The Tomb of Myth

[FireLance]

Jack7, would you agree with the following quote from "The High King", the last novel in the excellent Chronicles of Prydain series by Lloyd Alexander?

"Every man is a hero if he strives more for others than for himself alone."

[Crothian]

If you want History and Myth in your campaign then put it in. It is not other people's responsibility to make sure you have myths and history in your own game. It doesn't matter if there is less myth and history in poeople's games in general since all that really matters is your own game and since the DM has controlo over the game there is no reason for the DM to not be able to place elements into the game that he wants.

[Yair]

Originally Posted by Crothian

If you want History and Myth in your campaign then put it in. It is not other people's responsibility to make sure you have myths and history in your own game.

Is it other people's responsibility to make sure you have combat rules in your game? Or an interesting setting or adventure? Yet we purchase roleplaying books and supplements. It isn't about what you can provide for your own game, it's about what the game provides as-is. D&D doesn't provide real-world mythology and even only pays lip service to its own mythology, focusing on gameplay at the expense of versimilitude and adhere to its own myths. It is just not a game designed for the above tastes, and neither are most D&D settings (with some exceptions, like Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line).

[jdrakeh]

Originally Posted by Yair

It is just not a game designed for the above tastes, and neither are most D&D settings (with some exceptions, like Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line).

I have to agree. D&D is and has been a lot of things. It has never been about across the board verisimilitude. It has never strived for what peple here call "realism" in all (or even most) areas of design. Likewise, it has rarely (if ever) had mechanics in place dedicated to the recreation of epic myth cycles as they appear in literature.

[Crothian]

Originally Posted by Yair

Is it other people's responsibility to make sure you have combat rules in your game? Or an interesting setting or adventure? Yet we purchase roleplaying books and supplements. It isn't about what you can provide for your own game, it's about what the game provides as-is. D&D doesn't provide real-world mythology and even only pays lip service to its own mythology, focusing on gameplay at the expense of versimilitude and adhere to its own myths. It is just not a game designed for the above tastes, and neither are most D&D settings (with some exceptions, like Green Ronin's Mythic Vistas line).

Rules are a different boat. But as you point out we have options like Mythic Vistas for people that want real world myth and history in their game. So, it is out there for people that want it. And I imagine if more people had really wanted it that line of books would have done a lot better.

[Hobo]

A few points:

1) If you're so invested in the past, why not infuse your games with history rather than myth. I'd rather tell the story of Alexander than Hercules in my games I'd rather have characters that were more like Lief Erikson than Thor.

2) Joseph Campbell is extremely over-rated. I think it's interesting to see how he and George Lucas exploited each other: Lucas exploited Campbell to give his Flash Gordon pulp and serial influenced series an implied gravitas that it didn't really need, but which made him feel a lot better about himself, and Campbell exploited Lucas to sell a lot of copies of a book that says very little of substance beyond, "hey, I think I've discovered that good stories have something in common." Which, really, shouldn't have been very surprising to anyone in the first place.

3) It's a mistake, in my opinion, to try and make gaming something that it isn't. For many years, I labored under the delusion that I could make gaming better resemble a novel. I suppose that's true up to a point, but beyond that point, the medium works against you and your game actually gets poorer rather than better as you attempt to hammer it into a form that the medium is not suited to provide.

By the same token, a game can't resemble a myth too much, or it's not a very fun game. It can't resemble Joseph Campbell very well either, because its fundamentally an ensemble cast, not the story of a single protagonist and his sidekicks. If that's to your taste, you can of course infuse your setting with more mythic elements. You can wrap all of your spells and magic items up in mythic flavor. To say that the game itself doesn't provide this is somewhat disengenious; especially to claim that the game has lost this (the game never really had it. 1e was full of +1 swords and cure light wounds too, y'know.) It's always been up to the DM to provide that kind of flavor. And frankly, like I said, I'd be wary of going too far down that road anyway; chances are you'll just have your players rolling their eyes and telling you to get the point before too long. Accept the constraints of the medium and optimize your game along those lines; don't try to make your game into something other than a game.

