Mythic Bastionland - initial impressions, and making a Realm

[pemerton]

I love Torchbearer in all its iterations, but Luke and Thor aren't above overcomplication in places.

I don't even mind their overcomplication - in fact to be honest often I love it! Luke and Thor are (in my book) RPG geniuses. But not the only ones. The Mythic Bastionland "solution" to the issue of "I've reached name level and want to rule a barony" is - I think - really, really good!

 

[zakael19]

In this paragraph, I'm contrasting with Errant because I bought it at the same time, having seen both games mentioned together, or at least close to together, in the context of OSR games that do interesting things. And for me the contrast is super-huge. Errant doesn't inspire me at all. It opens by telling me its another OSR game. Whereas Mythic Bastionland opens by telling me the game will be driven by Myths, and then presents all these weird and creative Myths, and has a setting that I think they will work in, and rules to make it all work (subject to the gaps I've already mentioned). Chalk and cheese.

If you were inspired by Errant more than MB, I'd be telling you to go see a doctor (and I think Errant does a lot of very cool stuff!) . Any game that starts from the inspirations it does (especially the dreamy "mythical" media such as The Green Knight) and then hits that mark should be inspiring as hell if you vibe with it.

 

[Distracted DM]

I don't want to be too big a party pooper in my own thread!, but am moved to post a response to this.

I like the overall book design - the way the rules are laid out two-column style under generally informative headings, the way the Knights and Myths are set out in their two-page spreads, etc. I think there is a bit of information that is spread out and could be together - some stuff about holdings, for instance (some under Creating a Realm, some under People and the Realm, some under Domains); some stuff about NPCs (similarly), some stuff about exploration (most under that heading, but some in the Creating a Realm and Sites stuff). But that's the consequence, I guess, of the resolute commitment to the effective layout.

I'm not super-moved by the art. It does it's job, and combines the mediaeval with the more modern grotesque pretty well. (I say without being any sort of critic or qualified describer of art!) But it has no effect on my interest in the game.

What is compelling for me is: (1) the ideas expressed by the Myths, and the way these are bundled into Omens - it's clever stuff, personally in my view at least on a par with and maybe cleverer than the Fronts/Threats material in Apocalypse World, and maybe up there with In A Wicked Age. (I can't make a conclusive judgement about that because I've played IAWA and so know how well the Oracles work to instigate play; I don't yet have actual play experience of Mythic Bastionland.)

And (2), the way game promises to bring those elements into play - the combination of travel (which fits with knight errantry) and NPCs (in the Omens, the Seers, the locals with their folklore) and player interpretation (""When the group feels that a Myth has been resolved, reaching a conclusion of any type"), which reminds me of Signs of the Gods in Agon 2e.

So I agree that this is an aesthetically compelling and inspiring work, albeit for a different reason!

Oh I should've been more clear, when I was talking about themes and atmosphere I was talking about the actual text. It's very evocative, and already inspired and provided direction for some of my dnd5e games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that what I'm trying to identify with the phrase 'conceptual horizon' is very much involved, at least generally in how people read and interpret RPGs. People come to a new RPG book with all manner of previous experience and that experience informs their reading of the text. It is regular and predictable that in some cases the prior experience of the reader - their preferred style, their understanding of what an RPG is and does, their conception of their players, and all manner of things can get in the way of grokking a new rule set. That reader's purpose for reading is also part of this package. One way to read an RPG is to read to find out how it works. Another is to read to find out how well it conforms to some previously held opinions about RPGs. Many gamers to some extent read in the latter fashion. An additional complication is the extent to which some readers think that simply reading the rules conveys then the same understanding as playing those rules. I'll grant that with experience and understanding the former becomes more and more possible, but that doesn't prevent people dropping hot takes from the seats of ill-informed armchairs.
.
To what extent this might apply to common readings of MB I have no idea, which is why I plan to read it again with a more critical eye.

Yeah, I am just observing that many RPGs are highly incomplete. I think @pemerton has mentioned Cthulhu Dark, which is just very basic mechanics and nothing else. It's not IMHO really a game per se, more a bit of fixins you use when making a game. D&D '74 is similar, and even calls itself a toolbox for building a game. They use the term campaign for that, but in an order wargaming sense, not like what we mean today.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I am just observing that many RPGs are highly incomplete. I think @pemerton has mentioned Cthulhu Dark, which is just very basic mechanics and nothing else. It's not IMHO really a game per se, more a bit of fixins you use when making a game. D&D '74 is similar, and even calls itself a toolbox for building a game. They use the term campaign for that, but in an order wargaming sense, not like what we mean today.

Well, using OD&D as an example here is setting the bar about as low as it can get. Even a lot of pretty lightweight modern RPGs would consider it woefully incomplete in comparison. You had to really want to be doing an enormous amount on pure judgment calls to consider it complete.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, using OD&D as an example here is setting the bar about as low as it can get. Even a lot of pretty lightweight modern RPGs would consider it woefully incomplete in comparison. You had to really want to be doing an enormous amount on pure judgment calls to consider it complete.

I think, no offense, that you're missing the point. The extent to which a given RPG is 'complete' is neither, IMO, obvious nor easy to assess.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think, no offense, that you're missing the point. The extent to which a given RPG is 'complete' is neither, IMO, obvious nor easy to assess.

And yet I'm perfectly comfortable having done so in this case. Given the complete statement I made there (both sentences) if someone wants to disagree with me, they can feel free to do so.

 

[Piperken]

...And as another example, the rules talk about "sites" and the "treasure" they might contain:

A Knight’s journey largely focuses on travelling great distances to seek the guidance of Seers and uncover Myths.​

​

However, on occasion there may be the need to zoom in on a single Hex, or a specific site within a Hex, in more detail.​

​

Sites can be created as areas that warrant more detailed exploration, whether ancient tombs, hostile castles, twisting caverns, or misty woods spanning the entire Hex.​

But the rules have nothing more to say about when and why there would be the "need" to provide this sort of site-level treatment of a place of interest.

Glad to read you picked this up! I've read other ppls' experiences with the Realm mapping procedure, they've all pretty much liked it in one way or another.

I've been a passive participant in a lot of discussions about MB (for any who're curious, Quinns Quest did a review of it that's worth a watch). While I've not played or run the game, my understanding is that the importance of what you mention (like Holdings, Sites or Treasure) can be tied together in the other play loops (Seasons and Ages) namely when you're not adventuring, dealing with your ruler and other related personalities.

It's a capsule game (also here too) pretty much. Although ppls are already hacking its gambits and other bits.

A good read just generally if you're interested in gamey design. It is well presented and well made.

 

[pemerton]

Glad to read you picked this up! I've read other ppls' experiences with the Realm mapping procedure, they've all pretty much liked it in one way or another.

For me, the Realm-mapping experience was like following the steps for making a dungeon/adventure location in Torchbearer 2e: the steps made sense, and it produced something that seems like it should work.

I know in TB2e, the products of that procedure have worked in play. I'm still to test this for Mythic Bastionland.

While I've not played or run the game, my understanding is that the importance of what you mention (like Holdings, Sites or Treasure) can be tied together in the other play loops (Seasons and Ages) namely when you're not adventuring, dealing with your ruler and other related personalities.[/QUOTE]The Holdings stuff to me is clearer than the sites stuff. But I have thoughts on how to approach sites, based on the exploration rules in Mythic Bastionland, and also drawing on TB2e.