Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1072954What rhetoric would that be? The car crash blotted out my memory of the preceding months and I was doped up for weeks afterward.

As far as I can remember, I have only a few big problems with the overall monster design. 1) the fluff is usually boring, 2) there are tons of redundant monsters, and 3) there are arbitrary and unnecessary taxonomy rules.

Presented for your not-so-amusement.

The criticism I usually hear is that D&D strips supernatural beings from any myth/folklore and turn them into pure cannon fodder. Which is reasonable, but then it was never it's author intention to make it about folklore or culture, instead it's a game of dungeon delving and monster killing.

See Runequest (with Glorantha) for a better option in the "assigning folkloric meaning to the supernatural" thing.

D&D is an entry level RPG. Many people started off role playing with D&D and did so at a young age. There are numerous mature myths that could be included, but would that necessarily be good for the game or the hobby? Probably not. If some twelve year old's mom opens up his D&D books and reads a bunch of perverted sex stuff in there, then she'll likely oppose him playing and she'll tell her soccer mom friends too. D&D still isn't really mainstream and fringe hobbies are judged more harshly than mainstream ones for objectionable material.

If a gaming group wants to include all of the bizarre, mature, sexual, and dark elements of traditional myth in a D&D game, then it wouldn't be that hard for them. The DM could still use the rules presented in the books and change them from PG into R or even X through role playing alone. It's not hard for people to turn PG into R, but if a book has obviously mature material in it, it will turn off a lot of people from the game and the hobby, including some who may want to include some more mature elements in a game down the road.

Also, RPG's are a specific sort of hobby and some myths lend themselves better to being incorporated into a D&D game than others. A myth that ancient people used to teach their children about pridefulness or the dangers of the forest aren't necessarily going to be applicable. In fact, many myths changed over time or varied from place to place, look at how diverse vampire myths are. So players should feel no obligation to remain true to myths, they should alter them if needed in such a way to maximize the fun of their group - just as authors and storytellers of the past altered preexisting myths to create new ones that better suit d their needs.

Quote from: Itachi;1072960The criticism I usually hear is that D&D strips supernatural beings from any myth/folklore and turn them into pure cannon fodder. Which is reasonable, but then it was never it's author intention to make it about folklore or culture, instead it's a game of dungeon delving and monster killing.

See Runequest (with Glorantha) for a better option in the "assigning folkloric meaning to the supernatural" thing.

Pretty much. While one can go into more depth on the monsters, and that was the impetus for the Ravenloft module, D&D's hack and loot game style isn't very condusive to an exploration of the original myths and legends of every creepie-crawlie snuffling around in a dungeon. Adding it is great, criticizing D&D for lacking it is a serious misunderstanding of what D&D was created to be in the first place.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072967Pretty much. While one can go into more depth on the monsters, and that was the impetus for the Ravenloft module, D&D's hack and loot game style isn't very condusive to an exploration of the original myths and legends of every creepie-crawlie snuffling around in a dungeon. Adding it is great, criticizing D&D for lacking it is a serious misunderstanding of what D&D was created to be in the first place.

Greetings!

Yeah, I love D&D. I also understand that the game was perhaps originally created to be a machine-gun like hack-fest of mowing everything down and plundering the corpses. That didn't go over so well with the wife, and other women of my group, particularly. They like to talk to everything. They want to make friends, and find out why so and so the Dryad is sad, and what happened to her boyfriend, and how can they help the Unicorn feel better about his new box of Fruit Loops. LOL. So, yeah, I had to add more depth and detail.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072955Presented for your not-so-amusement.

Nope, I do not recall. I think I was struggling with another bout of depression before the car hit me, so I can understand if I said a few things that pissed you off. I am sorry. Please do not keep holding that against me. I should have already suffered more than enough to make it up to you for life.

Moving on... Do you disagree with the three points I made in this current thread specifically?

Quote from: ShieldWife;1072964D&D is an entry level RPG. Many people started off role playing with D&D and did so at a young age. There are numerous mature myths that could be included, but would that necessarily be good for the game or the hobby? Probably not. If some twelve year old's mom opens up his D&D books and reads a bunch of perverted sex stuff in there, then she'll likely oppose him playing and she'll tell her soccer mom friends too. D&D still isn't really mainstream and fringe hobbies are judged more harshly than mainstream ones for objectionable material.

If a gaming group wants to include all of the bizarre, mature, sexual, and dark elements of traditional myth in a D&D game, then it wouldn't be that hard for them. The DM could still use the rules presented in the books and change them from PG into R or even X through role playing alone. It's not hard for people to turn PG into R, but if a book has obviously mature material in it, it will turn off a lot of people from the game and the hobby, including some who may want to include some more mature elements in a game down the road.

