and is substantially less setup than you'd need for a concept as convoluted as Eberron.

Oh, it would have done just as well. It didn't really say anything anyone didn't already know - "Rome big and powerful, Caesars important", IIRC. Even though it was wholly irrelevant to the enjoyment of the movie, I still think it was a well-done example. And, more importantly, it was one I could think of offhand, so, ya know, convenient. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that it can be done to at least get the broad strokes in without worrying about how to work that exposition into the narrative.

And as an irrelevant aside to indulge my inner pedant, I stopped enjoying cinemasins on either Jaws or Fury Road when I strongly disagreed with a couple they pulled out. Can't remember which ones, but I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me.

[Psyren]

I actually liked the Fury Road vid! Yeah it was nitpicky as always, but IIRC he deleted a number of sins because of how awesome the movie was. That's usually a good sign that he actually enjoys X but is doing it for the bit.

...What were we talking about again?

[Bartmanhomer]

I think a Warblade, Cleric, Swordsage and Wizard is a very reasonable team.

[Peelee]

I actually liked the Fury Road vid! Yeah it was nitpicky as always, but IIRC he deleted a number of sins because of how awesome the movie was. That's usually a good sign that he actually enjoys X but is doing it for the bit.

And that's another thing! I totally understand the intention, but when counting "sins" the movie is committing, taking some away because something was done well seems off. If something later absolved the first one of being a cinemasin to begin with, that'd be another thing, but they're usually unrelated (I should note I did really like the Fury Road and Jaws ones, and I still like watching them, but I no longer feel they're trying to be relatively objective, emphasis on relatively)

...What were we talking about again?

Knowing me, probably Star Wars.

[Bartmanhomer]

And that's another thing! I totally understand the intention, but when counting "sins" the movie is committing, taking some away because something was done well seems off. If something later absolved the first one of being a cinemasin to begin with, that'd be another thing, but they're usually unrelated (I should note I did really like the Fury Road and Jaws ones, and I still like watching them, but I no longer feel they're trying to be relatively objective, emphasis on relatively)

Knowing me, probably Star Wars.

Wait a minute I thought that we were debating about Wizard versus Sorceror.

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, we're going around in circles about the best way to convey information probably effectively meaningless in a movie I think we all agree will suck due to clueless execs meddling.

[Bartmanhomer]

No, we're going around in circles about the best way to convey information probably effectively meaningless in a movie I think we all agree will suck due to clueless execs meddling.

Oh ok. Maybe it'll be interesting to bring an all casters team: Wizard, Sorceror, Bard and Warlock.

[Zalabim]

And that's another thing! I totally understand the intention, but when counting "sins" the movie is committing, taking some away because something was done well seems off. If something later absolved the first one of being a cinemasin to begin with, that'd be another thing, but they're usually unrelated (I should note I did really like the Fury Road and Jaws ones, and I still like watching them, but I no longer feel they're trying to be relatively objective, emphasis on relatively)

The thing about Cinemasins is it isn't objective. It isn't criticism. It isn't serious. It's humor. And sometimes it's funnier to be objectively wrong.

Wait a minute I thought that we were debating about Wizard versus Sorceror.

I like my system of differentiating classes by their equipment/clothing. In the arcane context: Wizards have their books. Warlocks wear leather. Bards have musical instruments. Sorcerers don't wear shirts.

[Bartmanhomer]

The thing about Cinemasins is it isn't objective. It isn't criticism. It isn't serious. It's humor. And sometimes it's funnier to be objectively wrong.

I like my system of differentiating classes by their equipment/clothing. In the arcane context: Wizards have their books. Warlocks wear leather. Bards have musical instruments. Sorcerers don't wear shirts.

Cool and it should be an all female party.

[Tyrant]

So this would be fine, but now multiply it by all the things you'd (and everyone else might) want broken out like this, over the course of a 2-hour movie. One exchange like the above would probably be acceptable to a mass audience, but it would be pushing it. How do you decide how many of these "game detail" conversations to have?

Assuming we're primarily talking about classes, I think visuals/actions could handle most of it. The Fighter will likely have some kind of armor and appear to be a competent weapon wielder vs the Barbarian (who might even be point blank called a Barbarian) will likely look like Arnold from Conan the Barbarian. The visual difference will convey everything the audience needs to know. The Rogue will steal things and deal with traps. No one will confuse him with another class. If there is both a Cleric and a Paladin that could take some explanation, but they could just not use a Paladin. Likewise with Rangers. If they decide to differentiate between magic types/users I would go with a debate between the Wizard and the Cleric over a campfire or something similar. Have them elaborate on the differences between Arcane and Divine before the conversation devolves into a more esoteric conversation about Druids, Sorcerers, etc. as it trails off and the focus shifts to some other party members.

