Greetings!
In reviewing all of the various campaign arguments and styles, I admit that I sometimes jump back and forth between favoring low fantasy humanocentrism and high fantasy mythology. On one hand, there is a whole lot of strengths to running a low fantasy humanocentric campaign. Furthermore, I often eye-rollingly lament the current deep trend of embracing fantastic zoo-like parties of rainbow hippos. So much of the style, approach, and presentation of these rainbow hippo parties is mind-numbingly absurd.
However, it must also honestly be said that throughout historical mythology, there is a powerful theme of high fantasy. Weird, fantastic animal races, and lots of human/animal and human/monster interbreeding going on. Sometimes it is unusual, but in many instances, it's everywhere. I've also found that in looking through much of the mythological roots and stories, most of the time the presentation of human/animal and human/monster hybrids honestly seems entirely awesome, cool, and very interesting! Embracing any number of them would seem to greatly enrich any campaign. Why are fantastic mutant hybrids cool and awesome in mythology, but the rainbow hippo parties are fucking stupid?
What do you think, friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
What specific fantastic mutant hybrids from mythology do you find engaging? That might help pin down why you like them.
Quote from: Pat on July 16, 2021, 03:57:48 PM
What specific fantastic mutant hybrids from mythology do you find engaging? That might help pin down why you like them.
Greetings!
Hey there Pat! Well, in mythology, there is virtually everything found--half demons, half dragons, half giants, angel-blooded or deva-blooded, half faeries, as well as a huge range of the animal hybrids, like Minotaurs, wolf-men, bear-men, insect people, and more. Achilles was believed to be descended from a Nymph, for another example. Historical mythology seems to embrace all of these varieties as being pretty common.
I just find though that if one embraces such, that such a dynamic works against a low-fantasy, humanocentric world model in some fairly strong ways. It seems to me that there is a definite tension and dissonance there.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You seem to be referencing a lot of Greek mythology, plus some biblical apocrypha and Hindu mythology. There are some similarities between them.
They don't feature races as much as they feature spiritual beings, or little gods. Achilles isn't wasn't born to a monster, rather his mother was the granddaughter of a Titan. He had divine blood in his veins. The minotaur is the child of a perfect bull created by Poseidon. The Nephilim are half-angels, perhaps half-giants, cursed and blessed, and above humanity in many ways. Many of the heroes of the Ramayana and Mahabharata are avatars of gods. These are all variants on a concept, perhaps best exemplified by the hero of Greek myth, who usually traces their lineage to a divine figure, thus explaining their superhuman feats via a supernal origin.
That makes race less about biology, and more about the characteristics of divinity that you inherit from specific parents. You're the son of Eros, or the granddaughter of Tethys, and your traits reflect their nature rather than some kind of species.
Personaly I prefer humancentrism with 'alien' spikes. The other (wether good or bad) stands out so much more when there is a well known mundanity.
A dragon is scarier when they are rare.
In party compositions I recomend that only 1-2 out of 5-6 players are allowed to play hybrids or the like. Makes them stand out.
In a humanocentric world I think that the average adventuring party would most likely be represented by 4 Hobbits, an Elf, a Dwarf, a home brew Human and a Human.
For me, the difference is that the mythological ones are typical characters while the game "characters" are often not--especially the way the game presents them. This is aside from simple questions of stereotypes (which can be useful as a starting place) and more into the problems of turning a single instance into a character "thing".
For example, the Medusa is character in the story. A medusa is a thing. Aragorn is a character. Every D&D ranger having spells so that they can do the "hands of the healer" part is a thing. Even Drizzt as originally conceived is a character. Every later ranger dual-wielding is a thing.
The same thing happens to mythological creatures, even when they were kind of a "thing" in their original incarnation. Your random talking rabbit in a fable isn't much of a character, but it has little elements of character coming out.
It's also why I don't mind having such creatures in my game when they are embedded into the setting and being played by the kind of players that enjoy that mythological aspect. Because they aren't stuck on the sophomoric, Joseph Campbell, deconstruct everything into types view of myth. Instead, they can use the animal as a launching point in which to build a character that goes and does something.
Many long words.
Humans. Not much magic. Is way to go. Ugh.
Quote from: Shasarak on July 16, 2021, 06:12:39 PM
In a humanocentric world I think that the average adventuring party would most likely be represented by 4 Hobbits, an Elf, a Dwarf, a home brew Human and a Human.
Eh, I think it lacks an angel (don't worry it will be in human disguise as to not go against the aesthetic).
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on July 16, 2021, 09:03:34 PM
Quote from: Shasarak on July 16, 2021, 06:12:39 PM
In a humanocentric world I think that the average adventuring party would most likely be represented by 4 Hobbits, an Elf, a Dwarf, a home brew Human and a Human.
Eh, I think it lacks an angel (don't worry it will be in human disguise as to not go against the aesthetic).
Thats just a DM PC
Quote from: SHARK on July 16, 2021, 03:53:58 PMWhy are fantastic mutant hybrids cool and awesome in mythology, but the rainbow hippo parties are (effing) stupid?
