Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2121857" data-attributes="member: 7240">Well, first of all, we cannot unilaterally create myth; the creation of myth is a largely unintentional societal process. But yes, one can use RPGs to create stories that are a decisive break with all literary and mythological traditions. But that's actually a very very very hard thing to do when one is writing literature. And D&D is less than ideally suited for that; while some core classes reference generic transcultural archetypes, others reference very specifically Western things. D&D would therefore have to have a lot of its core classes ripped out or significantly modified in order to achieve this, starting with the Barbarian. Certainly, the D20 system can detatch itself from the West but D&D, as written, is strongly western-flavoured. What I really cannot conceive of is a game that references nothing; this violates my understanding both of how human memory works and of how RPG players tend to understand the world in which their character is situated. However, there are nevertheless some good examples of game worlds that are not referencing Europe primarily but instead really breaking with Western tradition. Barsoomcore's Barsoom world here is an excellent example but in order to make a world that doesn't call up for people all these associations with European tradition, many monsters were removed and a number of changes were made to the rules. D&D's European heritage is something from which one can escape; but this escape is not exactly enabled by the core rules as written.Now, if you were to confront me with the following problem: what kind of world could I design in which the monk would not be out of place, my response would be: any of the following:1. A highly cosmopolitan world that is kind of a fantasy genre recapitulation of Hollywood-style pop culture literature and film.2. A world that was essentially monocultural but a monoculture based on taking modern cultures in roughly equal proportions and stuffing them in a mixmaster. 3. An Oriental world.4. A "Pacific Rim" kind of world where the dominant culture was sort of a Hong Kong/San Francisco/Tokyo/Vancouver fairly equal fusion of Asian and Western elements.What options 2-4 have in common is they need more Oriental material than the core rules provide. And that's been the point I have reiterated again and again on this thread. The monk cannot fit culturally with the current level of support provided for it in the core rules. We need to either drop the monk from the core and consign him to an Oriental Adventures book or we need to take more Oriental monsters, classes and pre-modern science and place them in the core rules. I don't care which. But the way we are currently resourced under the core rules, every attempt to make world type 2-4 turns into world type 1.But it's not just "inspired by" Oriental archetypes. It references them. You have to change the text of the core rules to stop it doing so. So, yes I agree with you. If the monk is played the way it is described in the core rules, it's usually out of place because the description in the core leaves people absolutely no doubt that this is an Oriental character class.This is an absurd argument. D&D rules are rules. They are not Scripture. While one can make the argument that if something is in the Bible it can't be inconsistent with the Bible, one can't make that argument about the three D&D core books. Of course D&D has the capacity for internal inconsistency; resolving inconsistencies in the text is one of the reasons why we get new editions of the game periodically. So, of course, like any other system, D&D has the capacity to have parts that are inconsistent. Only if you maintain your above assumption that the rules are some kind of holy writ that cannot be flawed. You were asserting that the D&D monk references ascetics generally; I was asserting that it doesn't. That's why I asked you to show one or more ways that the monk class is more congruent with an non-Oriental ascetic than with an Oriental one.Forgive me if this makes me cranky. I wish you could just read what I've already posted on this thread instead of demanding that I restate my position again; I get the feeling this discussion is a war of attrition where I'll eventually be forced to slink off because I'm so fatigued from repeating myself. But here goes:The three core books provide sufficient resources to play certain kinds of settings. They provide sufficient resources, with the core classes they provide, the monsters they stat, the basic universe they describe to play in a modernist generic European fantasy world. In order to play in an Asian fantasy world, one must create a bunch of core classes, prestige classes, new weapon proficiency lists, monsters, etc. or purchase separate material describing them.In other words, the core books provide sufficient resources to start a campaign but they do not provide sufficient resources to start a campaign in which the monk belongs. So, there is a problem with the core rules in that they do not provide sufficient support for one of the classes they describe. For instance, Asian monsters comprise less than 10% of the Monster Manual; Asian classes comprise less than 10% of the Players' Handbook; all Asian weapons are listed as Exotic; the core has four elements: Earth/Air/Water/Fire and one must go to supplementary materials to find support for the Earth/Fire/Water/Metal/Wood system. There are two possible solutions to this problem: put all the Asian stuff in supplementary material or jack up the portion of Asian classes, monsters, etc. to a minimum of 25% of the core. Then if a GM wants to design a world where the monk fits in, he has the resources to do so.Unlike some threads, I'm really not alone here. Most people who have posted to recent monk threads have the same problem I do. And as I explained above, and what people can't seem to wrap their heads around is that I'm not saying the monk can't fit in D&D; what I am saying is that the monk doesn't belong in the core as it is presently structured. I'm not saying that this is not possible; I am saying that unless one wants to represent a highly modern world in medieval drag, the core rules don't give one sufficient resources to insert monks.</blockquote>

Verification