Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RSKennan" data-source="post: 1208726" data-attributes="member: 8256">It's late, so if I've misinterpreted what you've said here, please, let me know. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I agree with you; that the more compelling story is reflected into itself, but I don't see Jungian archetypes or usage of Campbellian deconstruction to create story as a bad thing. IMHO, modeling a campaign on the synthesis of two or more specific myths/stories is a fine way to find a creative direction, and I don't see that as exclusive to the idea of using a broader approach, and filling in the blanks. Certainly it takes a lot more work to do that with broader concepts (say the &quot;Mythic Hero&quot; rather than specifically honing in on &quot;Rama&quot; ), but the reward is (at least the perception of) more degrees of freedom. It's a trade-off, and either method, if carefully executed, can work well.Synthesis is one method of story design, but something you've also hinted at is a pure &quot;What-if&quot; question. I call it the interrogative method. What if:Humans were mutated orcs? Magic was nanotech? All sentient beings were actually the pets of a greater being, and the world was the cage?The game world was actually the place where bad folks go when they die? (One I once considered using)&nbsp; &nbsp;This kind of questioning might not result in the same strength of story direction, but can result in a world every bit as vibrant as one built around the synthesis of two or more ideas. Either one can be self-reflective; the themes can hold on the macro scale as well as the micro. For the record, Morningstar uses both methods. I've started rambling a bit, but this is a fun discussion. I'll stop for now, but I'm enjoying this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RSKennan, post: 1208726, member: 8256"] It's late, so if I've misinterpreted what you've said here, please, let me know. :) I agree with you; that the more compelling story is reflected into itself, but I don't see Jungian archetypes or usage of Campbellian deconstruction to create story as a bad thing. IMHO, modeling a campaign on the synthesis of two or more specific myths/stories is a fine way to find a creative direction, and I don't see that as exclusive to the idea of using a broader approach, and filling in the blanks. Certainly it takes a lot more work to do that with broader concepts (say the "Mythic Hero" rather than specifically honing in on "Rama" ), but the reward is (at least the perception of) more degrees of freedom. It's a trade-off, and either method, if carefully executed, can work well. Synthesis is one method of story design, but something you've also hinted at is a pure "What-if" question. I call it the interrogative method. What if: Humans were mutated orcs? Magic was nanotech? All sentient beings were actually the pets of a greater being, and the world was the cage? The game world was actually the place where bad folks go when they die? (One I once considered using) This kind of questioning might not result in the same strength of story direction, but can result in a world every bit as vibrant as one built around the synthesis of two or more ideas. Either one can be self-reflective; the themes can hold on the macro scale as well as the micro. For the record, Morningstar uses both methods. I've started rambling a bit, but this is a fun discussion. I'll stop for now, but I'm enjoying this. [/QUOTE]

Verification