It might be too soon to tell, after only about three centuries, but I'm going to call it and say that the Modern Novel was a big mistake, at least compared to ancient Myth.
And in your D&D game, running it with the styles of a novel is a mistake, compared to running it with the symbols and archetypes of Myth.

Plus, I give my thoughts about the latest episode (and season thus far) of Doctor Who, and my part in the design of the Doctor Who RPG.

Also, there's an unexpected catfight.

[video=youtube_share;X0TIi9u1gwk]https://youtu.be/X0TIi9u1gwk[/youtube]

Quote from: RPGPundit;1061764It might be too soon to tell, after only about three centuries, but I'm going to call it and say that the Modern Novel was a big mistake, at least compared to ancient Myth.

Tilting at windmills again, Pundey?

Chaucer really should have thought of that, the idiot.

You wouldn't have any of your fantasy RPGs if not for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (not to mention Barsoom, Conan, etc.) to have inspired Arneson, Gygax and the other early creators of the RPG medium.

"I'm not a gatekeeper!"

"Check out my video where if you aren't playing RPGs this way, you're doing it wrong!"

We get it.

I enjoyed this one a lot!

I agree that focusing on PC's internal state of mind is rarely good in an RPG. Not sure novels are always bad; just that they're a bad model for RPGs.

Quote from: Chris24601;1061778You wouldn't have any of your fantasy RPGs if not for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (not to mention Barsoom, Conan, etc.) to have inspired Arneson, Gygax and the other early creators of the RPG medium.

It's notable to me how the pulps generally DON'T examine the internal psychological states of the protagonists. They mostly just do stuff.

Quote from: S'mon;1061788It's notable to me how the pulps generally DON'T examine the internal psychological states of the protagonists. They mostly just do stuff.

This. Less talk, more rock.

Quote from: S'mon;1061788It's notable to me how the pulps generally DON'T examine the internal psychological states of the protagonists. They mostly just do stuff.

I believe the difference is more to do with episodic versus serial narratives, but the internal monologues are another important distinction.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is an excellent example of this sort of thing. It is a hybrid between fairy tale and novel in style. While there is an overarching narrative, the individual chapters are largely episodic in nature. The characters themselves go through absolutely no character development and this isn't a bad thing. The whole "you had it within you all along" message typically of modern narratives is actively mocked: when the wizards tells the lion, scarecrow and woodsman that they already had the qualities they were searching for (as was displayed in all the previous chapters as a running gag) they don't believe him and threaten violence unless he gives them what they want.

I actually haven't finished reading my copy and this is the first time in my life I read the original, but this is exactly how I want to write my own fairy tale and myth narratives. (The distinction between fairy tale and myth is extremely fuzzy, since there isn't a noticeable difference in their styles. The only difference I can see is that myths are part of a larger mythic world context, whereas fairy tales are entirely self-contained. In the modern popular culture, the concept of "fairy tale worlds" destroys this distinction.)

This is actually something I am trying to balance while writing a D&D-inspired fiction. I want to emulate the often idiosyncratic narrative styles of fairy tales and myths in order to lend that air of wonder and mystery often absent from modern writing styles.

Quote from: Chris24601;1061778You wouldn't have any of your fantasy RPGs if not for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (not to mention Barsoom, Conan, etc.) to have inspired Arneson, Gygax and the other early creators of the RPG medium.

Others have already rightly pointed out the action-oriented nature of the pulps.  Let's also remember that Tolkien's works, while certainly "modern novels," are steeped in European mythology and (IMHO, at least) are still largely action-oriented -- at least in the sense that the attention given to physical description (action, history, setting) vastly outweigh that given to the internal workings and motivations of the characters.  

For context, here's how the Nautilus article referenced in Pundit's blog post includes, describes its first example of "superior" modern fiction:

QuoteIn [David Foster Wallace's] short story "Forever Overhead," the 13-year-old protagonist takes 12 pages to walk across the deck of a public swimming pool, wait in line at the high diving board, climb the ladder, and prepare to jump. But over these 12 pages, we are taken into the burgeoning, buzzing mind of a boy just erupting into puberty--our attention is riveted to his newly focused attention on female bodies in swimsuits, we register his awareness that others are watching him as he hesitates on the diving board, we follow his undulating thoughts about whether it's best to do something scary without thinking about it or whether it's foolishly dangerous not to think about it.

Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1061782"I'm not a gatekeeper!"

"Check out my video where if you aren't playing RPGs this way, you're doing it wrong!"

We get it.

Yep.

Quote from: S'mon;1061788It's notable to me how the pulps generally DON'T examine the internal psychological states of the protagonists. They mostly just do stuff.

When I read the John Carter books, I couldn't help but think the guy was a hyper-violent sociopath. Get between him and his girl, and he'll kill you--and that's even if he only thinks you might be in the way, because he won't take the risk of losing time by talking to what might be a bad guy.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061801When I read the John Carter books, I couldn't help but think the guy was a hyper-violent sociopath. Get between him and his girl, and he'll kill you--and that's even if he only thinks you might be in the way, because he won't take the risk of losing time by talking to what might be a bad guy.

You weren't a fan of Taken either were you?

Well this topic definitely interests me, so I will give it a listen. Thanks Pundit. It's an interesting thought to explore.

Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1061782"I'm not a gatekeeper!"

"Check out my video where if you aren't playing RPGs this way, you're doing it wrong!"

We get it.

Yeah lets talk about gatekeeping. I am quite sure a lot of people decided not to get into gaming after watching Mercer and his shower of assholes getting all touchy feely.