I think it's probably because one of the critical things that separates modern fantasy, even high-powered/high-magic fantasy, from mythological epics is that the myths don't for the most part operate on practical logic. The Minotaur is a miraculous wonder born of a god's power and a woman's desire; a whole race of minotaurs starts inviting atmosphere-destroying questions like, do female minotaurs have udders rather than breasts? Do minotaurs have multiple stomachs? One of my favourite passages in the Chronicles of Narnia comes from
The Silver Chair, where in the denouement chapters, the Earth children Eustace and Jill are told something they'd never thought of about Centaurs:
Quote"Why, Son of Adam, don't you understand? A Centaur has a man-stomach and a horse-stomach. And of course both want breakfast. So first of all he has porridge and pavenders and kidneys and bacon and omelette and cold ham and toast and marmalade and coffee and beer. And after that he attends to the horse part of himself by grazing for an hour or so and finishing up with a hot mash, some oats, and a bag of sugar. That's why it's such a serious thing to ask a Centaur to stay for the weekend. A very serious thing indeed."
So the trick, I think, to bring high-fantastical elements into an essentially humanocentric world is to always keep in mind:
1) There has to be an interplay between the mythic resonance and the practical logic of the concepts.
2) The mythic elements always have to be scarce enough that their presence doesn't change the basic equations of daily life for most.
3) The practical logic should never be taken far enough that the myths lose their resonance. Dragons in Westeros are huge, mysterious and scarce, and are critical to the plot; dragons in Harry Potter are basically just exotic animals and incidental curiosities.
The rainbow hippos become stupid mostly because they disregard mythic resonance and meaning in favour of the exoticism of mere novelty, because the philosophy is to exalt every individual PC as something unique and unprecedented.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 16, 2021, 10:44:00 PM
Quote from: SHARK on July 16, 2021, 03:53:58 PMWhy are fantastic mutant hybrids cool and awesome in mythology, but the rainbow hippo parties are (effing) stupid?
I think it's probably because one of the critical things that separates modern fantasy, even high-powered/high-magic fantasy, from mythological epics is that the myths don't for the most part operate on practical logic. The Minotaur is a miraculous wonder born of a god's power and a woman's desire; a whole race of minotaurs starts inviting atmosphere-destroying questions like, do female minotaurs have udders rather than breasts? Do minotaurs have multiple stomachs? One of my favourite passages in the Chronicles of Narnia comes from The Silver Chair, where in the denouement chapters, the Earth children Eustace and Jill are told something they'd never thought of about Centaurs:
Quote"Why, Son of Adam, don't you understand? A Centaur has a man-stomach and a horse-stomach. And of course both want breakfast. So first of all he has porridge and pavenders and kidneys and bacon and omelette and cold ham and toast and marmalade and coffee and beer. And after that he attends to the horse part of himself by grazing for an hour or so and finishing up with a hot mash, some oats, and a bag of sugar. That's why it's such a serious thing to ask a Centaur to stay for the weekend. A very serious thing indeed."
So the trick, I think, to bring high-fantastical elements into an essentially humanocentric world is to always keep in mind:
1) There has to be an interplay between the mythic resonance and the practical logic of the concepts.
2) The mythic elements always have to be scarce enough that their presence doesn't change the basic equations of daily life for most.
3) The practical logic should never be taken far enough that the myths lose their resonance. Dragons in Westeros are huge, mysterious and scarce, and are critical to the plot; dragons in Harry Potter are basically just exotic animals and incidental curiosities.
The rainbow hippos become stupid mostly because they disregard mythic resonance and meaning in favour of the exoticism of mere novelty, because the philosophy is to exalt every individual PC as something unique and unprecedented.
Greetings!
Very true, Stephen Tannhauser! I agree. The quest for a shallow kind of exoticism seems to almost be a purpose to itself. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
There are many genres of fantasy. Many. Pick one.
Hey SHARK, good topic.
We've played loads of rpgs over the years and we've seen .... well probably not everything but we've seen loads of race....er lineages.
I, personally, don't mind when WotC would introduce a new playable race but the problem is that then the player's think since it's official then it's playable in the DM's sandbox. Now I know that's a generalization, but the anecdotes are too common to ignore. I know it's not just a generational thing cause player's all throughout my time with rpgs have wanted to play 'the coolnest' option. I mean I remember the letters in Dragon about the Drow.
The thing is, there is no cohesion in official WotC products. It's just a toolkit. That's not always a bad thing but for me it really boils down to a gamemaster that sets the limits and sticks with them, despite their best friend wanting to play 'the coolnest' thing.
Quote from: SHARK on July 16, 2021, 03:53:58 PM
Greetings!
In reviewing all of the various campaign arguments and styles, I admit that I sometimes jump back and forth between favoring low fantasy humanocentrism and high fantasy mythology. On one hand, there is a whole lot of strengths to running a low fantasy humanocentric campaign. Furthermore, I often eye-rollingly lament the current deep trend of embracing fantastic zoo-like parties of rainbow hippos. So much of the style, approach, and presentation of these rainbow hippo parties is mind-numbingly absurd.