Another problem with D&D is that there's no single One Ring plotline. D&D is, by design, a tapestry of smaller sagas. One for each table, at least. Any big One Ring plotline will be welcomed by those who are aware of it and like it from the mythology, and met by shrugs by the much larger portion of the audience who has never heard of Drizzt or is grumpy that their pet mythic storyline wasn't featured. Again, a reason to have an ongoing D&D show rather than a single movie. But I suspect that airship has sailed.

There's numerous One Ring style plots in the FR. Dark Sun can use the Prism Pentad plot. It is, I believe, the One Ring plot for Dark Sun to the point that 4E Dark Sun has to ignore it and take place before (I believe) the events of those books to have a plot to work with for the world. Dragonlance likewise has a handful of major plot moments that define the setting. FR, on the other hand, has 200+ novels so no shortage of world ending/altering plots there.

As for shrugs from people unaware, I'm not sure what you're driving at. To go back to the LotR example, I would wager that a majority of people who watched the movies have not read the books and went in partially or completely blind to the plot. Those movies did just fine (understatement). If they go the route of a One Ring plot, they don't need name recognition for the plot in question. They need good film making to make it work and sell the audience on the idea.

No, we're going around in circles about the best way to convey information probably effectively meaningless in a movie I think we all agree will suck due to clueless execs meddling.

Pretty much.

[Rakaydos]

Oh ok. Maybe it'll be interesting to bring an all casters team: Wizard, Sorceror, Bard and Warlock.

I prefer a team of half casters. Enough swords to make up swords and sorcery, but the sorcery is evenly distributed.

Paladin, nature ranger, some kind of blaster mage is what I suggested earlier.

[EggKookoo]

Assuming we're primarily talking about classes, I think visuals/actions could handle most of it. The Fighter will likely have some kind of armor and appear to be a competent weapon wielder vs the Barbarian (who might even be point blank called a Barbarian) will likely look like Arnold from Conan the Barbarian. The visual difference will convey everything the audience needs to know. The Rogue will steal things and deal with traps. No one will confuse him with another class. If there is both a Cleric and a Paladin that could take some explanation, but they could just not use a Paladin. Likewise with Rangers. If they decide to differentiate between magic types/users I would go with a debate between the Wizard and the Cleric over a campfire or something similar. Have them elaborate on the differences between Arcane and Divine before the conversation devolves into a more esoteric conversation about Druids, Sorcerers, etc. as it trails off and the focus shifts to some other party members.

Again, going with the "serious" fantasy film approach (as opposed to the Jumanji approach), inserting game terms into the dialogue is just going to be distracting and confusing. My sorcerer PC doesn't know he's a "Level 7 Sorcerer, PHB p.99" with a proficiency bonus of +3 and other game stats. He's just a guy who has always been able to create these magical effects. He doesn't know what level he is. He doesn't know levels exist, or that they cap out at 20. It's not like he walks down the street and random people who have never met him know he belongs to some classification in a game system. Certainly not based on how he dresses.

Having a movie character refer to himself in game terms demolishes suspension of disbelief. It forces the movie into Jumanji mode. Which is a fine mode to be in, but the movie needs to make a decision. Is D&D (in the movie) a game that people play, or not?

There's numerous One Ring style plots in the FR. Dark Sun can use the Prism Pentad plot. It is, I believe, the One Ring plot for Dark Sun to the point that 4E Dark Sun has to ignore it and take place before (I believe) the events of those books to have a plot to work with for the world. Dragonlance likewise has a handful of major plot moments that define the setting. FR, on the other hand, has 200+ novels so no shortage of world ending/altering plots there.

Right, I said there's no single One Ring plot. Everyone can agree on what the larger LotR story is -- it's about the discovery and subsequent destruction of Sauron's ring, and all that goes with it. Even if you prefer to read, say, the Silmarillion, you will likely accept that it's not "really" the LotR story. It's background material.

Even with something like Star Wars, which is arguably a little less focused than LotR, the main story is about Vader and the rise and fall of the Empire. The stuff that happens in the "Episode" movies. What goes on in Solo or in the Mandalorian or the Christmas Special are part of that, sure, but that's not what SW is about.

What is D&D about? It's about what happens at each of our tables. What my players go through in my campaign is far more significant than any published lore. At least to us. And what you do at your table is more significant to you. D&D's "story" is highly distributed. I mean, my players aren't just not in the same story as yours, they're not even in the same fictional reality. Drizzt doesn't exist for my players. Nor does Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Elminster... You name it.