Oh, and you might want to dial back the value judgement on what other people like a bit, while you're at it.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Hey there Jack! Good to hear from you. I agree with what your saying--to a point. In my own campaigns, I use History and Mythology heavily--I love it, and my friends and players do as well. It tends to make the campaign richer, deeper, and more interesting on every level. This, in turn, tends to make the characters more interesting, heroic, and intriguing as well.

However--I think as Hobo explained, the medium really does impose certain limitations. There's only so far you can go in organizing the game like a novel, or mythic saga from the past--before you reach a consortium of mechanics, and game dynamics that actually cause an increasing *diminishing returns*. The game is typically about a *group*--as opposed to *one mythic individual or hero*. Finally, there are simply some elements in a novel that detract from a game; and some elements of a game that detract from a novel. The fact that a DM will in his efforts to create a campaign and run a game will reach the point where those elements intesect, is the threshold that will forever divide the game from being very much like a mythical story.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Jack7]

"Every man is a hero if he strives more for others than for himself alone."

To a large extent FL, yes.
Especially in the real world in which dangers can be metal, psychological, spiritual, political, business and financial, etc. The Saint is at least as big a hero as the military hero (and if a peaceful martyr, that is a martyr who dies for others rather than kills others, maybe more so), the philanthropist as the fireman or cop. A good father and mother are heroic, the man who risks his life for others is heroic.

In a game world dangers are often more immediate and physical because so much that occurs in real life is compressed into very simplistic terms and events. So heroism in-game is usually more directly and less subtly expressed. In this context I am speaking about mythical and game heroism though, which is far less a matter of reality than idealism. Or let me put it this way, in real life heroism is often chronic and grinding, expressed day by day, in our obligations and sacrifices to others and for others. It is therefore often cumulative. (Though there are moments in real life where we risk out lives, and I have. Those moments are exciting, and when you live through them very pleasing and dramatic, and make for good stories and fond memories, but are no more "valuable" in the long run than day to day obligations such as taking care of your daughter, or buying new clothes for a burned out neighbor.) In a game, movie, video game, etc. however it (heroism) is often acute, expressed in the heroic charge, the fierce and lethal encounter. Game heroism is a metaphor for real life heroism compressed into a single moment of terrible action.

1) If you're so invested in the past, why not infuse your games with history rather than myth. I'd rather tell the story of Alexander than Hercules in my games I'd rather have characters that were more like Lief Erikson than Thor.

I agree. History and myth should both be integrated. History because of it's cultural and physical relevance (my milieu is set in Constantinople) and myth and religion because of it's psychological and spiritual relevance. It's not either/or. But we're all invested in the past to some degree, even if we don't realize it. Without a past there is no present.

For many years, I labored under the delusion that I could make gaming better resemble a novel. I suppose that's true up to a point, but beyond that point, the medium works against you and your game actually gets poorer rather than better as you attempt to hammer it into a form that the medium is not suited to provide.

By the same token, a game can't resemble a myth too much, or it's not a very fun game. It can't resemble Joseph Campbell very well either, because its fundamentally an ensemble cast, not the story of a single protagonist and his sidekicks.

We agree here as well. A game cannot be a novel. Or a myth, or any other medium than itself. A novel for instance is static. A game (at least an RPG) is dynamic. And has more than one "author." A game however can easily and often does and often should incorporate elements drawn from other sources, such as books, films, stories, myths, religion, and so forth. Sometimes you can incorporate too much from such sources, sometimes too little. I'm saying far too little of something really important lately, and far too much of stuff not so important lately. And that doesn't have anything to do with edition per se, it is more modern design philosophy and elements. Ah crap, I was gonna say something else but my wife interrupted me and I forgot it. That's all about that I guess.

Oh, and you might want to dial back the value judgement on what other people like a bit, while you're at it.

I am not telling people, and never have, what their games must be. I am saying I do not like the loss of myth as a motivational factor on game and adventure and milieu development. I do not understand why people cannot understand the difference between a demand and a critique. That which is not criticized is that which does not improve and progress.

Greetings!

Hey there Jack! Good to hear from you.

You too Shark. Even when you disagree you are never disagreeable. I'm not so sure you shouldn't be named the Dolphin instead.