However, it must also honestly be said that throughout historical mythology, there is a powerful theme of high fantasy. Weird, fantastic animal races, and lots of human/animal and human/monster interbreeding going on. Sometimes it is unusual, but in many instances, it's everywhere. I've also found that in looking through much of the mythological roots and stories, most of the time the presentation of human/animal and human/monster hybrids honestly seems entirely awesome, cool, and very interesting! Embracing any number of them would seem to greatly enrich any campaign. Why are fantastic mutant hybrids cool and awesome in mythology, but the rainbow hippo parties are fucking stupid?
What do you think, friends?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
There is this game... festooned with Red Hair... a beaten stepchild among the siblings of its fellow game-brethren. It speaks of these ideas you crave, forgotten and unsung.
Lo! Let me tell you of Talislanta. Where there are chromatically tattooed warrior clones, demons and creatures of alien myth. And NO ELVES (and no humans).
I know the feeling;
In my case I use D6 fantasy, which as you may know did it's trial by fire as the rules for star wars weg...and so mechanically, it can support huge battles, ships mauling each other, and aerial combat...all great elements that go unused or are used to a lesser effect if I go low fantasy. The rules kind of go to waste w/o aerial mounts or airships or huge battles or anything like that, all of which is typically out of fashion for most low fantasy games except maybe the large battle part.
I could do arthurian or conan or anything like that really, but unless somebody has a giant bat or something a fantasy dogfight (which the rules can easily handle) is largely out of place. So I waffle between something more medieval authentic like arthurian, and some mos eisly cantina looking mystara stuff.
Even hippos can be alright. I rather liked the Giff in Spelljammer. I can accept pretty random combinations of races in a game as long as it's baked into the setting. I want a relatively small number of races (less than 10) with a history of their interactions, current geopolitical situation, current attitudes towards each other, psychology of the races, and so on, all developed in a logical manner and with the consequences of all racial oddness reflected in the setting. I read a Sanderson book with some _very_ odd races recently, humans that can take themselves apart, halflings that turn into giants in daytime, zombies animated by worms in their bodies, and so on, and it worked because the logical consequences of the races were reflected in the setting. On the other hand, dropping a dragonborn into the Hobbit isn't going to work for me, even though it's not nearly as weird as the others I mentioned, unless the place and consequence of dragonborn are fully developed in the setting.
If you're interested in a bronze/early Iron Age High-Fantasy of insane proportions, check out The Prince of Nothing (it's two trilogies), by R. Scott Bakker.
It's Tolkien and Lovecraft had a baby and taught it to read with Dune and Aristotle, then tossed it into the Tyrannid swarm to learn to survive.
Epic. Dark. Disturbing. Glorious. It's spoiled me on fantasy books for the last few years. Erickson, Abercrombie - seem laughably comical now. Sanderson? By comparison Sanderson reads like like a glass of water with a dash of milk tossed into it, vs. Bakker work being Everclear.
It's definitely not for everyone, but it's hard to take your eyes off it once you start dancing.
And it's mostly human - but the non-human stuff in there is dazzling. His "elves" (analogs really) are *terrifying* and glorious. They're the Anti-Tolkien Elves - they fill you with wonder and awe as well as terror.
I usually like creatures and "races" to based on something in "real" mythology. Even if it's just a vague link, they are sort of anchored in something that people actually believe or used to believe in. This is one of several reasons why the "Fantastic Beasts" movie didn't engage me; most of the creatures seemed completely made up rather than something that grew out of old cultures and tales. Over time, I think I also more prefer the mythical beings to remain vague and spiritual. For instance, if I were to create a game including elves today, they most likely would not be a player character race. they would probably be hidden folk/spirits that you could make offerings to, that would put a curse on you if you pissed them off, and that would often appear as beautiful, magical, and/or seductive people.
It could be that in ancient/medieval times, "weird" monsters were either individuals (a dragon, wyrm, chimera, etc) or far away (a tribe of one-legged giants, for instance) so the weirdness was always matched against a local normality. So dragons do exist, but they're rare and they affect their immediate environment in specific ways (blasted villages, bones, scorched forests) and the far-away things (said tribe of one-legged giants) are only known in rumours and perhaps the odd item supposed to belong to them. This is true both in low fantasy (think dragonslayer) and high-fantasy (dragonlance?).
On the other hand, a party of 6 rainbow-rhinos walking through the a world where this is normal is completely different. There is no difference between them being actual beast-people and being people dressed up in fancy dress. I think this might be the essence of your problem - in legend, the weird creatures had effects on the region - even in high fantasy. A party of fey wandering through a high fantasy world would be seen as an omen, or possibly a precursor to invasion. In a modern game of D&D is treated as a normal thing. Start treating them as abnormal - especially in high fantasy - and maybe you'll remove the dissonance?