Also, RPG's are a specific sort of hobby and some myths lend themselves better to being incorporated into a D&D game than others. A myth that ancient people used to teach their children about pridefulness or the dangers of the forest aren't necessarily going to be applicable. In fact, many myths changed over time or varied from place to place, look at how diverse vampire myths are. So players should feel no obligation to remain true to myths, they should alter them if needed in such a way to maximize the fun of their group - just as authors and storytellers of the past altered preexisting myths to create new ones that better suit d their needs.

I agree with this. I would add that if you are changing an iconic myth so much that it becomes unrecognizable, you should not use the same name... especially if it appears in dictionaries. For example, do not call an armored catoblepas a "gorgon." That is needlessly confusing to anyone who reads even a little about Greek myth, or watches the youtube explanation of Greek gorgons.

More importantly, monsters don't need unique foreign-sounding names. It gets tiresome pretty quickly when "mountain ogre," "cyclops donkey centaur," "evil eye" and "astral phase spider" are already perfectly serviceable and more informative names. Assuming the party wizard even learns them through a knowledge check.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1072977Nope, I do not recall. I think I was struggling with another bout of depression before the car hit me, so I can understand if I said a few things that pissed you off. I am sorry. Please do not keep holding that against me. I should have already suffered more than enough to make it up to you for life.

Dude. Don't try to put that kind of passive aggressive persecution guilt trip on me. It's a goddamn message board where we're arguing about elves and math. Lighten the fuck up.

QuoteMoving on... Do you disagree with the three points I made in this current thread specifically?

Not so far. If, as you say, you were in a bad state of mind at the time, I'm willing to back down on the topic.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072981Dude. Don't try to put that kind of passive aggressive persecution guilt trip on me. It's a goddamn message board where we're arguing about elves and math. Lighten the fuck up.



Not so far. If, as you say, you were in a bad state of mind at the time, I'm willing to back down on the topic.

Sorry. Sometimes I get so paranoid that I think Fate threw a car at me for having arguments on the internet from the wrong side.

I wasn't just in a bad state of mind. I was wrong, I think.

If I understand right, the disagreement had something to do with "cultural appropriation." I do not think D&D/Pathfinder can be guilty of that, since the monsters had all their cultural relevance scrubbed. There are no indigenous people in fantasyland to my knowledge, so the cultural monster showing up cannot accidentally send an offensive message about their culture.

Critique #1 on my list, indeed the topic of this thread, is in some ways the logical opposite of that. I critiqued certain monsters for scrubbing too much of their cultural and metaphorical context and systematizing so much to point where they become bland generic murder machines.

But speaking of monsters taken from cultural mythologies, I think D&D makes a mistake by systematizing absolutely everything and making no allowance for anything that doesn't fit the pigeonholes. Reading a book on West African folklore reveals stories of jinn with three heads, six arms and one leg... but D&D forces genies into a very tiny box.

I watched the cartoon "That Time I was Reincarnated as a Slime," which introduces very interesting ideas for world building which I cannot use in the game without defying the games' own baked-in world building. For example, the show's ogres are nothing like D&D ogres (the protagonist actually comments on this) and evolve into ogre mages if you give them names.

I think it makes more sense to organize and design monsters by their archetype, like what Changeling: The Lost does with its six character classes representing essentially every mythical and fairytale creature. That's part of my critique #2.

Quote from: jhkim;1072891It's not you per se. It's that there have been previous arguments over BoxCrayonTales' criticisms of monster handling in D&D.

On the general topic, I like fairy tale monsters - but I'm also good with more simulation-like modern-fantasy style monsters. I'm not so sure about the two mixing.

In D&D, I usually take things to be Tolkienesque fantasy style.

Greetings!

Thank you, Jhkim! I appreciate the explanation!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: ShieldWife;1072964D&D is an entry level RPG. Many people started off role playing with D&D and did so at a young age. There are numerous mature myths that could be included, but would that necessarily be good for the game or the hobby? Probably not. If some twelve year old's mom opens up his D&D books and reads a bunch of perverted sex stuff in there, then she'll likely oppose him playing and she'll tell her soccer mom friends too. D&D still isn't really mainstream and fringe hobbies are judged more harshly than mainstream ones for objectionable material.

If a gaming group wants to include all of the bizarre, mature, sexual, and dark elements of traditional myth in a D&D game, then it wouldn't be that hard for them. The DM could still use the rules presented in the books and change them from PG into R or even X through role playing alone. It's not hard for people to turn PG into R, but if a book has obviously mature material in it, it will turn off a lot of people from the game and the hobby, including some who may want to include some more mature elements in a game down the road.