[Wayside]

Originally Posted by Jack7

And inherent in your response is the implied attitude of, "because things are as they are now they neither warrant nor deserve improvement."

No, it isn't.

That sentence is pleonastic, by the way, which usually means you're a) substituting big words for a lack of argument, or b) just not sure what you really want to say. I noticed this problem in your original post as well.

Originally Posted by Jack7

But no system, no state, no condition, at any point in time is so perfect or so flawless that it should not or cannot be open to critique and improvement.

Nobody said that a system, a state, a condition, at some point in time may be so perfect or so flawless that it should not or cannot be open to critique and improvement.

There's a difference between disputing what counts as perfection or improvement and disputing whether something is perfect or can be improved.

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by Jack7

I am not telling people, and never have, what their games must be. I am saying I do not like the loss of myth as a motivational factor on game and adventure and milieu development. I do not understand why people cannot understand the difference between a demand and a critique. That which is not criticized is that which does not improve and progress.

What you are apparently not understanding is that many people, both here and in some of your other threads (re. heroism in D&D, for example), are disagreeing with your critique. As has been pointed out more than once in quite a lot of detail, there's no less use of myth in game/adventure/milieu development nowadays than there ever was. Simply because you fail to see or encounter something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Jack7]

That sentence is pleonastic, by the way, which usually means you're a) substituting big words for a lack of argument, or b) just not sure what you really want to say.

Thanks for telling me what I am thinking and how construing my thought processes Wayside. I really appreciate the erudite assistance. Do you think I got how I'm thinking and what I meant to say right that time?

Thanks for the definition too.

What you are apparently not understanding is that many people, both here and in some of your other threads (re. heroism in D&D, for example), are disagreeing with your critique.

Thanks, I didn't understand that either. You learn something new about opinions and critiques every day.

[Wayside]

Originally Posted by Jack7

Thanks for telling me what I am thinking

That's not what I said. In fact I said the exact opposite: it seems like you haven't quite worked out what you think, which is perhaps why you haven't been able to say it very clearly.

This is just the most common underlying cause of the qualities I see in your writing, though. Other explanations are possible.

Originally Posted by Jack7

and how construing my thought processes Wayside.

What?

Originally Posted by Jack7

I really appreciate the erudite assistance. Do you think I got how I'm thinking and what I meant to say right that time?

In light of the above fragment? No. The sarcasm is both clear and unfortunate, though.

There's nothing particularly erudite about wanting someone to clarify their ideas--since surely you don't believe your post "is so perfect or so flawless that it should not or cannot be open to critique and improvement"--nor is it especially productive to add to the already often anti-intellectual climate of ENWorld by making "erudite" a synonym for "tedious" and "irrelevant," i.e., an insult.

I didn't point out a misspelled word; I pointed out a quality in your writing that seems to indicate your not having worked sufficiently through what you really think and want to say. Or is it just a coincidence that you've had to "correct" everyone who's replied about what you were "really" getting at? Clearly your original post is meant to be a composition of sorts, so my advice is simply to focus on your argumentation rather than wax about burning pyres of misconception.

[Jack7]

I pointed out a quality in your writing that seems to indicate your not having worked sufficiently through what you really think and want to say.

Is it possible I said exactly what I meant and you didn't understand?

Or is it just a coincidence that you've had to "correct" everyone who's replied about what you were "really" getting at?

You've really never seen an argument where one side didn't clarify what was meant to someone else who had misperceived the original intent of their point or counterpoint? Isn't that what you just did in explaining to me how I don't really know what I intend to say?

Clearly your original post is meant to be a composition of sorts, so my advice is simply to focus on your argumentation rather than wax about burning pyres of misconception.

Next time I'm under contract to ya Wayside I'll think about saying what I have to say in a manner consistent with your best desires. Til then maybe I'll say it my way.

And maybe this isn't really a thread about myth or the points I brought up at all, but about linguisitic and stylistic preferences in analyzing how I said about what I said?

But assuming it is about myth then I'm sticking to my original story, or myth about myth, if you will. There ain't enough of it in modern fantasy games. I hope that's direct enough.

