The Tomb of Myth

[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]

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.

and how construing my thought processes Wayside.

What?

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]

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

Examples, please?

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

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]

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.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

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.