Also, RPG's are a specific sort of hobby and some myths lend themselves better to being incorporated into a D&D game than others. A myth that ancient people used to teach their children about pridefulness or the dangers of the forest aren't necessarily going to be applicable. In fact, many myths changed over time or varied from place to place, look at how diverse vampire myths are. So players should feel no obligation to remain true to myths, they should alter them if needed in such a way to maximize the fun of their group - just as authors and storytellers of the past altered preexisting myths to create new ones that better suit d their needs.

Greetings!

Interesting, Shieldwife! I see your point. I agree, many of the real-world folklore presentations of various creatures--often loaded with implications of sex, slaughter, human sacrifice, and devouring humans--wouldn't go over well with your typical "soccer mom".

I just think as an *adult*--reading through ancient myths and folklore, such creatures are far more intriguing than what I term as the "Disneyfied" presentation of such creatures in the various Monster Manuals. Oftentimes, the presentations in the Monster Manuals can seem to be rather bland, you know? I'm not really critiquing the D&D books, as opposed to being impressed by the variety, depth, and craziness of the actual mythical depictions in the folklore itself. I think it is pretty neat that there is a lot more going on there with many such creatures as seen in the sources.

As far as the original intentions of the D&D game, well, as many people have continued playing well after becoming adults, merely having creatures just be constant machine-gun fodder becomes dull and limited after awhile, and people often want more depth and *gasp*...."story" involved with their campaigns. I think it is cool that the real world mythologies provide lots of odd details and elements, such as you mentioned, that can add depth and dimension to encounters and cultures within the game, beyond the bare framework provided in the Monster Manuals.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1072991Sorry. Sometimes I get so paranoid that I think Fate threw a car at me for having arguments on the internet from the wrong side.

We cool. Consider it dropped.

QuoteI wasn't just in a bad state of mind. I was wrong, I think.

If I understand right, the disagreement had something to do with "cultural appropriation." I do not think D&D/Pathfinder can be guilty of that, since the monsters had all their cultural relevance scrubbed. There are no indigenous people in fantasyland to my knowledge, so the cultural monster showing up cannot accidentally send an offensive message about their culture.

Critique #1 on my list, indeed the topic of this thread, is in some ways the logical opposite of that. I critiqued certain monsters for scrubbing too much of their cultural and metaphorical context and systematizing so much to point where they become bland generic murder machines.

But speaking of monsters taken from cultural mythologies, I think D&D makes a mistake by systematizing absolutely everything and making no allowance for anything that doesn't fit the pigeonholes. Reading a book on West African folklore reveals stories of jinn with three heads, six arms and one leg... but D&D forces genies into a very tiny box.

I watched the cartoon "That Time I was Reincarnated as a Slime," which introduces very interesting ideas for world building which I cannot use in the game without defying the games' own baked-in world building. For example, the show's ogres are nothing like D&D ogres (the protagonist actually comments on this) and evolve into ogre mages if you give them names.

I think it makes more sense to organize and design monsters by their archetype, like what Changeling: The Lost does with its six character classes representing essentially every mythical and fairytale creature. That's part of my critique #2.

And that's the beauty of RPGs. You can use as little or as much of the baked in setting stuff as you like. For example, I detest the changed they made to the Dark Sun setting in later expansions. I play post-Kalak, and dump all of the later junk. (And WOTC kinda validated that approach with their Dark Sun reboot for 4th edition)
Seriously, make a setting of your own, with your approach to monster mythology. That's what Hickman and Weis did and it created the Ravenloft setting.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072998And that's the beauty of RPGs. You can use as little or as much of the baked in setting stuff as you like. For example, I detest the changed they made to the Dark Sun setting in later expansions. I play post-Kalak, and dump all of the later junk. (And WOTC kinda validated that approach with their Dark Sun reboot for 4th edition)

At the end they really managed to make a mess of a decent setting.  It was the fault of the novels, I'm sure.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1072998We cool. Consider it dropped.



And that's the beauty of RPGs. You can use as little or as much of the baked in setting stuff as you like. For example, I detest the changed they made to the Dark Sun setting in later expansions. I play post-Kalak, and dump all of the later junk. (And WOTC kinda validated that approach with their Dark Sun reboot for 4th edition)
Seriously, make a setting of your own, with your approach to monster mythology. That's what Hickman and Weis did and it created the Ravenloft setting.

Greetings!

You know, I liked Dark Sun. That has to be one of the most original campaign worlds ever produced. I own many of the supplements and books for the world. Great stuff, Ratman! I remember noticing something going wrong with it though, Ratman. I was running my own campaign world at the time, so I didn't pay that much attention as time went on.

How did they manage to fuck up Dark Sun though, brother?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

They killed of most the bad guys, for one.