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 (http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-sight/why-doesnt-ancient-fiction-talk-about-feelings-rp) referenced in Pundit's blog post (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2018/10/modern-literature-is-not-better-than.html) 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.
Does it give them brain damage?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061795(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.)
I think the difference is that calling something a fairy tale means "We don't actually believe this stuff" AND "this is just a story, it doesn't say anything about the human condition". Myths have an element of truthiness that fairy tales lack in conception.
I may be wrong, but it seems easy to distinguish mythic films like Star Wars, Robocop and Mad Max II: The Road Warrior from fairy-tale films like Wizard of Oz, Dark Crystal & Legend.
Isn't a little bit of Gate Keeping preferable though? To actually have a culture you need to do SOME form of gate keeping to make it distinct from others and get dedicated buy in.
Going to the video game definition of being a "Gamer". One of Gamergate's biggest fronts was about the definition of what it truly means to be a "Gamer". Playing videogames does not make you a gamer. Playing Candy Crush on your phone doesn't put you in the same culture as someone who builds their own PC, fits it out with LED's for customization so it looks cool while also playing anything at max settings without any frame rate loss.
Just like driving a car doesn't make you a "gear head" or part of "Car culture" there's more buy in needed, more commitment over all.
Now to much gate keeping is a bad thing of course. You do want to be open enough to draw people into your hobby, but you also want to make sure you're getting people you want into the hobby.
Just some rambling thoughts on my part, take it with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Orphan81;1061830Isn't a little bit of Gate Keeping preferable though? To actually have a culture you need to do SOME form of gate keeping to make it distinct from others and get dedicated buy in.
Going to the video game definition of being a "Gamer". One of Gamergate's biggest fronts was about the definition of what it truly means to be a "Gamer". Playing videogames does not make you a gamer. Playing Candy Crush on your phone doesn't put you in the same culture as someone who builds their own PC, fits it out with LED's for customization so it looks cool while also playing anything at max settings without any frame rate loss.
Just like driving a car doesn't make you a "gear head" or part of "Car culture" there's more buy in needed, more commitment over all.
Now to much gate keeping is a bad thing of course. You do want to be open enough to draw people into your hobby, but you also want to make sure you're getting people you want into the hobby.
Just some rambling thoughts on my part, take it with a grain of salt.
I'm glad someone is bothering to demonstrate actual gatekeeping.
Telling people they are doing something wrong is not gatekeeping, it's disagreement and people should be able to do that without being called Bad.
Pundit says you have to play RPGs to be considered part of the RPG community. That is technically gatekeeping, but it's a perfectly reasonable line to draw and represents the bare minimum to be considered "in the hobby".
Likewise anyone that plays games is "a Gamer" even if it is silly phone games. Anything other definition is gatekeeping and represented the parts of GamerGate that people rightfully attacked. (Ethics in journalism be it game or otherwise is a worthy concern. The biggest problem is gamers wanted their journalist to be more ethical than regular journalist are, who basically have no ethics beyond make money).
Quote from: S'mon;1061787I 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.
I'm used to character development and soul searching to be part of bluebooking between games. The game is where the action happens and the reflection upon that action by the character is what can happen between games.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1061835(Ethics in journalism be it game or otherwise is a worthy concern. The biggest problem is gamers wanted their journalist to be more ethical than regular journalist are, who basically have no ethics beyond make money).
I think the extreme hostility of journalists to GamerGate derived from a fear that if it spread they might be expected to have ethics, too. :D
Quote from: jeff37923;1061837I'm used to character development and soul searching to be part of bluebooking between games. The game is where the action happens and the reflection upon that action by the character is what can happen between games.
That's a good approach, which I've seen in 'session accounts', yup.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1061835Likewise anyone that plays games is "a Gamer" even if it is silly phone games. Anything other definition is gatekeeping and represented the parts of GamerGate that people rightfully attacked. (Ethics in journalism be it game or otherwise is a worthy concern. The biggest problem is gamers wanted their journalist to be more ethical than regular journalist are, who basically have no ethics beyond make money).
See this is where I disagree with you. 80+ percent of the western world plays games, exactly because of stupid phone games. Going by this definition would make most of the western world "Gamers". Which means the definition has become so broad, it's a useless distinction to use... No, playing videogames on your phone does not make you a "Gamer".
