Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

A problem with RPGs: RPG developers are not well-read in myth and fantasy/sci-fi literature

RaggleFraggle

Ask me about VTM
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
1,438
That describes Frodo and Gandalf. You see the exact same tropes in every other fantasy novel.
Oh noes, White culture contains ageless tropes which resonate with people and remain popular no matter what. Better deconstruct them and try something creative. Maybe black lesbians?
The entire point of Dune was to deconstruct those tropes and point out how they’re actually horrible and actively harmful to human civilization. All without shallow woke nonsense.

I can’t wait to see youtubers complaining about how Dune part 3 retroactively ruins Paul by making him the worst mass murderer in human history. I can’t wait to see complaints about how the movies after Leto’s death are woke garbage for featuring majority female casts, assuming we get that far.

Try again.
 

Theodora

Arcane
Patron
Glory to Ukraine
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
4,620
Location
anima Bȳzantiī
The problem with these modern stories is that they're written by hacks with chips on their shoulders.
Some of it is surely that, but a bigger proportion to me comes across as marketing departments using focus group 'informed' nonsense to make shallow gestures towards group X or Y, that the lowest common denominator of said group is assumed to appreciate; all while not straying past whatever the larger target audience finds tolerable. It's not quite at the stage of writing films with algorithms, but it's the same ethos of engineering media first and foremost to the point it loses touch with any genuine expression, or whatever one wants to call the basis of "real art".

At least, if it was a norm that writers were just venting their own biases and writing highly provocative works in either direction, that would actually be polarising and at least somewhat interesting as a result; but the current culture war's participants are ultimately fringe and idealogues on both sides, and it's only at those fringes that you actually see people be happy or pissed over the results, while most seem to just not really care much about the shallow gestures being made one way or the other.
 

ropetight

Savant
Joined
Dec 9, 2018
Messages
1,730
Location
Lower Wolffuckery
That describes Frodo and Gandalf. You see the exact same tropes in every other fantasy novel.
Oh noes, White culture contains ageless tropes which resonate with people and remain popular no matter what. Better deconstruct them and try something creative. Maybe black lesbians?
The entire point of Dune was to deconstruct those tropes and point out how they’re actually horrible and actively harmful to human civilization. All without shallow woke nonsense.

I can’t wait to see youtubers complaining about how Dune part 3 retroactively ruins Paul by making him the worst mass murderer in human history. I can’t wait to see complaints about how the movies after Leto’s death are woke garbage for featuring majority female casts, assuming we get that far.

Try again.
Paul ruthlessly killing millions is not dissonant to the Dune lore - more or less every figure from Butlerian Jihad did something similar.
Herbert was also heavily invested in counter-culture, writing "subversive" fom the start - somewhat similar to Moorcock.
So, not a good example for a public reaction comparison with recently wokified works that rely on classical tropes.

Dune was also written by other writers after Herbert with varying quality, far from groundbreaking novels that started series.
I highly doubt that there was coherent vision about what it should represent or how it should end beyond original Muad Dib saga.

Retconning for dramatic twist are not strange occurence in Dune series.
In the end it became space soap opera, with all the ancestors, descendants and relatives being pivotal points in galactic history... like Star Wars.
 

RaggleFraggle

Ask me about VTM
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
1,438
So, not a good example for a public reaction comparison with recently wokified works that rely on classical tropes.
Read what I actually wrote. I pointed this out. I specifically said Herbert criticized those so-called universal tropes as actually bad without being woke. The point of the books is that chosen ones are bad and will cause genocide and apocalypses because humans are imperfect. As we have seen in real life throughout history.

Or, to dumb it down for the idiots reading this: if Frank Herbert wrote LotR, then Frodo would inspire a genocidal crusade in which religiously fanatical Hobbits exterminate the humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs.

Dune was also written by other writers after Herbert with varying quality, far from groundbreaking novels that started series.
I highly doubt that there was coherent vision about what it should represent or how it should end beyond original Muad Dib saga.
The McDune books are complete garbage and I discount their existence. Brian Herbert and KJA are hacks soiling the name for the sake of cash.