If you think there's too much of it then you can start your own thread and I'll come read what you got. Maybe even bounce around a few ideas. But I hope you do it in a manner and style that satisfies me. I'd hate to have to tell ya that you don't really know what your real point is.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Jack7

There ain't enough of it in modern fantasy games.

Examples, please?

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Jack7, if I read you correctly you are bemoning a lack of integration of real-world mythical elements. So I now have three questions:

1) What did you hope to get out of posting what you did?
2) If people are to change the state of settings now what, precisely, do you think they should do?
3) Why should they do it?

[Jack7]

1) What did you hope to get out of posting what you did?
2) If people are to change the state of settings now what, precisely, do you think they should do?
3) Why should they do it?

I hope I answered that below SM, in the section in italics.

Examples, please?

Is this going to become a theological argument Aus, where we prove lack of visible myth means there never was such a thing? Or do I get to prove a negative by showing that there is positively no opinion less valuable than one based upon personal preference in observation?

Well, I'm gonna give it a whack anyways.

I guess if Elves as character classes means games are full of myth, then that's a simulation of something vaguely mythic, but that's not my idea of myth.

At all.

Elves, as one example, are creatures adapted from myth but in many games they are little more than powered up fellas with pointed ears drinking beer in taverns waiting for the next chance to loot a ruin. But Elves killing giant rats and looting rat-stashes is no more a mythic enterprise than me drawing a picture of bunny rabbits in crayons on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel is an act of high art.

A form is not to be confused with an accomplishment, or a Pinto would be the father of the Lexus.

I don't see heroism being promoted, I see Tier paths being called Heroic, as if the word and the deed are somehow interchangeable. I don't see magic being mythic, I see it being a tactical, small-minded, pre-engineered (and sometimes not that well engineered) technical science, not a mythical catalyst for strategic change (for either the individual characters or a society) in a fantasy modeled world. It's become a mere tool, not an intrinsic expression of character.

Speaking of characters, they have adventures (there's nothing wrong with that in itself, but adventuring sure isn't mythic or motorcycling across country would be the same as killing the minotaur), not quests, seek character power, not power of character.

(And let me be clear about something I suspect at least some of you are assuming, but I don't mean. At all. I'm not talking about your world or milieu, I don't know what goes on there. I don't know what you have created. I'm not privy to it. I'm speaking about commercially designed games and products and what they emphasize. What you or someone else does with those products is your business and could be radically reinterpreted, for instance. If you or anyone else is taking this personally, like I'm saying, You Aus, are not making enough use of myth, or heroism, or mythic magic, I can't say that. It's not my business anyway. I'm critiquing an industry and modern game design, which I feel is very weak compared to what it could be. Not in technical matters, sometimes it is far too well developed in technical matters. But in ideals, in which it is often far too under-developed. As a matter of fact I think that's one of the real problems. Designers sit down and say, "what cool power can we give X, or how will we do the math curve on level progression?" rather than saying, "what is the point of all of this, and what is really being achieved?" If their work is any indication of motivation. And what do designers want to promote, heroism in deed and behavior or hero as a word title for surviving to 30th level? I think a lot of times words are confused with action, design with deeds, form with substance. Now a person might say, I've got no interest in myth, or history, or heroism, or magic which isn't shot out at a target like over-excited cathode rays. That's fine but then again they're never gonna see my point because they have no interest in my argument. Because looting gold from giant rats in the city sewer [and everybody's gotta eat] and saving the kingdom by searching for the Grail are all just stuff you do because it gets ya the tavern Elf chick and a +3 bastard sword to boot. It's all equal as long as you go up in level, right. One achievement is as good as the next. C'est la vie.)

Now to be fair to the other side of the argument just today I got Ars Magica, and it is rather fascinating, and if the adventures in-game are similar to the game implications then I can see that being far more heavily mythic, than say many other fantasy games.

And there's nothing wrong with an adventure per se, or with just having fun. But fantasy gaming doesn't have to be just limited to cartoonish (and I don't mean mythic cartoons, like Spongebob or Thundarr) forms either, or just light entertainments.