A Gamer is an enthusiast, it's someone who has passion for the hobby and goes out of their way to immerse themselves in it. Playing games on your phone doesn't make you a gamer. Being a gamer is more than that, it's knowing the cultural jargon, keeping up with the news and developments, having buy in to the hobby. I am a Gatekeeper in the hobby of being a Gamer (In the videogame sense of the word)... There has to be some form of gate keeping in every culture, otherwise it ceases to exist as having any meaningful definition or description of those who partake of it...
My Grandmother who plays Candy Crush on her phone has no interest in going to E3... Hell, she doesn't even know what E3 is... but any real "Gamer" (again videogame sense of the word) knows what E3 is, and knows it's a very important time of the year for the gaming Hobby as a whole... whether that's being excited about it, being cynical and depressed about it happening...or some combination thereof... E3 is a big deal for gamers.... Knowing what a micro-transaction is, harping on about always online connections...DLC these are all things that one can discuss that also points to them as being a member of the "gaming" community...
If you don't understand any of that, and have no interest in any of that, and just want to play hidden object games or Candy Crush on your phone... well then you're not really a "Gamer".
Quote from: Orphan81;1061840See this is where I disagree with you. 80+ percent of the western world plays games, exactly because of stupid phone games. Going by this definition would make most of the western world "Gamers". Which means the definition has become so broad, it's a useless distinction to use... No, playing videogames on your phone does not make you a "Gamer".
A Gamer is an enthusiast, it's someone who has passion for the hobby and goes out of their way to immerse themselves in it. Playing games on your phone doesn't make you a gamer. Being a gamer is more than that, it's knowing the cultural jargon, keeping up with the news and developments, having buy in to the hobby. I am a Gatekeeper in the hobby of being a Gamer (In the videogame sense of the word)... There has to be some form of gate keeping in every culture, otherwise it ceases to exist as having any meaningful definition or description of those who partake of it...
My Grandmother who plays Candy Crush on her phone has no interest in going to E3... Hell, she doesn't even know what E3 is... but any real "Gamer" (again videogame sense of the word) knows what E3 is, and knows it's a very important time of the year for the gaming Hobby as a whole... whether that's being excited about it, being cynical and depressed about it happening...or some combination thereof... E3 is a big deal for gamers.... Knowing what a micro-transaction is, harping on about always online connections...DLC these are all things that one can discuss that also points to them as being a member of the "gaming" community...
If you don't understand any of that, and have no interest in any of that, and just want to play hidden object games or Candy Crush on your phone... well then you're not really a "Gamer".
If 80% of people played a weekly D&D game, they would still be D&D players.
The definition could stand to go a tad more strict in that you enjoy playing games as a hobby. Some people do not consider the games they play on their phone a hobby, the realization that you have a hobby implies a certain level of investment.
Someone who plays games 20+ hours a week on a console is definitely more of a gamer than someone with a $4000+ custom bleeding edge rig that only plays a couple hours a week.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1061770Tilting at windmills again, Pundey?
I see what you did there.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1061813You weren't a fan of Taken either were you?
I liked the first movie. The others were trash. There was a series too, but I lost interest after the first episode.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1061846I liked the first movie. The others were trash. There was a series too, but I lost interest after the first episode.
OK, I guess you have the correct opinion about that.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1061776Chaucer really should have thought of that, the idiot.
Chaucer was OK. It really started to go wrong with Robinson Crusoe and Moll Flanders.
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.
Telling people how they could run more awesome games is not gatekeeping. Telling people "they're fired from D&D" or to "Fuck off from the hobby" or that they need to be institutionalized for re-education therapy is Gatekeeping.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1061822Does it give them brain damage?
No. The modern education system has already done that job.
It is phenomenally unfair to compare ancient myth with the modern novel. The "ancient myths" have gone through untold generations of retellings, alterations and becoming deeply woven into our language and culture long before our births. When LotR is retold over 40 generations and ripped apart, rebuilt, added upon and regurgitated upteen times before being written down again, I'm quite sure it will be an even more resonant tale.
Its really fascinating to read early versions of myths. Not many exist, but you can find variations and older versions of many popular myths and often, they have deeply weird bits that were expurgated long before Brothers Grim or Disney brought them into the modern age.