If I were to tell my players that there's a new D&D movie coming out and it's about some element from the game lore that doesn't interface with our campaign world, they're not going to be terribly interested. They might be more interested in an ongoing streaming series if for no other reason that it's going to be more episodic and long-form, which feels more like an actual game campaign. And the spread-out nature of a series might allow for a more nuanced presentation of setting and character, which might make it easier to fit in with their own gaming experiences (maybe not, but a better chance of it).

I'm just saying that if you want to go the Jumanji route, a feature film format should work fine. If you want to tell a serious fantasy story in a D&D setting, long-form would work better.

As for shrugs from people unaware, I'm not sure what you're driving at. To go back to the LotR example, I would wager that a majority of people who watched the movies have not read the books and went in partially or completely blind to the plot. Those movies did just fine (understatement). If they go the route of a One Ring plot, they don't need name recognition for the plot in question. They need good film making to make it work and sell the audience on the idea.

Totally agree. But there is one shared D&D setting or experience among all players. Playing the game. We all know what it's like to sit down at the table with our friends, roll dice, argue rules, root for our PCs, and all that. Which is why I tend to advocate for a more Jumanji approach. Not that there isn't a better way, but it's a good way.

[dancrilis]

My sorcerer PC doesn't know he's a "Level 7 Sorcerer, PHB p.99" with a proficiency bonus of +3 and other game stats.

But your level 7 Wizard likely knows that they recently figured out a higher level of spells - ones that cost them more to scribe in a spell book and take up greater space - and require even greater discipline to use.
They might even consider these to be spells of the 4th level - and they likely know that there are higher levels that they could unlock in the future.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I'd like to avoid the mistakes of previous Dungeons & Dragons movies. I have a few ideas I'd like to run past you.

1. Should we use British actors or American actors or does it matter?
2. Should we use British accents or any old accent without rhyme or reason?
3. Does it make sense for a knight to talk with a Brooklyn accent or a Southern drawl?
4. Should modern slang or curse words be used, or should we avoid that?
5. Would it make sense to have the actors use Shakespearean/King James English, you know with words like thou and thee, give the movie that medieval flavor?
6. What clothes should the actors wear, should they look authentically medeaval, or should they go around in leather jackets brandishing swords?
7. Should characters from a specific region be mostly of one particular race, or should we have incredibly diverse farming villages with people of different races and accents from all over?

(One thing I know about the Lord of the Rings movies, the cast was all white Europeans, you didn't suddenly have a black man pop up with no explaination, if one does show up, he is probably a visitor from a different part of the world. The Drizzt story line would not work as well, if all the villages he visits were incredibly diverse, you need some sort of contrast if you are going to tell a story about people's prejudices.)

[EggKookoo]

But your level 7 Wizard likely knows that they recently figured out a higher level of spells - ones that cost them more to scribe in a spell book and take up greater space - and require even greater discipline to use.
They might even consider these to be spells of the 4th level - and they likely know that there are higher levels that they could unlock in the future.

Right, but once you go down this path, the inevitable conclusion is that the PCs will work out their own ability scores, hit points, and other game mechanics. The chain of reasoning that starts with assigning spell levels that match game mechanics will, over time, result everyone realizing that they themselves are characters in a game. It would have a profound impact on society and people and shape pretty much everything they do. And then consider the implications of some creatures deciding they're player characters, while the vast majority of the world are non-player characters. I'm not saying it's not possible or unworkable, but it would result in settings very unlike what most of us play in. In my experience, every creature thinks they're "real" and not some kind of game piece or token.

Since most fictional settings are not built around the idea that the creatures in it are aware of their game-like nature, we have to assume that something prevents it from happening. At some point, in-fiction stuff like the relative effectiveness and power of different spells cannot be equated to game mechanics, and that point has to be pretty "early" in that chain of reasoning, since clues will only build upon each other and gain momentum. What the "thing" is that prevents this is not described by the game itself. I think it's up to each of us to determine it, based on our level of interest in doing so.

Basically, what it means is that while your PC wizard might be able to work it out for himself, he wouldn't be able to apply it to anyone else. And he wouldn't really know it for himself, but rather it would form a kind of faith or personal ideology that he could never quite prove (akin to proving that free will exists, or the validity of any particular religion). And if what he works out actually matches the game mechanics, it only does so coincidentally. Despite the rules forcing unity of mechanics at least among PCs of the same class, that unity must be an illusion at the fiction level, if it's even perceptible at all. Note that, at least in the current edition, NPCs are not bound by PC parameters. You can have an NPC that can cast lesser restoration as a ritual, for example. But no PC build does that. So what happens when the PC who can only cast it by expending a spell slot encounters the NPC who can cast it only as a ritual? And I'm using the published magewright for this example -- the DM is encouraged to give custom NPCs any abilities they deem fit, using CR as the barometer. If I want to make a custom NPC that can cast 1st-level magic missile at will like a cantrip, that's perfectly legal as long as I'm accounting for challenge rating.