If that's what somebody wants, fine. But I don't see a disclaimer anywhere saying, fantasy games should be all about looting and technical magic. (Though I have seen even some D&D adventures that are exceptions to the rule, just not many of them in my opinion.)

But anyways that's my opinion. Not enough myth or heroism (and heroism is different from risking your life, imaginary or real, for gold and glory, that's mercenary, not mythic - unless you think it is the same then we'll just have to agree to disagree) or real magic in games.

If you (and I'm not speaking to you personally when I say you, but you as in unspecified plural - whoever is reading this) have a different opinion that's fine, but mine is that there is too little of what is important, too much of what ain't.

Well, I didn't mean to take this long Aus, but my wife and kids keep running into my office to tell me something the puppies are doing. So I'm quitting for now and going to play with them.

[Aus_Snow]

Thanks for taking the time to go into detail, Jack.

I take it then, that you've been referring to D&D. If not, then of course correct me, but it sure reads that way. And, as you've just picked up Ars Magica - a more modern game than D&D, all in all - I suppose there's no need for me to belabour the point that, well, doesn't need to be made now, re: your thread title and OP.

Ah, hell with it. Suffice it to say that D&D has *never* been that thing you would apparently prefer a RPG to be. Not by default, out of the box, etc. And I'll leave it there.

[Yair]

Originally Posted by Crothian

as you point out we have options like Mythic Vistas for people that want real world myth and history in their game. So, it is out there for people that want it. And I imagine if more people had really wanted it that line of books would have done a lot better.

But rules, when done well, intertwine with the setting. The rules of D&D (most of all in 4e) are primarily geared to providing an action-packed, balanced gaming experience. The rules of Ars Magica are primarily geared to provide a political, myth-packed, game. In Ars Magica having been raised by faeries is a game-option, in D&D, it is just background fluff. It is possible to house rule the game or play a historically- ot mythical-focused D&D game, certainly. But all I'm saying is that it's better to just play a system that is more geared to your taste. Among the advantages, is that you'll also find lots of supplements echoing your tastes.

I mean, really, look at the latest Ars Magica and D&D supplements. Wizards is about to release A Practical Guide to Faeries. I don't know what it would contain, but the info-text says "from the underground workshop where brownies craft toys to the enchanted forests where pixies play stickyball." Atlas Games is about to release Realms of Power: Faerie, whose Table of Contents includes things like "Elysium in Romances and Marchen" and portrayals of the Lamia, Satyr which I am sure would be much closer to their myths than the Monster Manual's.

Another recent Ars Magica release is Art & Academe, a sourcebook about medieval educational and artistic institutions and their beliefs, including rules for medicine based on the four humors, predicting the future based on Ptolemaic astrology, describing the universities in Europe around 1220, and so on. I don't see such a book in Wizards' stock.

So there is a market for historically-driven and myth-driven gaming, and supplements are regularly put out to sate such hungers. That the Mystic Vistas line only supported one setting-book at a time, failing to provide more, is mainly because it doesn't attract enough attention, and that is because it is founded on a system that isn't geared to that taste. To find more supplements to fit that taste, you have no choice but to go to other systems, ones more geared to support it.

Different games suit different people. D&D is geared to a certain type of game, and so are its supplements. Using it to support a different sort of game is possible, and there are some supplements out there to do so, but it's better to simply adopt a game that is more to your taste - you'll get both the more-fitting rules, and (for a well-supported game, like Ars Magica) supplements far more likely to be to your taste.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by Jack7

I hope I answered that below SM, in the section in italics.

You did. And I understand: I'm also searching for a setting which no one ever seems to want to do (published or not).

However while you say there aren't enough published settings inspired by myth and legend I think there are some number out there.

Mythic Vistas has already been mentioned.

Dog Soul Publishing has the Folkloric line.

RPG Objects has Legends of Fantasy.

Looking through the Historical Fantasy section on RPGnow I find settings based on Robin Hood, Medieval European history, Arabian Nights, and two products dealing with Vikings and Norse Myths.

Plus for Warring States Japan there's the well-researched Sengoku.

[Jack7]

Thanks everyone, for help suggestions, ideas, debate. Going on assignment now. Don't know for how long.
Respond later or when I can.

See ya, and stay safe.