That said, I highly recommend reading Beowulf before you pick up whatever the next "hot" fantasy novel might be. There's a certain unique power in reading about swords & sorcery written in a time when the sword was the gun of the day and sorcery was believed to be real by those who would hear the tale.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1061880That said, I highly recommend reading Beowulf before you pick up whatever the next "hot" fantasy novel might be. There's a certain unique power in reading about swords & sorcery written in a time when the sword was the gun of the day and sorcery was believed to be real by those who would hear the tale.
Not a bad idea, actually. Beowulf laid the foundation for a lot of High Valor.
Not quite getting this one.
Comparing RP-ing to the style of the Illiad, rather than I don't know lets pick on Twilight (just to bash the sparkly vampires). I can understand that. It kind of fits my play style so can agree that it is a good technique for developing the game. If somebody likes playing where the PCs all sit around being angsty, and talking about their feelings that's cool, not my thing but whatever floats their boat.
As far as novels being a bad idea in general, I really couldn't follow the logic, but I was paying a lot of attention to the cat fight so was a bit distracted.
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.
I got a totally different vibe from the John Carter books, a much more upbeat one. My take away was he took care of the people with him and responded to people based on their actions, not who they were or what they looked like. In turn they became loyal companions. He only killed the things that needed killin (I'm sure he was a Texan, although don't believe it was explicitly stated).
Quote from: Spinachcat;1061880It is phenomenally unfair to compare ancient myth with the modern novel. The "ancient myths" have gone through untold generations of retellings, alterations and becoming deeply woven into our language and culture long before our births. When LotR is retold over 40 generations and ripped apart, rebuilt, added upon and regurgitated upteen times before being written down again, I'm quite sure it will be an even more resonant tale.
Its really fascinating to read early versions of myths. Not many exist, but you can find variations and older versions of many popular myths and often, they have deeply weird bits that were expurgated long before Brothers Grim or Disney brought them into the modern age.
That said, I highly recommend reading Beowulf before you pick up whatever the next "hot" fantasy novel might be. There's a certain unique power in reading about swords & sorcery written in a time when the sword was the gun of the day and sorcery was believed to be real by those who would hear the tale.
Agree, reading actual myths and legends is great stuff for gaming. A lot of kids in high school moaned and groaned about having to read the Iliad, the Odyssey, and Beowulf. I loved reading those, but then again I'm one of those weirdos who will read history for fun.
Quote from: Orphan81;1061830Isn't a little bit of Gate Keeping preferable though? To actually have a culture you need to do SOME form of gate keeping to make it distinct from others and get dedicated buy in.
Certainly that's necessary for all those who want to feel
special by virture of their hobbies, yes.
It's just rolling dice, eating snacks, and pretending to be an elf, people. Let's not overthink it.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1061885Not quite getting this one.
Comparing RP-ing to the style of the Illiad, rather than I don't know lets pick on Twilight (just to bash the sparkly vampires). I can understand that. It kind of fits my play style so can agree that it is a good technique for developing the game. If somebody likes playing where the PCs all sit around being angsty, and talking about their feelings that's cool, not my thing but whatever floats their boat.
As far as novels being a bad idea in general, I really couldn't follow the logic, but I was paying a lot of attention to the cat fight so was a bit distracted.
I got a totally different vibe from the John Carter books, a much more upbeat one. My take away was he took care of the people with him and responded to people based on their actions, not who they were or what they looked like. In turn they became loyal companions. He only killed the things that needed killin (I'm sure he was a Texan, although don't believe it was explicitly stated).
He was most definitely NOT a Texan. It was stated over and again that he was "a gentleman of Virginia" from the period right after the Civil War.
Quote from: nightlamp;1061796Others 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 (http://nautil.us/issue/65/in-plain-sight/why-doesnt-ancient-fiction-talk-about-feelings-rp) referenced in Pundit's blog post (http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2018/10/modern-literature-is-not-better-than.html) includes, describes its first example of "superior" modern fiction:
OTOH, if you look at Raymond Chandler's early novels, he would take 2-4 of his unrelated short stories from the pulp Black Mask, triple their length by adding lots and lots of description, and sort of half-assedly patch them together. Even though the resulting product would make little sense from a traditional mystery sort of view, they are good reads.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1061904He was most definitely NOT a Texan. It was stated over and again that he was "a gentleman of Virginia" from the period right after the Civil War.
