Constructive criticism for D&D

[Cas Stark]

In the books Barristan Selmy can sneak into a heavy fortified castle and rescue a King being held hostage all by himself, oh that's totally realistic and fine because it's books.

In the show 20 northmen used to the conditions can't sneak into a dark snowy camp guarded by southrons unused to the conditions and do a little sabotage.

 

I dont' remember the details of that, and Martin certainly isn't immune from providing unrealistic plot gifts...but at least Selmy is a reknowned warrior, considered the best fighter in Westeros and one of the best fighters in the history of Westeros...as opposed to Ramsay Bolton, being a random noble and his 20 men destorying ALL the supplies for 5000 men.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Again, the only way you would know it is the same prop is if you actually go back and rewatch and freeze frame on Sansa's necklace on season 1 and then compare it to the one inthe Vipers jaws in season 5.  I am guessing 99% of the shows viewers did not do this only the 1% of viewers that are looking to something complain about.

Sansa doesn't wear it only on season 1. She wears through most of her time in King's Landing. I'm pretty sure Ros dies with hers.

[PatrickStormborn]

Sigh. I hate to repeat myself but you do need an imagination when you watch these things.

 

1) 20 men. Nothing wrong with it in principle. It's a common tactic in war to send small groups behind enemy lines to sabotage and disrupt. They call them special forces. 

2) One guard says 'all the horses are gone.' Seeing as Mel's horse probably wasn't tethered with the army and sellsword horses it's not much of a stretch to imagine her horse was outside her tent so not taken. 

3) They walk to WF because Stannis has lost it at this point. He knows he has fucked up but can't go back. Death or glory. He's in the open air because he thinks he's going to set a siege. He even tells his men where he wants the trenches dug, before the Bolton host appears on the horizon. He's not there for open battle. He's there for a siege.

 

That's just nonsense though LOL.

 

1) Do you know anything about warfare? At all? Because generally an army would be well-defended, with sentries, outriders, ditches, stakes, etc. etc. Even if we assume Stannis is too stupid to do any of this (which would be ridiculous in itself), he also had sellsword companies who would certainly defend themselves and their equipment.

 

2) In that case why is literally everyone else's horse gone? Was Melisandre the only one to keep her horse close?

 

3) If "he's there for a siege", how on earth has he already given up? And why is he trying to hold a siege anyway when he knows he has no siege weapons? LOL it's just stupid.

 

In the books Barristan Selmy can sneak into a heavy fortified castle and rescue a King being held hostage all by himself, oh that's totally realistic and fine because it's books.

In the show 20 northmen used to the conditions can't sneak into a dark snowy camp guarded by southrons unused to the conditions and do a little sabotage.

 

The problem is that they didn't just "do a little sabotage". They somehow managed to burn Stannis's camp.

[Cas Stark]

Sansa's Necklace

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sansa+wearing+Joff%27s+necklace&espv=2&biw=672&bih=413&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIhqKthOLxxgIVQzY-Ch3wRw82#imgrc=0uGCdbfEQYin2M%3A

 

Cersei's Necklace

https://www.google.com/search?q=necklace+scene+game+of+thrones+season+5&espv=2&biw=672&bih=413&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCMfG-qzi8cYCFYFKPgodJZYCKQ#imgdii=YH0b_CM_oKj5FM%3A%3BYH0b_CM_oKj5FM%3A%3BFrzUd2Wv3095KM%3A&imgrc=YH0b_CM_oKj5FM%3A

 

Myrcella's Necklace

https://www.google.com/search?q=necklace+on+the+viper+scene+got&espv=2&biw=672&bih=413&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI7o7Z3eLxxgIVyHI-Ch0wcQ1H#imgrc=bGq6i86AU6hKyM%3A

 

They appear to be exactly the same to me.

[Khal Boner]

 

That's just nonsense though LOL.

 

1) Do you know anything about warfare? At all? Because generally an army would be well-defended, with sentries, outriders, ditches, stakes, etc. etc. Even if we assume Stannis is too stupid to do any of this (which would be ridiculous in itself), he also had sellsword companies who would certainly defend themselves and their equipment.

 

2) In that case why is literally everyone else's horse gone? Was Melisandre the only one to keep her horse close?

