I've been using Twitter lately and it has been a mixed bag. But this last controversy showed up so much in my feed that I feel I had to share this. Let me know what you think.
---
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-mythic-underworld-controversy-and.html
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong, THAT FITS IN A TWEET.
- Eric Diaz, paraphrasing H. L. Mencken and probably repeating someone else.
If you don't use Twitter/X, you might have missed this (count yourself lucky), but there has been a Mythic Underworld "controversy" lately, with people pointing out that whoever doesn't understand the concept is a fool, lacks imagination or worse.
Conversely, there might have been people who claimed the opposite - dungeons that make no sense are dumb and people are dumb to use them - although I haven't seem many.
Obliviously, I disagree with both viewpoints.
But what is "The Mythic Underworld"?
I talked briefly about this when I was discussing Darkest Dungeon:
Since the beginning of RPGs, dungeons have been built in two different (and somewhat antagonistic) structures.
In the first, the dungeon is a dreamlike and almost inexplicable place, containing dragons bigger than the tunnels would allow and creatures that have no obvious ways to feed themselves - as if they came from a nightmare. [This is what people call "The Mythic Underworld"]
In the second structure, the dungeon was created for a reason, and the creatures that live there are part of a (somewhat) coherent ecosystem ("Gygaxian naturalism").
In DD, the dungeons fit into the first model, but the game makes some concessions to the second, with aquatic creatures in the most flooded environments and mushroom-men living in the caverns.
The lesson here is that even in the unexplained environments of a nightmare, having some thread of rationality is useful in giving players some chance to prepare themselves adequately to face the challenges that lie ahead. If there was no predictability, a huge part of the "preparation of resources" phase would be lost, since there is no way to choose the best tools if there is no clue as to what is to come.
As you can see, despite the tension between two ideas, both can be used in most campaigns, and there is even some middle ground to be found (maybe we could call this "thematic dungeons").
The problem with some of these X posts is people tend to repeat talking points without explanation, reflection or nuance. Sometimes I see the same user say the same thing (with different phrasing, memes, etc.) ten times in the same day rather than addressing any issues, questions or nuance.
The same reasoning applies to other twitter "controversies", BTW: Tolkien x Howard, Overprep x Zero prep, Homebrew x RAW, 1:1 time, etc. I might address some in the future, but "you can have both" or "it has pros and cons" would suit most "debates".
I believe the algorithm encourages this behavior.
In addition, X is sub-optimal for long conversations. Any blog, forum or chat allows for more back and forth with fewer clicks.
The Mythic Underworld is not a black and white issue. It is an interesting concept/tool to build your dungeons.
One big problem nobody addresses is that many people in X use the "mythic underworld" as a justification for nonsensical dungeons that are randomly generated.
And, while there is nothing wrong with that, in my own experience I have found that random rooms with skeletons then goblins then giant bats are not "mythic" but boring and cliched. It is fine if you like them, but I don't think my preference for things a that make a little more sense - ecologically, architecturally, or at least thematically - signifies a lack of imagination.
In fact, randomly generated dungeons are a SEPARATE issue. You can certainly have "mythic underworld" dungeons that aren't generate randomly.
In other words: why it's such a hotly debated topic lately? Only because people like to debate over X.
My opinion?
There are no "sides" of this issue, one can have either or both, and it is ultimately a matter of taste.
There are lot of other interesting aspects BOTH to mythic underworld and dungeon ecologies (probably deserving a much longer post in each case), and most D&D campaigns need both the explained and the unexplained to function.
The name of the game is "Dungeons and Dragons" not "Barrista's and Basements"
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 19, 2024, 09:31:37 AMBut what is "The Mythic Underworld"?
I talked briefly about this when I was discussing Darkest Dungeon:
Since the beginning of RPGs, dungeons have been built in two different (and somewhat antagonistic) structures.
In the first, the dungeon is a dreamlike and almost inexplicable place, containing dragons bigger than the tunnels would allow and creatures that have no obvious ways to feed themselves - as if they came from a nightmare. [This is what people call "The Mythic Underworld"]
In the second structure, the dungeon was created for a reason, and the creatures that live there are part of a (somewhat) coherent ecosystem ("Gygaxian naturalism").
In DD, the dungeons fit into the first model, but the game makes some concessions to the second, with aquatic creatures in the most flooded environments and mushroom-men living in the caverns.
The lesson here is that even in the unexplained environments of a nightmare, having some thread of rationality is useful in giving players some chance to prepare themselves adequately to face the challenges that lie ahead. If there was no predictability, a huge part of the "preparation of resources" phase would be lost, since there is no way to choose the best tools if there is no clue as to what is to come.