Frank told someone in an interview that the series would’ve ended with humanity adopting democracy. Unfortunately he died before writing it.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
7,695
Location
澳大利亚
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Saw people complaining that this newgame Colony Shit has commies, nazis, and christucks.... meanwhile I am reading Gene Wolfe's book of the short sun, wish they had done so. Imagine Gene Wolfe writing about muh commies and muh freedumbs in a fantasy or scifi .... only a butthurt liberal retard like Tolkien would do that.
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
5,413
As much as the single unified fantasy Generica posted on the previous page? Trek.
I can't really recall many Star Trek-like clones. The only one that comes to mind is the excellent Imperium Galactica (the first one). So I have to echo the "Where are all the clones?" question.

I wouldn't look for clones exactly but more like for stories that take from/copy the teenage Chosen One narrative, the dying mentor/father figure. You can also see parts of Dune's style in Riddick, Mad Max, Alien and even The Matrix. Dune is pretty big for sci-fi. Star Wars is kinda obvious I think.
I'd argue that Dune is too specific to be possible to be taken as a "single unified [insert genre] template", like it is done with Tolkien. You can at best take bits and parts from it, but that doesn't make for a "single unifed template" in my opinion. Something similar can be said about Star Wars. Sure, at its core you could reduce it down to some simple tropes, but the esthetics of Star Wars are such that they can't really be divorced from Star Wars™ without turning it into something else. It's just too self-identifying at this point.
 
Vatnik
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
7,695
Location
澳大利亚
Insert Title Here Strap Yourselves In
Saw people complaining that this newgame Colony Shit has commies, nazis, and christucks.... meanwhile I am reading Gene Wolfe's book of the short sun, wish they had done so. Imagine Gene Wolfe writing about muh commies and muh freedumbs in a fantasy or scifi .... only a butthurt liberal retard like Tolkien would do that.
To clarify: "le commies, le nazis, le christians", is SHIT WRITING
And tolkien was shit
 

RaggleFraggle

Ask me about VTM
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
1,438
I'd argue that Dune is too specific to be possible to be taken as a "single unified [insert genre] template", like it is done with Tolkien. You can at best take bits and parts from it, but that doesn't make for a "single unifed template" in my opinion.
The entire point of Dune is to subvert chosen one narratives, too. It’s as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face, since characters routinely go on Ghost in the Shell-style philosophical monologues where they explain this to the reader. Funny how none of the imitators imitate that part. Even the woke don’t challenge the idea of chosen ones, they think they’re being subversive by making the chosen one a woman… like Eowyn or Buffy before them.
 

NecroLord

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
14,811
That describes Frodo and Gandalf. You see the exact same tropes in every other fantasy novel.
Oh noes, White culture contains ageless tropes which resonate with people and remain popular no matter what. Better deconstruct them and try something creative. Maybe black lesbians?
Well, LOTR already got its own "Netflix Adaptation", except it was made by Amazon...
 

Harthwain

Magister
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
5,413
The entire point of Dune is to subvert chosen one narratives, too.
1) How so? Paul ends up literally being the Chosen One of the Fremen and Bene Gesserit (even if he doesn't want to play Bene Gesserit's game). He also fails to stop the Jihad.

2) I am not talking about the narratives. I am talking about using a particular work's setting as a template for somebody else's story. What people do when they take Tolkien's work - for example - is copy the races and the overall techno-sociological level of the society (medieval/feudal era) but leave out the narrative(s) that accompany the whole story. Because they want to tell they their own story. But it is really hard to "steal" Dune's setting due to how the story is ingrained in it. Apparently you can't take Dune out of Dune. At least not easily.

Edit:

It’s as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face, since characters routinely go on Ghost in the Shell-style philosophical monologues where they explain this to the reader.
I liked that, to be honest. It explains things to the reader in a way that's convenient. I really hate when characters talk about things only they understand, because they weren't introduced to the reader/watcher (even in some vague form). If you don't want to spell everything, at the very least you should leave out subtle clues so the reader/watcher can link the dots himself if he so wishes.