 

3) If "he's there for a siege", how on earth has he already given up? And why is he trying to hold a siege anyway when he knows he has no siege weapons? LOL it's just stupid.

 

 

The problem is that they didn't just "do a little sabotage". They somehow managed to burn Stannis's camp.

 

1) His sellswords are already deserting. Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that freezing, starving mercenaries had stopped taking their duties seriously or even helped the Bolton's.

2) I don't know but it really is a nit pick. 

3) Then why did the scene show him ordering trenches to be dug and sending out foraging parties? He's digging in for a siege. It's not even debatable, you just have to watch the scene properly.  Did you think he was going to just try and climb the walls of WF? You build more siege engines while conducting the siege. Chop some trees down and make some trebuchets.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

 

1) His sellswords are already deserting. Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that freezing, starving mercenaries had stopped taking their duties seriously or even helped the Bolton's.

2) I don't know but it really is a nit pick. 

3) Then why did the scene show him ordering trenches to be dug and sending out foraging parties? He's digging in for a siege. It's not even debatable, you just have to watch the scene properly.  Did you think he was going to just try and climb the walls of WF? You build more siege engines while conducting the siege. Chop some trees down and make some trebuchets.

Thank god someone gets it.

[JagLover]

No indeed, that makes even less sense in a lot of ways, but this is a D&D constructive criticism thread.

 

 I know everyone has different ideas of what is good and bad. But this hysterical denunciation of the Stannis plotline supposedly based on the "gaping plotholes" (in reality minor nit-picking and refusal to recognise the constraints of a TV show) is a bit annoying because this is actually something they got broadly right.

 

Focus criticism where it is actually appropriate and maybe the show runners would take notice and we wouldn't get tripe like the Dorne storyline.

 

But as for Stannis it was a little rushed as I have said. But other than that it was exactly the sort of thing the TV show should be doing. Taking the essence of a story, distilling it down to take into account there is only seven seasons for a likely eight books, and delivering on it with great acting and production values and ignoring embarkation based on whether the material is published or not.

 

I mean are people seriously writing this off on the basis that you cant see the guys setting the fires on an overhead shot? (ever heard of delayed action-a large fire doesn't break out the minute you apply a match and can be engineered to break out near simultaneously in different locations when you are long gone ).

 

It makes you wonder if in reality this is just Mannis fans refusing to believe their guy would burn his daughter at the stake. Or book purists not wanting WOW spoiled for them when D&D only obligation is to make the series as good as they can.

[Cas Stark]

 

1) His sellswords are already deserting. Why is it beyond the realms of possibility that freezing, starving mercenaries had stopped taking their duties seriously or even helped the Bolton's.

2) I don't know but it really is a nit pick. 

3) Then why did the scene show him ordering trenches to be dug and sending out foraging parties? He's digging in for a siege. It's not even debatable, you just have to watch the scene properly.  Did you think he was going to just try and climb the walls of WF? You build more siege engines while conducting the siege. Chop some trees down and make some trebuchets.

 

1) Why are they starving again?  Since they were butchering the horses that Ramsay's men killed?  LOL.  And why is Stannis having the mercenaries stand guard?  Oh right, he's actually not the best military commander in Westeros as LF says, but he's a complete utter incompetent military leader.

 

3) He's stupid that's why, no rational leader would think he could rebuild siege engines when "ALL" the supplies are gone and "All" the horses as well.  So, the show again ignores logic in favor of lazy writing.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

 

 I know everyone has different ideas of what is good and bad. But this hysterical denunciation of the Stannis plotline supposedly based on the "gaping plotholes" (in reality minor nit-picking and refusal to recognise the constraints of a TV show) is a bit annoying because this is actually something they got broadly right.

 

Focus criticism where it is actually appropriate and maybe the show runners would take notice and we wouldn't get tripe like the Dorne storyline.

 

But as for Stannis it was a little rushed as I have said. But other than that it was exactly the sort of thing the TV show should be doing. Taking the essence of a story, distilling it down to take into account there is only seven seasons for a likely eight books, and delivering on it with great acting and production values and ignoring embarkation based on whether the material is published or not.

 

I mean are people seriously writing this off on the basis that you cant see the guys setting the fires on an overhead shot? (ever heard of delayed action-a large fire doesn't break out the minute you apply a match and can be engineered to break out near simultaneously in different locations when you are long gone ).

