Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Take the Christian story of Abraham arguing with God about sparing Sodom and Gomorrah for example. Where exactly did God smite Abraham for his presumption of arguing back to God?Abraham wasn’t arguing back to God; he was haggling. Big difference.
The tone Gygax sets in his writing did more for my D&D games than all of the rules ever written. Yes, and he has good advice too.
The only thing that could have been improved, I think, was organization.
It seems all the replies to my question have all been that you need to limit the PCs to NOT being the heroes of legend (nor possessing the abilities of those heroes) but instead be ordinary people who only hear the legends and never experience them first hand.
For a traditional mythic feel, you can have a ton of powerful magic items, but if you challenge the gods by trying to fly to Heaven and find out The Truth, they will still smite you for your presumption. The lesson being Hubris and Nemesis.
Yet this is exactly what happened
https://twitter.com/iammattsanders/status/1382614912522936320
This is absolutely a logical out growth of the current "gaming culture". Discuss, weep, etc.
The point being that for every GM, there's a threshold where if you want to exceed your normal comfort zone on party size, you'll need to adapt the rules, and another threshold where some of the options are taken away if you want to make it work. For a GM whose ideal party size is 3 players, those thresholds are going to come a lot sooner.
While I've GM'd with 14 or so a couple times for convention games, it's not something I'm comfy with or that I think would give an optimal experience long term.Yes. Mythic thought cuts at a different angle. to the Powers That Be (and not just the current ones) it is always dangerous. Powerful, useful at times, but dangerous to established ideas--like a chainsaw. Even false myths are dangerous to them, because they exercise a person's imagination in tandem with their "philosophy" of the world. However, it is not the "Free thought" of the skeptic but something more channeled.
Which by the way is the one thing I see in the Gloranthan myths that is lacking. Sure, they have a nod to danger, and real risk to to the characters in trying to manipulate them. However, in deconstructing how myths work otherwise, they've removed that sense that something is happening with the myth that is out of control. A myth should have backing it some element of Terror or Awe--in the original meaning of the words, not what a modern would translate into Terrific or Awesome! Yet another way in which the modern mind struggles with myth because of how mangled is the language in which the modern thinks.
I run more "fantastical" than "mythic" because when I do include a myth, I want to make sure I do it right. Merely "fantastical" doesn't need to meet that standard to give a feel for the setting. For example, a talking badger is fantastical. A talking badger that comes from a mysterious society that have insight into some awesome truth could be mythic. Even if the "truth" is all wrong.
won’t that make every combat take forever though
Like I said, once you're applying a scientific world view to myth, you've already failed.
I would take that thought even more extreme: Once you're applying a scientific OR fictional world view to myth, you've already failed. The most common* mistake a modern makes about "myth" is the immediate assumption of "fiction".
This is your problem right here.
The PC's should not have the power to "figure it out".
Nerf magic.
Problem solved.
DnD is certainly not for everyone.
Like I said, once you're applying a scientific world view to myth, you've already failed.
I would take that thought even more extreme: Once you're applying a scientific OR fictional world view to myth, you've already failed. The most common* mistake a modern makes about "myth" is the immediate assumption of "fiction".