Curiously though, John Carter was also apparently immortal, having stopped aging at 30 (even while on Earth) and apparently so old he couldn't remember his childhood.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1061868Telling people how they could run more awesome games is not gatekeeping. Telling people "they're fired from D&D" or to "Fuck off from the hobby" or that they need to be institutionalized for re-education therapy is Gatekeeping.
You're correct, you don't do that, which is commendable. One place you do share with them is redefining things to fit your narrative to achieve an agenda.
I've been complaining about dry and predictable story structure for years. The notion that rpgs should follow that or video game boss fight structures makes me nauseous. As for gate keeping, if you want to force people into your political and literary notions at the game table, I'll be happy to show you the door.
I think you can't pin all the trouble on the novel. The invention of writing, the printing press, and every improvement in writing since--also share in the blame.
When you are telling a story that you must memorize (more or less), there is a certain economy of form, and focus on the parts that grab interest. There is still "filler", but is of a different, more limited nature. The more options you have to plan and pad, the more someone will do so. It's no accident that the digital age saw yet another doubling down on the trend.
Vapid writing abhors a vacuum, as the "penny dreadfuls" demonstrated in Victorian England.
Quote from: S'mon;1061827I think the difference is that calling something a fairy tale means "We don't actually believe this stuff" AND "this is just a story, it doesn't say anything about the human condition". Myths have an element of truthiness that fairy tales lack in conception.
I may be wrong, but it seems easy to distinguish mythic films like Star Wars, Robocop and Mad Max II: The Road Warrior from fairy-tale films like Wizard of Oz, Dark Crystal & Legend.
I disagree. The peasants who told fairy tales genuinely believed such events could happen, and many fairy tales are about aspects of the human condition... particularly moral lessons.
Seriously, all three of the "fairy tale" films you cite are textbook examples of the Hero's Journey. For example, take the
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and
Jim Henson's Labyrinth. Dorothy and Sarah both get pulled into extraordinary circumstances, go on quests to restore a semblance of normality, make numerous friends along the way, overcome dangerous magical overlords, return home having learned from their experiences, then go on loads more adventures in the future.
I googled the difference and the best I could find on limited time was this:
https://mastersreview.com/literary-terms-legend-myth-and-fairy-tale/
https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-terms-myth-folklore-legend-735039
https://thepoeticsproject.com/2017/05/03/myths-legends-and-fairy-tales/
https://literarytransgressions.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/fairy-tale-friday-myth-vs-fairy-tales/
These do not really shed much light. The popular distinction between myth and fairy tale seems to be entirely arbitrary. As far as I can tell, fairy tales simply appear to be all the myths told after the inception of Christianity.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061953I disagree. The peasants who told fairy tales genuinely believed such events could happen, and many fairy tales are about aspects of the human condition... particularly moral lessons.
Seriously, all three of the "fairy tale" films you cite are textbook examples of the Hero's Journey. For example, take the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Jim Henson's Labyrinth. Dorothy and Sarah both get pulled into extraordinary circumstances, go on quests to restore a semblance of normality, make numerous friends along the way, overcome dangerous magical overlords, return home having learned from their experiences, then go on loads more adventures in the future.
I googled the difference and the best I could find on limited time was this:
https://mastersreview.com/literary-terms-legend-myth-and-fairy-tale/
https://www.thoughtco.com/defining-terms-myth-folklore-legend-735039
https://thepoeticsproject.com/2017/05/03/myths-legends-and-fairy-tales/
https://literarytransgressions.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/fairy-tale-friday-myth-vs-fairy-tales/
These do not really shed much light. The popular distinction between myth and fairy tale seems to be entirely arbitrary. As far as I can tell, fairy tales simply appear to be all the myths told after the inception of Christianity.
The term Fairy tale itself has taken quite a turn as well. At the present (and for some time) Fairy tale is almost synonymous with children's story. They were much darker in the past, some pretty brutal. I'm not sure at what point in time they changed, but the stories peasants told were not the nice stories with happy endings most of us grew up with. Those older versions are a lot closer to mythology.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1061904He was most definitely NOT a Texan. It was stated over and again that he was "a gentleman of Virginia" from the period right after the Civil War.
I know that, I was poking fun at the perception of Texas having a "He needed killin' " clause in addition to more typical self defense. John Carter definately believed in the "he needed killin' " philosophy, although to be fair that was usually turned out to be the case in the stories. The Martian cultures weren't exactly what one would call enlightened.