Even the woke don’t challenge the idea of chosen ones, they think they’re being subversive by making the chosen one a woman… like Eowyn or Buffy before them.
They aren't making the Chosen Ones though. They are trying to force the idea that "women can be strong". Compare Eowyn to Captain Marvel (2019). One is a woman who can be tough, but is still human. The other is supposed to be a "perfect" woman (as the wokist see it), but ends up merely being overpowered, insufferable bitch (exactly like the actress playing her!). Compare that character to Captain America (also from Marvel, funnily enough), who is ALSO supposed to be a superhuman and the difference in style between the two is staggering. But that's what you get when you fail to realize that it's the flaws that make the character.
 
Last edited:

Louis_Cypher

Arcane
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
1,988
htMHH1V.jpeg
NYLlRnv.jpeg


I've been thinking a little bit about the origins of fantasy, after noting how few games there are where you can actually play a decent barbarian. JarlFrank has said a little about how fantasy used to be much more colourful and exotic, before High Fantasy became de rigeuer. It's inspirations are also more archaic or exotic, such as real barbaric epics, like Gilgamesh and the Illiad. I've been going back and reading the early pulp stuff for a while, and I think one of the major barriers that a modern reader will have, is that the entire mind-set and thinking is different. Like with most things I've found in life, there is a certain frame or world-view that will unlock this type of fiction, otherwise lacking the cypher it will make no sense, essentially written in a different literary language. After that, pulp becomes way more exotic and interesting than the stock Lord of the Rings knockoffs that have never once approached Tolkien's genius.

Pre-Tolkien western fantasy, and later fantasy building up on that older tradition, is usually much weirder and more exotic than generic medieval-esque high fantasy.
The pulp fantasy of the 1930s had a lot of weird stuff in it, and a lot of later western fantasy authors wrote in that tradition of weird fiction. Michael Ende's Neverending Story doesn't feel out of place in that tradition at all, it's just an imaginative work of fantasy, there's nothing JRPG-y about it at all.

One of the main differences is how the pulp fantasy novels treat interior 'psychology'. Psychology was only invented in the 20th century, and pre-modern people understood the mind completely differently. The novel is obsessed with 'psychology' in the modern sense of the word, the definition of a novel is something like 'a story that shows psychological development over time'. The pre-modern version of the novel was the romance or folk epic, and lacked modernist psychologising. But people have been trained in schools to see novels that psychologise as "higher" or "elevated", when that is debatable, and it's arguably "lower" and more mired in human crap. No coincidence that the publishing industry is heavily female; and those few genres like science fiction that were male-oriented in sales, have now been eliminated by the female mafia. Pulp stories, written and dominated by men, also display a different attitude toward interiority to the novel; the outer world is of more interest.

Look at old science fiction. Procedure, ideas, speculative concepts, are more important than the interior bullshit of a character. Then comes the idea that it's not literary or high brow enough, without deep dives into their 'issues'. So science fiction gives way to soap operas that are merely in space. Then eventually you have the Hugo, Saturn, Nebula, Arthur C Clarke Awards, etc, being given to predominantly female or feminised authors writing novels about interiority, that have little to do with the grand vision of sci-fi past.

This random YouTube guy, although he is talking about wider fantasy, made some interesting points:



That's only one of the keys or cyphers, but it's a big one. Another I would say is just that a lot of these stories from the foundations of fantasy, so much fresher than the lifeless ones today, focus on Amor Fati, and a pagan embrace of life affirming struggle. Expansion, carving out a habitable world for your people and yourself. The Conan level of survival. Bronze Age morality. This is very difficult for a modern to understand, if they are trained to think modernist liberal axioms like egalitarianism are an absolute unalloyed moral good, raised to avoid conflict, avoid truths that upset, avoid analysis that is too cutting, or whatever. Pulp is frank about reality, albeit undaunted by whole new realities and worlds.

Finally looking at High Fantasy specifically and why Tolkien effects people so much, it's clear that kind of fantasy is metaphysical and spiritual, and you cannot divorce it from a metaphysical standpoint, whether Platonist or Christian or Pagan or Buddhist or whatever, or you get "what about his tax policy" GRRM type stuff that might as well be history.
 

Ravielsk

Magister
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
1,742
One of the main differences is how the pulp fantasy novels treat interior 'psychology'.
I broadly agree but I do not think the issue itself is the focus on character psychology. In a long running series its basically impossible to not tackle it unless you keep constantly swapping out characters. In fact in a long running I would be just straight up detrimental to no pay at least lip service to it.
The real problem is that said psychological focus is used in service of a deconstructive or rather destructive goals.