Again, there's a reason why the SW movies never delineate Force powers by name. Or why it's okay that people call Gandalf a wizard. Or why it's okay that in the original Conan movie, he refers to Mako's character as a "wizard" when he's pretty clearly some kind of cleric. Conan himself is the titular barbarian but more than once he's called a "thief" in the film and actually functions much more like a fighter (he's quite educated in the arts of martial combat). Sure, you can say Conan is a multiclass barbarian/fighter/rogue but it's also just as legit to say these terms don't carry any objective value within the fiction.

[Tom Kalbfus]

...
Again, there's a reason why the SW movies never delineate Force powers by name. Or why it's okay that people call Gandalf a wizard. Or why it's okay that in the original Conan movie, he refers to Mako's character as a "wizard" when he's pretty clearly some kind of cleric. Conan himself is the titular barbarian but more than once he's called a "thief" in the film and actually functions much more like a fighter (he's quite educated in the arts of martial combat). Sure, you can say Conan is a multiclass barbarian/fighter/rogue but it's also just as legit to say these terms don't carry any objective value within the fiction.

A Thief is not a character class any more, it is called a Rogue. A Barbarian could be a thief, the most likely kind of thief he would be is a bandit. A Rogue is more likely to be a burglar, he tries to get in and out and steal the item he desires with as little commotion as possible, a Barbarian just wouldn't care, he would hold up a stage coach and threaten people's lives if they didn't have over their valuables immediately. A Barbarian instead of picking a lock would just break down the door, his motivation could be the same as a Rogue, that is to steal something, but their methods are somewhat different.

[Rakaydos]

Making a D&D movie as a classic tolkinian swords and sorcerey setting will doom it to obscurity. You need to play up the aspects that make D&D different- Plentiful protagonist-available magic and magic items, races beyond Human/Elf/Dwarf/Orc/Goblin, possibly even the cosmology, divinity and geography of one of the settings.

[EggKookoo]

A Thief is not a character class any more, it is called a Rogue.

Sure, but it was at the time the movie came out. Also, in 5e, a thief is specifically a rogue subclass. But you're reinforcing my point. In-universe, a barbarian that steals from people is a "thief," even if he's not a (class)thief. Unless he is because he's a barb/rogue(thief). But a barb/rogue(thief) that never engages in theft is not a "thief."

If my (class)sorcerer calls himself a "wizard" in the fiction, is he wrong? Why is he wrong? Without reference to game rules, how would anyone in-universe know he's wrong? How do an orc wizard, a human wizard, and a githyanki with wizard levels all know that they should be calling themselves by the same name? Why would they ever agree on that?

[Anonymouswizard]

Aesthetically, I think a non-Jumanji'd (I really need to come up with a better term for it) D&D movie would do worse than to ape Star Wars, and just visually reflavor the technology to have more of a Renaissance flair. Not make it authentic Ren, I just mean flavor it that way. More fantasy bronze than sci-fi steel, the occasional hat-feather. That sort of thing. But squint your eyes and it could be aliens and droids in Coruscant.

Another problem with D&D is that there's no single One Ring plotline. D&D is, by design, a tapestry of smaller sagas. One for each table, at least. Any big One Ring plotline will be welcomed by those who are aware of it and like it from the mythology, and met by shrugs by the much larger portion of the audience who has never heard of Drizzt or is grumpy that their pet mythic storyline wasn't featured. Again, a reason to have an ongoing D&D show rather than a single movie. But I suspect that airship has sailed.

Oh, I agree with most of what you say, and I think possibly the best thing they could do is make The Eberron Job, a somewhat comedic serious heist movie which ends with them robbing a train and escaping on mechanical horses or something. Where we don't have to explain the One Ring plotline and can instead give a brief overview of the important bits of the setting. Don't focus too much on making it look exactly like Eberron artwork and be more concerned about drawing in new customers than pleasing existing ones (who are going to be up in arms that it's not their pet setting being shown), and keep a straight face no matter how silly the plot gets.

I actually liked the Fury Road vid! Yeah it was nitpicky as always, but IIRC he deleted a number of sins because of how awesome the movie was. That's usually a good sign that he actually enjoys X but is doing it for the bit.

Side note, am I the only person in the world who thought that movie was inferior to The Road Warrior?

I think a Warblade, Cleric, Swordsage and Wizard is a very reasonable team.