I was actually rather surprised by the writing, having heard for years how awful, sexist, racist and any other -ists you can think of that they are often accused of being. I didn't get that at all, for an author writing near the turn of the century Burroughs seems to have been pretty forward thinking in his attitudes. Almost a Star Trek like quality highlighting some of the BS attitudes common in his time.
There was a very clear message that people should be evaluated for their deeds, not their race, gender or social standing.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1061844I see what you did there.
Thank you. I'm surprised it took that long.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1061868Telling people how they could run more awesome games is not gatekeeping. Telling people "they're fired from D&D" or to "Fuck off from the hobby" or that they need to be institutionalized for re-education therapy is Gatekeeping.
Gatekeeping people for behaving like assholes to other players I can understand. I'm usually fine with your rants against lawncrappers, for example.
But I'm not convinced that there is an objective "more awesome" that is independent of players' taste. Do you really think that the people who like Fate, PbtA, and other indie games really would enjoy old-school more, and they're just deluding themselves about their preferences?
I think there should be modern-novel-like role-playing that some people enjoy, and mythic role-playing that some people enjoy, and there's nothing wrong with having both.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1061795The 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.
Dude, I love the Oz series! It is a very deliberate attempt to reinvent the fairy tale in a new, American style. Episodic chapters used to be a more common style when novels were first published chapter by chapter in magazines, I think. I'm disappointed that people only remember the movie - which was very good, but also very different from the book that inspired it. It is deliberately more action focused than some children's stories, as part of the fairy tale flavor. I approve of more myth and fairy tale based games - just that it should be seen as an awesome alternative rather than a fix to the problems of wrongly novel-based games.
I definitely agree that many fairy tales fit the Hero's Journey monomyth. They also tend to have a lesson that right action is rewarded. The Greek myths were much more about wrong action being punished!
Edit - one possible distinction perhaps - mythic heroes save the people/ the kingdom / the galaxy. Fairy tale heroes save themselves/ their cat. But obviously modern stuff like Wizard of Oz involves saving a kingdom. The old tales like Hansel & Gretel usually have lower stakes, a princess at most.
Quote from: S'mon;1061986I definitely agree that many fairy tales fit the Hero's Journey monomyth. They also tend to have a lesson that right action is rewarded. The Greek myths were much more about wrong action being punished!
Edit - one possible distinction perhaps - mythic heroes save the people/ the kingdom / the galaxy. Fairy tale heroes save themselves/ their cat. But obviously modern stuff like Wizard of Oz involves saving a kingdom. The old tales like Hansel & Gretel usually have lower stakes, a princess at most.
One of the oddities I noticed about fairy tales is that feudalism (http://donlehmanjr.com/Politics/politics%2001/politics%2001c.htm) seems entirely absent or exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Only royalty ever appears, never nobility. As a result, there is more royalty in fairy tales than there were nobility in Europe!
It is possible that this is actually a result of political ignorance (unless there was a plague or a war or natural disaster or a demographic shift or whatever, peasants generally never had a reason to leave their current place of residence and learn about the wider world) and that all mention of royalty is really referring to the local nobility who was effectively royalty as far as the peasants were concerned.
As far as the gender issues go, I find it difficult to swallow that anyone willing to accept that the Doctor completely transforms into an entirely different person once per season would also insist on that character displaying immutable physical characteristics, such as sex. It seems to me there's a serious disconnect there.
Also possibly gender related, I watched for the promised "catfight", but there was only some animal sounds.
Quote from: Zalman;1061995As far as the gender issues go, I find it difficult to swallow that anyone willing to accept that the Doctor completely transforms into an entirely different person once per season would also insist on that character displaying immutable physical characteristics, such as sex. It seems to me there's a serious disconnect there.
Also possibly gender related, I watched for the promised "catfight", but there was only some animal sounds.
Well for 50 years Time Lords/Gallifreyans appeared to have a fixed sex. So seems like a retcon to me.
Quote from: S'mon;1061986Edit - one possible distinction perhaps - mythic heroes save the people/ the kingdom / the galaxy. Fairy tale heroes save themselves/ their cat.
myths eternally btfo by faerie tales
My brother is an expert in an area of art history which I think has some relevance to this discussion.