As you can see, despite the tension between two ideas, both can be used in most campaigns, and there is even some middle ground to be found (maybe we could call this "thematic dungeons").
I'd take the position that the second approach is going to be superior in the majority of cases, but like you said, it's kind of a distinction without a difference. A good "mythic underworld" is still going to have a logic or explanation for why it is the way it is. Darkest Dungeon would actually be an example of that, since it does have a backstory justification for the presence of each of the various monster types. The dungeon geography is a little nonsensical but the game gets by on that because the way it's presented is more abstract.
I think the only reason this is a conversation is because some people use the "mythic underworld" idea as a shield, when what they'd really like to say is "it's a game, and big dungeons full of monsters are fun".
Conversation on X and dumpster fires have a lot in common. Just treat it as a cheap form of entertainment.
Not sure what your thesis is here. That debates on #Twitter are pointless? That there's debate on where the balance between concrete/abstract elements in worldbuilding is? That a coherent world in which cause and effect can be calculated to some degree is preferable to LOL random encounters?
Quote from: Anon Adderlan on August 19, 2024, 12:49:44 PMNot sure what your thesis is here. That debates on #Twitter are pointless? That there's debate on where the balance between concrete/abstract elements in worldbuilding is? That a coherent world in which cause and effect can be calculated to some degree is preferable to LOL random encounters?
I wrote this as a reaction to a Twitter controversy, but you're right, I think:
- Debates on #Twitter are mostly pointless
- A coherent world in which cause and effect can be calculated to some degree is preferable to LOL random encounters
- Mythic Underworld is not the same as LOL random, nor it is the only way to play the game
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 19, 2024, 11:59:38 AMI think the only reason this is a conversation is because some people use the "mythic underworld" idea as a shield, when what they'd really like to say is "it's a game, and big dungeons full of monsters are fun".
I think you got a point there.
Greetings!
I have been using "Mythic Underworld" dungeons in my campaigns for years now. "Gygaxian Naturalism" is of course a useful and essential foundation--but building from that, and embracing a "Mythic Underworld" really makes things interesting. Embracing the "Mythic Underworld" serves as a kind of dark, Pagan link to a shadowy, heroic past of magic, gods, and monsters. The "Mythic Underworld" in dungeons is where the membrane that separates the mortal world from the supernatural world is thinnest, and most permeable. The "Mythic Underworld" is almost a kind of sentience of its own, stretching forth tentacles of will to constantly push against the boundaries and laws of the material universe, seeking to tear holes and gateways into which the Otherworld may flow into us like a great river, transforming what we know to be reality into a chaotic, mind-blasting nightmare of degeneracy, fire, and chomping teeth.
The deeper Adventurers go into the dungeon, the more Chaotic the entire environment can become.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You're forgetting the third type: living/artificial dungeon. Here the dungeon is actually designed to be a dungeon, with spawn points and the like rather than an actual ecology. I see this type used in dungeon management sims and East Asian comics a lot.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on August 19, 2024, 11:03:42 AMThe name of the game is "Dungeons and Dragons" not "Barrista's and Basements"
Bigot, it is called "Barrista's and Buggerers, 6E"
A dungeon that appears incoherent or nonsensical may just appear so because the in setting builders of that dungeon think so differently and alien to what is common that the first step for adventurers may be to understand the thought processes of the builders before being able to complete the dungeon fully. This approach would satisfy both the "Mythic Underworld" and "Gygaxian Naturalism" schools of thought.
"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek." ― Joseph Campbell.
Not sure if he is still relevant or has been cancelled or something, but once upon a time he was the authority on mythology.
Quote from: JeremyR on August 19, 2024, 05:40:27 PM"The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek." ― Joseph Campbell.
Not sure if he is still relevant or has been cancelled or something, but once upon a time he was the authority on mythology.
Lot's of both jealous and inferior "sociologists" took their pot-shots at Campbell, for his Jungian roots and for his portrayal of some cultures in a manner that didn't suit the prevailing "narratives." But I've never seen anyone approach his level of understanding or explanation, so, at least to me, he still remains the master...
Something alot of people forget is that dragons in D&D are actually not super huge and can often fit through the average 10x10 hallway.
White dragons are a measly 24' long. Blacks are 30', Greens 36', Blues 42, and the mighty Red dragon is just 48' long.
That changed some from 2e on and the push has been to make them ever bigger.
Quote from: SHARK on August 19, 2024, 01:50:52 PMGreetings!