 

It makes you wonder if in reality this is just Mannis fans refusing to believe their guy would burn his daughter at the stake. Or book purists not wanting WOW spoiled for them when D&D only obligation is to make the series as good as they can.

Thank god someone gets it.

[El Guapo]

Sansa's Necklace

https://www.google.com/search?q=Sansa+wearing+Joff%27s+necklace&espv=2&biw=672&bih=413&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAWoVChMIhqKthOLxxgIVQzY-Ch3wRw82#imgrc=0uGCdbfEQYin2M%3A

 

Cersei's Necklace

https://www.google.com/search?q=necklace+scene+game+of+thrones+season+5&espv=2&biw=672&bih=413&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB0QsARqFQoTCMfG-qzi8cYCFYFKPgodJZYCKQ#imgdii=YH0b_CM_oKj5FM%3A%3BYH0b_CM_oKj5FM%3A%3BFrzUd2Wv3095KM%3A&imgrc=YH0b_CM_oKj5FM%3A

 

Myrcella's Necklace

https://www.google.com/search?q=necklace+on+the+viper+scene+got&espv=2&biw=672&bih=413&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAmoVChMI7o7Z3eLxxgIVyHI-Ch0wcQ1H#imgrc=bGq6i86AU6hKyM%3A

 

They appear to be exactly the same to me.

 

It is the same prop, nobody is disputing that. But you are kind of proving my point as the only way you can tell it is the same prop is by comparing screen captures.  Most viewers do not do that. If such a thing causes you not to enjoy the show than more power to you. I think it is quite nitpicky. But hey we can agree to disagree on that point.

[JagLover]

 

I dont' remember the details of that, and Martin certainly isn't immune from providing unrealistic plot gifts...but at least Selmy is a reknowned warrior, considered the best fighter in Westeros and one of the best fighters in the history of Westeros...as opposed to Ramsay Bolton, being a random noble and his 20 men destorying ALL the supplies for 5000 men.

 

Happens in book-totally fine and logical

Show only scene-the most preposterous thing you have ever seen.

 

Personally if I were picking the best twenty out of an army of a couple of thousand I might pick twenty who are great at scouting and infiltrating and maybe a few siege experts who know how to set fires properly.  

[Cas Stark]

 

 I know everyone has different ideas of what is good and bad. But this hysterical denunciation of the Stannis plotline supposedly based on the "gaping plotholes" (in reality minor nit-picking and refusal to recognise the constraints of a TV show) is a bit annoying because this is actually something they got broadly right.

 

Focus criticism where it is actually appropriate and maybe the show runners would take notice and we wouldn't get tripe like the Dorne storyline.

 

But as for Stannis it was a little rushed as I have said. But other than that it was exactly the sort of thing the TV show should be doing. Taking the essence of a story, distilling it down to take into account there is only seven seasons for a likely eight books, and delivering on it with great acting and production values and ignoring embarkation based on whether the material is published or not.

 

I mean are people seriously writing this off on the basis that you cant see the guys setting the fires on an overhead shot? (ever heard of delayed action-a large fire doesn't break out the minute you apply a match and can be engineered to break out near simultaneously in different locations when you are long gone ).

 

It makes you wonder if in reality this is just Mannis fans refusing to believe their guy would burn his daughter at the stake. Or book purists not wanting WOW spoiled for them when D&D only obligation is to make the series as good as they can.

 

I don't really think it's minor.  

The show positions Stannis as the best military leader in Westeros.  LF says this in season 5.

 

Yet the destruction of his army is completely implausible unless he's a complete incompetent idiot, everything that occurs from the stormcrows leaving could only happen if he's a terrible terrible commander who doesn't know what he's doing even to the point of how to station guards.

[Cas Stark]

 

It is the same prop, nobody is disputing that. But you are kind of proving my point as the only way you can tell it is the same prop is by comparing screen captures.  Most viewers do not do that. If such a thing causes you not to enjoy the show than more power to you. I think it is quite nitpicky. But hey we can agree to disagree on that point.

 

I didn't need screen captures, I did it for you, since you seem to hold out the idea that the necklaces were of different measurements, or were supposed to be different in the show, LOL.