I like my system of differentiating classes by their equipment/clothing. In the arcane context: Wizards have their books. Warlocks wear leather. Bards have musical instruments. Sorcerers don't wear shirts.

We could include a sorceress and get a larger teenage audience

I'd like to avoid the mistakes of previous Dungeons & Dragons movies. I have a few ideas I'd like to run past you.

1. Should we use British actors or American actors or does it matter?
2. Should we use British accents or any old accent without rhyme or reason?
3. Does it make sense for a knight to talk with a Brooklyn accent or a Southern drawl?
4. Should modern slang or curse words be used, or should we avoid that?
5. Would it make sense to have the actors use Shakespearean/King James English, you know with words like thou and thee, give the movie that medieval flavor?
6. What clothes should the actors wear, should they look authentically medeaval, or should they go around in leather jackets brandishing swords?
7. Should characters from a specific region be mostly of one particular race, or should we have incredibly diverse farming villages with people of different races and accents from all over?

Speaking as a Brit? The villains should all be played by British actors speaking in RP, the dwarf should be a northerner, and the elf should speak with a French accent. The main character is a foreigner who speaks with a US accent, but at least a third of their party are picked up locally. The film should be in modern English for maximum clarity, except for spells which should be cast in medieval Russian. Slang should be a mixture of modern and archaic.

Clothes and set design should be Renaissance, but with some leeway. Certainly no modern clothes, Robin Hood was bad enough. Armour and general clothing should be practical for both sexes, wizard robes should be impractical and worn without an undershirt.

As for diversity, do it like the modern UK: the country side is almost monotone, but large towns and cities are significantly more diverse. Spend acts one and three in a major city with a diverse supporting cast, while act two goes through a country village.

[Tom Kalbfus]

A major port city should consist of 80% locals and 20% people from other regions, we wouldn't want to lose the character of the nation that city is a part of after all. For instance if you go to Paris, you should expect a lot of French people to live there. The other 20% would consist of foreigners, traders, merchants and the like. The diversity would depend on the amount of distance that needs to be covered to get there. For example, in a European setting, the most common non-European to be encountered would be an Arab or north African, more rare still would be a sub-saharan African or a black person, he would probably be speaking with a thick accent of some sort because he would be from a region far away. In D&D he would likely worship a different set of gods, have different cultural norms and so forth. An East Asian would be exceptionally rare.

[Rakaydos]

A major port city should consist of 80% locals and 20% people from other regions, we wouldn't want to lose the character of the nation that city is a part of after all. For instance if you go to Paris, you should expect a lot of French people to live there. The other 20% would consist of foreigners, traders, merchants and the like. The diversity would depend on the amount of distance that needs to be covered to get there. For example, in a European setting, the most common non-European to be encountered would be an Arab or north African, more rare still would be a sub-saharan African or a black person, he would probably be speaking with a thick accent of some sort because he would be from a region far away. In D&D he would likely worship a different set of gods, have different cultural norms and so forth. An East Asian would be exceptionally rare.

I'm not sure why we're sweating over purely human racial distinctions. Part of what makes D&D unique is how many entirely non-human races are active participants in the economy. The odd dark-skinned human shouldnt stand out more than the different colored Dragonborn and tieflings.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Yeah, we definitely need to draw from Rich's visuals in OOTS. Every race has varying skin tones and it's no big deal.

Your wizard isn't going to know that their new spell is a different level, just that it's trickier to cast and thus harder to do. Which would apply to any spells from their non-favored schools.

And I thought of something I'd watch besides Fells Five. Make the movie a dramatization of the U series modules. Automatic trilogy, each stands on their own, lower level focus, the plot's already done and it focuses on the coast rather than inland like most others do. And you can play up the fishmen a little for some light Lovecraft cred.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I'm not sure why we're sweating over purely human racial distinctions. Part of what makes D&D unique is how many entirely non-human races are active participants in the economy. The odd dark-skinned human shouldnt stand out more than the different colored Dragonborn and tieflings.

Do you know any dwarves, elves, halfling, gnomes, or orcs we can cast for roles in this movie? Obviously we need to cast real actors to play the parts in this movie, unless of course if it's all cgi, then all we'll need are voice actors, but if we are doing live action then we need to start with actors that look somewhat like the characters they portray, we can use makeup and special effects to make them look more like dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes and orcs. Orcs obviously aren't going to be much of a problem because they look the least human, but elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes would have minimal makeup covering their faces, it would be easy to tell which actor is portraying an elf, but not so much which actor is portraying an orc, as the orc costume would have to cover his face, or they will do cgi motion capture to make him look like an orc.