To give a simple example of what I mean:
GcrrT0cXMAAe6AD


Modern writers call this "trope deconstruction" or more recently "subversion of expectations" but what they end up doing is just destruction. Because to de-construct you first need to understand the construction itself. In writing this would be successfully being able to take a trope and build stories around it and understand why and how said tropes even exist. Only after that you can start deconstructing anything. Without that first step you are just destroying the old trope without really replacing it with anything.

To be more specific, take the orcs. The classic trope of orcs is a set of characteristics that ultimately paint the orcs as a force of nature that is about as strong as the humans. They are still wild, unpredictable and naturalistic as a typhoon but they exist in a way that the hero of the story can realistically tackle. This then further informs the attitude of the broader fantasy world towards them, their look and the way they are used in the story.
To deconstruct this you would have to keep all the existing characteristics but slot them into a different or broader context. For example you could make the point that orcs are objectively evil and animal like but as an active part of the ecosystem that helps prevent other problems from growing out of control(in case of D&D lets say it the giant wolf population). Or you can make the point that without them there is nothing uniting the many different fantasy races together and a much worse conflict would arise without them. Or you could take a moralistic stance and argue that if you cross the threshold of genociding one race what is there to prevent you from genociding another and another?

What the comic and most modern writers do however is that they flush the whole concept of an orc and just make them into regular dudes who just happen to be green and (sometimes) ugly. This just completely removes the trope. Nothing is deconstructed because now that orcs are no longer savage beast but just green dudes a world and narrative built around the assumption that they are beasts no longer works. Sure they are now more complex and "psychological" characters but that is at the expense of everything else. "Expense" because once the writer is OK with breaking one building block of his narrative there is nothing keeping him from doing the same with all the other blocks.

The addition of psychological focus is not the problem. The reason why and how is.

The end result is a work of fiction that is dysfunctional both internally and externally. Internally its a mess of contradictory plot points/ideas and externally in the author's head its a dunk on something that exists entirely outside of the work itself(and mostly also the perspective reader).
 

NecroLord

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
14,811
So what the hell is wrong with a race or species being inherently evil?
It could be due to supernatural causes or the malevolent influence of some other dark beings (such as demons) afflicting that specific race or species.

Reminder that demons in oldschool D&D used to be CHAOTIC EVIL and were made from the raw stuff of the Abyss. They cannot change their alignment nor their morality, as it would probably require the intervention of a deity or some other higher power.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2024
Messages
542
Location
The Freezer
So what the hell is wrong with a race or species being inherently evil?
It could be due to supernatural causes or the malevolent influence of some other dark beings (such as demons) afflicting that specific race or species.

Reminder that demons in oldschool D&D used to be CHAOTIC EVIL and were made from the raw stuff of the Abyss. They cannot change their alignment nor their morality, as it would probably require the intervention of a deity or some other higher power.
It removes free will.
 

NecroLord

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
Sep 6, 2022
Messages
14,811
So what the hell is wrong with a race or species being inherently evil?
It could be due to supernatural causes or the malevolent influence of some other dark beings (such as demons) afflicting that specific race or species.

Reminder that demons in oldschool D&D used to be CHAOTIC EVIL and were made from the raw stuff of the Abyss. They cannot change their alignment nor their morality, as it would probably require the intervention of a deity or some other higher power.
It removes free will.
Hah!
Yeah, right, like they absolutely care about "free will"...
Anyway, as I have said, demons are INNATELY evil and they can never change that fact.
It is the price paid for pursuing Evil and Power with no regard for morality and the wellbeing of others.
Orcs were made by Gruumsh, which is their main deity of Chaotic Evil Alignment.
A chaotic evil deity guiding the destiny of the orcs explains their savage ways and their evil.
Same with the drow and Lolth.
It takes tremendous willpower to break free from their influence.
 

Camel

Scholar
Joined
Sep 10, 2021
Messages
2,812
Read what I actually wrote. I pointed this out. I specifically said Herbert criticized those so-called universal tropes as actually bad without being woke. The point of the books is that chosen ones are bad and will cause genocide and apocalypses because humans are imperfect. As we have seen in real life throughout history.