 

I say it shows the writers are lazy and lack basic attention to detail, I don't really see how this can be refuted.  They created an entire scene around the necklace, nobody forced them to write that there were only two in Westeros, when they already showed there were three.

 

jI never said most viewers would notice it.  That isn't the point.  The point is the SHOW should care about such obvious errors whether most viewers  notice or not.  It shows that they are sloppy.

[Dragon in the North]

 

I didn't need screen captures, I did it for you, since you seem to hold out the idea that the necklaces were of different measurements, or were supposed to be different in the show, LOL.

 

I say it shows the writers are lazy and lack basic attention to detail, I don't really see how this can be refuted.  They created an entire scene around the necklace, nobody forced them to write that there were only two in Westeros, when they already showed there were three.

 

jI never said most viewers would notice it.  That isn't the point.  The point is the SHOW should care about such obvious errors whether most viewers  notice or not.  It shows that they are sloppy.

No, it shows that they're human, capable of making mistakes. I mean, given the scope of GOT, I'm sure we can excuse them a couple of necklaces. It's not that big of a deal. If I didn't come onto forums like this, I never would have noticed.

[El Guapo]

 

I didn't need screen captures, I did it for you, since you seem to hold out the idea that the necklaces were of different measurements, or were supposed to be different in the show, LOL.

 

I say it shows the writers are lazy and lack basic attention to detail, I don't really see how this can be refuted.  They created an entire scene around the necklace, nobody forced them to write that there were only two in Westeros, when they already showed there were three.

 

jI never said most viewers would notice it.  That isn't the point.  The point is the SHOW should care about such obvious errors whether most viewers  notice or not.  It shows that they are sloppy.

 

Really, I could have sworn I wrote in about 4 separate posts that they were the same prop, including the one you just quoted.

 

:rolleyes:

[JagLover]

 

I don't really think it's minor.  

The show positions Stannis as the best military leader in Westeros.  LF says this in season 5.

 

Yet the destruction of his army is completely implausible unless he's a complete incompetent idiot, everything that occurs from the stormcrows leaving could only happen if he's a terrible terrible commander who doesn't know what he's doing even to the point of how to station guards.

 

It is only implausible to those who have no knowledge of actual military history and how guards respond in extreme weather. Hell the Swedes once routed a Russian army that outnumbered them 3 to 1 as they attacked with a blizzard at their back so the Russians were facing into the oncoming blizzard. You don't think guards retreat to the comfort of their campfires in bad weather?

 

Looking up the uses of fire in war and once an army sneaked two small boys into a castle they started a fire and the castle was surrendered. This wasn't twenty picked men but two small boys is this totally implausible?

 

Napoleon was probably the greatest battlefield general there has ever been (rather than a guy who held out in a siege and fought a few glorified pirates) and he had a couple of very poorly fought battles. Waterloo being the worst, but Borodino was also very poorly executed-is an account of these battles "wholly implausible"

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Getting hung up on a necklace basically says more about you than it does the show.

It basically makes you come across as Comic Book guy from the Simpsons

[Khal Boner]

Getting hung up on a necklace basically says more about you than it does the show.

It basically makes you come across as Comic Book guy from the Simpsons

 

Yep. It's very Sheldon Cooper as well.

[Cas Stark]

Getting hung up on a necklace basically says more about you than it does the show.

It basically makes you come across as Comic Book guy from the Simpsons

 

Maybe.  All I know is the list of similar errors gets longer and longer, as do the plot holes and the segments that need a lot of "imagination" to consider anything but Zena the Warrior Princess level action.

 

Good lord, true detective is raked over the coals for a convoluted plot, but GOT has a constant flow of actual continuity errors as well as implausible plots and not only does the show not get criticized but it apparently makes you a crazy comic book nerd to even notice them.  Whatever.

 

If more people took the show to task for this laziness then maybe it would improve instead of falling deeper and deeper into lazy writing that counts on the audience to only expect shock and awe and nothing more.

[Khal Boner]

 

 if he's a terrible terrible commander who doesn't know what he's doing even to the point of how to station guards.

 

Do you even watch the show? He does know how to place guards which is why he says 'they must have been asleep or working with the Boltons'. He then orders the remaining guards executed.