Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Underman" data-source="post: 5971616" data-attributes="member: 6696705">I wasn't citing authority. I was looking for other ways to better articulate (obviously it failed, oh well) what was already intuitive to me -- that myths are irrational (or pre-rational if you like) and that modern fantasy (including LoTR and D&amp;D genre) are -- I won't say &quot;rational&quot; because fantasy isn't rational, but at least pseudo-rational for our modern world moreso than myths -- thus the whole &quot;fish out of water&quot; about transplanting myths into D&amp;D genre.I think what bugs me more is not so much the transplanting of myths into D&amp;D, because that's just fine if it makes for more compelling (and plausible enough) stories. What bugs me is what I surmise is the goal of cherry-picking and choosing mythical elements that make my fighter more mechanically powerful while ignoring the inconveniently accompanying mythical context, such as talking animals or whatever that don't jive with the D&amp;D genre, or complaining about medusa's stare that turns the fighter permanently into stone even if that's very compelling and just as integral to the mythology as the inspirational mythic elements that enable to the fighter to be powerful.And even that would be fine for me, if an attempt at suspension of disbelief was made for mythical fighter abilities, but then insisting &quot;we don't need an explanation&quot; just because is what I surmise is really saying &quot;I don't care, I just want my fighter to be more mechanically powerful&quot; or &quot;I don't want to offer an explanation because maybe if I do you'll poke holes in my story and then I won't be able to have my uber-powerful fighter&quot; while emphatically insisting on a non-magical mystical fighter for some reason.And comparing apples to oranges like: Giants in D&amp;D are impossible yet mundane. Fighters are in D&amp;D. Therefore fighters in D&amp;D are impossible yet mundane and can chop mountains.That's just what I surmised anyway based on the info I read.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Underman, post: 5971616, member: 6696705"] I wasn't citing authority. I was looking for other ways to better articulate (obviously it failed, oh well) what was already intuitive to me -- that myths are irrational (or pre-rational if you like) and that modern fantasy (including LoTR and D&D genre) are -- I won't say "rational" because fantasy isn't rational, but at least pseudo-rational for our modern world moreso than myths -- thus the whole "fish out of water" about transplanting myths into D&D genre. I think what bugs me more is not so much the transplanting of myths into D&D, because that's just fine if it makes for more compelling (and plausible enough) stories. What bugs me is what I surmise is the goal of cherry-picking and choosing mythical elements that make my fighter more mechanically powerful while ignoring the inconveniently accompanying mythical context, such as talking animals or whatever that don't jive with the D&D genre, or complaining about medusa's stare that turns the fighter permanently into stone even if that's very compelling and just as integral to the mythology as the inspirational mythic elements that enable to the fighter to be powerful. And even that would be fine for me, if an attempt at suspension of disbelief was made for mythical fighter abilities, but then insisting "we don't need an explanation" just because is what I surmise is really saying "I don't care, I just want my fighter to be more mechanically powerful" or "I don't want to offer an explanation because maybe if I do you'll poke holes in my story and then I won't be able to have my uber-powerful fighter" while emphatically insisting on a non-magical mystical fighter for some reason. And comparing apples to oranges like: Giants in D&D are impossible yet mundane. Fighters are in D&D. Therefore fighters in D&D are impossible yet mundane and can chop mountains. That's just what I surmised anyway based on the info I read. [/QUOTE]

Verification