In art history there are two major branches of thinking - what the artist meant and was thinking and feeling about their work is important to understanding the work; and the work speaks for itself while what the artist thought and felt are irrelevant to appreciating the work.
I can see some shades of that dispute reflected in Pundit's video. Novels which tell you what the character is thinking and feeling are apart from works which tell you the characters actions and let you decide their intended meaning, if any.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1061770Tilting at windmills again, Pundey?
I wish I could get through his videos. But I just don't find him all that engaging a speaker. There are quite a few YT personalities with that problem, The Quartering/Unsleeved Media/Jeremy Hambly being another off the top of my head.
But if I'm thinking correctly about what he means, then I would have to disagree. It's all part of our mythology. They way we write our stories is how we see the world, so of course it would change.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1061885I got a totally different vibe from the John Carter books, a much more upbeat one. My take away was he took care of the people with him and responded to people based on their actions, not who they were or what they looked like. In turn they became loyal companions. He only killed the things that needed killin (I'm sure he was a Texan, although don't believe it was explicitly stated).
Virginian. But even Carter cannot recall exactly where he came from. He was immortal before reaching Mars and has outlived generations.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1062016Willie the Duck: "Tilting at windmills again, Pundey?"
I wish I could get through his videos. But I just don't find him all that engaging a speaker. There are quite a few YT personalities with that problem, The Quartering/Unsleeved Media/Jeremy Hambly being another off the top of my head.
But if I'm thinking correctly about what he means, then I would have to disagree. It's all part of our mythology. They way we write our stories is how we see the world, so of course it would change.
Oh, I was just making a joke. Cervantes'
Don Quixote(
El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha) is often credited as the first modern novel.
... so you are saying we should draw from the tradition of slam poetry instead, right? :D
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1062028Oh, I was just making a joke. Cervantes' Don Quixote(El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha) is often credited as the first modern novel.
It's funny, because it's true.
Quote from: Toadmaster;1061971I know that, I was poking fun at the perception of Texas having a "He needed killin' " clause in addition to more typical self defense. John Carter definately believed in the "he needed killin' " philosophy, although to be fair that was usually turned out to be the case in the stories. The Martian cultures weren't exactly what one would call enlightened.
I was actually rather surprised by the writing, having heard for years how awful, sexist, racist and any other -ists you can think of that they are often accused of being. I didn't get that at all, for an author writing near the turn of the century Burroughs seems to have been pretty forward thinking in his attitudes. Almost a Star Trek like quality highlighting some of the BS attitudes common in his time.
There was a very clear message that people should be evaluated for their deeds, not their race, gender or social standing.
Although JC was very non-Trek in that he never, ever considered that he might be wrong in using violence to solve every problem.
Quote from: jhkim;1061974But I'm not convinced that there is an objective "more awesome" that is independent of players' taste.
Only time will tell. In general, I would agree with you, but there is a weird history of movies / books / songs that were popular at their time being forgotten and less popular ones becoming classics.
Quote from: jhkim;1061974I think there should be modern-novel-like role-playing that some people enjoy, and mythic role-playing that some people enjoy, and there's nothing wrong with having both.
As we live in the Golden Age of RPGs, I am quite sure the gazillion games on DriveThruRPG provide plenty of options for everyone across the novel to myth spectrum.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1062042Only time will tell. In general, I would agree with you, but there is a weird history of movies / books / songs that were popular at their time being forgotten and less popular ones becoming classics.
As we live in the Golden Age of RPGs, I am quite sure the gazillion games on DriveThruRPG provide plenty of options for everyone across the novel to myth spectrum.
And for things that were thought of as low brow trash to become thought of as highbrown and Full of Symbolism and Meaning as they age.
Quote from: jhkim;1061974Gatekeeping people for behaving like assholes to other players I can understand. I'm usually fine with your rants against lawncrappers, for example.
But I'm not convinced that there is an objective "more awesome" that is independent of players' taste. Do you really think that the people who like Fate, PbtA, and other indie games really would enjoy old-school more, and they're just deluding themselves about their preferences?
Would most of them probably enjoy old-school more? Probably not, but those aren't the people I'm talking to.
Quote from: Omega;1062019Virginian. But even Carter cannot recall exactly where he came from. He was immortal before reaching Mars and has outlived generations.
Did the stories ever explain this?