I have been using "Mythic Underworld" dungeons in my campaigns for years now. "Gygaxian Naturalism" is of course a useful and essential foundation--but building from that, and embracing a "Mythic Underworld" really makes things interesting. Embracing the "Mythic Underworld" serves as a kind of dark, Pagan link to a shadowy, heroic past of magic, gods, and monsters. The "Mythic Underworld" in dungeons is where the membrane that separates the mortal world from the supernatural world is thinnest, and most permeable. The "Mythic Underworld" is almost a kind of sentience of its own, stretching forth tentacles of will to constantly push against the boundaries and laws of the material universe, seeking to tear holes and gateways into which the Otherworld may flow into us like a great river, transforming what we know to be reality into a chaotic, mind-blasting nightmare of degeneracy, fire, and chomping teeth.
The deeper Adventurers go into the dungeon, the more Chaotic the entire environment can become.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
One or two open portals within the dungeon, over time; could easily account for the presence of gnarly inhabitants. They could also, over time; restock the dungeon.
"A wizard did it".
We all fall back on this sometimes, especially if its a published module I find, but I prefer the vulcan dungeon where all is logical and makes sense, in fact, half the fun for me as DM is making the damned thing make sense and watching players grok that on a subconcious level at some point during their run through..."the drain grates appear on the eastern end of the structure at regular intervals, we can probably access that pipe and bypass half these rooms..."
Yes gentleman this drain pipe "cafeteria" is a shortcut...but also pretty popular with things that like to drink water.
I am presently charged with sewing together a campaign using mostly osric but with becmi ability score chart, weapon mastery, domain/stronghold rules, war machine ect...which must be set in castellan keep in the grand duchy of karemeikos and which must make use of modified maps of the ruins of undermountain as a dungeon below the starting hub, and the keep itself must be changed to barovia and castle ravenloft. Challenge accepted.
So I find myself asking "what was this room when dwarves lived here" and "what is it now after 300+ years of ruin" quite frequently, and struggling with the details of keeping or altering strahd. On the one hand that shit'll hold your border against giants, on the other, the Duke is probably not keen on having a bloodsucker about at all...still drinking this one over.
I like a middle ground, myself.
Things do not have to make perfect sense, but having some thematic coherence is nice.
Just ran Tamoachan, my players loved the mesoamerican feel, and the thing with the poison works nicely too.
I don't think you could get that from a randomly generated dungeon.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 20, 2024, 04:26:04 PMI like a middle ground, myself.
Things do not have to make perfect sense, but having some thematic coherence is nice.
Just ran Tamoachan, my players loved the mesoamerican feel, and the thing with the poison works nicely too.
I don't think you could get that from a randomly generated dungeon.
I love Tamoachan! I feel like the authors worked hard on having the encounters roughly make sense from the history of the shrine, and be thematic.
Are there published examples that exemplify "The Mythic Underworld"? I'm not sure what I picture is what others picture.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 20, 2024, 04:26:04 PMI like a middle ground, myself.
Things do not have to make perfect sense, but having some thematic coherence is nice.
Just ran Tamoachan, my players loved the mesoamerican feel, and the thing with the poison works nicely too.
I don't think you could get that from a randomly generated dungeon.
Agreed wholeheartedly.
While actual mythic underworlds in myth and legend may not make fully rational sense, there is a level of thematic or dream logic to their structues.
You may not have a solid answer to how a massive dragon got into a room with very small doors, but the dragon isn't in the room for no reason. They are there to bar access to something important to the quest and unlike say, a sphinx, are clearly something meant to be overcome through skill more than cleverness or deception (you might need to sneak past it without waking it, but it's not going to give you a riddle to solve to get past it).
"Your way of playing is BadWrongFun, but my way of playing is the right way!"
"Will we ever play together?"
"Probably not, no."
"Then go fuck off."
I joined sites like this to not be apart of dopamine drama framing. don't drag it in here.
Sounds silly.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on August 21, 2024, 06:47:52 PMI joined sites like this to not be apart of dopamine drama framing. don't drag it in here.
Then you joined the wrong site as this place is all about pointing out the stupidity infesting the gaming community on all levels. Its the same with board games and probably video games too.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on August 21, 2024, 06:47:52 PMI joined sites like this to not be apart of dopamine drama framing. don't drag it in here.
You sound like a blast at parties.
Quote from: THE_Leopold on August 22, 2024, 07:03:41 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on August 21, 2024, 06:47:52 PMI joined sites like this to not be apart of dopamine drama framing. don't drag it in here.
You sound like a blast at parties.
Partying is for unproductive losers, and Twitter/X is for dopamine addicts
Quote from: Socratic-DM on August 22, 2024, 10:34:55 PMPartying is for unproductive losers, and Twitter/X is for dopamine addicts
That damn Delta House will never amount to anything!