Or, to dumb it down for the idiots reading this: if Frank Herbert wrote LotR, then Frodo would inspire a genocidal crusade in which religiously fanatical Hobbits exterminate the humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs.
One of Dune's main points is that even the chosen one can't stop history. Paul's atrocities in Jihad were inevitable and he had to become the Mahdi. Billions who died in the Leto's Golden Path saved the humanity from stagnation and decline. Also the leftists criticize Paul Atreides as the white saviour. I assume you're a leftist?
pIUKmwp.jpeg
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2024
Messages
542
Location
The Freezer
Read what I actually wrote. I pointed this out. I specifically said Herbert criticized those so-called universal tropes as actually bad without being woke. The point of the books is that chosen ones are bad and will cause genocide and apocalypses because humans are imperfect. As we have seen in real life throughout history.

Or, to dumb it down for the idiots reading this: if Frank Herbert wrote LotR, then Frodo would inspire a genocidal crusade in which religiously fanatical Hobbits exterminate the humans, elves, dwarves, and orcs.
One of Dune's main points is that even the chosen one can't stop history. Paul's atrocities in Jihad were inevitable and he had to become the Mahdi. Billions who died in the Leto's Golden Path saved the humanity from stagnation and decline. Also the leftists criticize Paul Atreides as the white saviour. I assume you're a leftist?
pIUKmwp.jpeg
Except Paul wasn't a savior.
 

Ravielsk

Magister
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
1,742
It removes free will.
Only if you have a utterly 2 dimensional understanding of morality. Evil and good are relative and strongly dependent on time and context. From the perspective of a snail even cuddliest gardener is a wicked psychopath who denies them food they need to survive. From the perspective of a being that operates on a galactic scale even massacring entire planets is about as evil as for us bacteria devouring each other is. Hell, from the proper perspective you could argue that even our treatment of dogs is utterly vile as we domesticated, bread them into parodies of themselves and then kept them as little more than distractions.

"Evil races" are only as limiting to free will as your own understanding of the concept of evil.
 

gurugeorge

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Messages
7,901
Location
London, UK
Strap Yourselves In
What the comic and most modern writers do however is that they flush the whole concept of an orc and just make them into regular dudes who just happen to be green and (sometimes) ugly. This just completely removes the trope. Nothing is deconstructed because now that orcs are no longer savage beast but just green dudes a world and narrative built around the assumption that they are beasts no longer works. Sure they are now more complex and "psychological" characters but that is at the expense of everything else. "Expense" because once the writer is OK with breaking one building block of his narrative there is nothing keeping him from doing the same with all the other blocks.

It's been clear to me for a while that this is a side-artifact of the unwillingness of the (broadly speaking) Left to let go of the myth of equality, and specifically it's related to the canard that people who are exercised about Blacks or Jews are queerly obsessed about something as trivial as "skin colour" or "religious preference." Those are deflections (ultimately the latter is the root of it, the former an extension to form a buffer against the latter conceptually).

We racists don't give a toss about skin colour per se, it's the whole complex of psychoilogical and physical traits that typically go along with certain skin colours that are the problem (same, mutatis mutandis, for Jews, it's not their religion per se that bothers us, it's their swingeing sense of racial supremacy and underhanded method of asserting it while simultaneously denying it to others and projecting it on others).

The "why are u obsessed with something as trivial as skin colour you weirdo?" trope is meant to trivialize and deflect attention away from our real concerns (e.g. the gross disparity in Bl v Wh vs Wh v Bl murder, for example).

So, similarly, in the fantasy realm, the orc "just happens to be green" etc., etc.
 

RaggleFraggle

Ask me about VTM
Joined
Mar 23, 2022
Messages
1,438
One of the main differences is how the pulp fantasy novels treat interior 'psychology'.
I broadly agree but I do not think the issue itself is the focus on character psychology. In a long running series its basically impossible to not tackle it unless you keep constantly swapping out characters. In fact in a long running I would be just straight up detrimental to no pay at least lip service to it.
The real problem is that said psychological focus is used in service of a deconstructive or rather destructive goals.

To give a simple example of what I mean:
GcrrT0cXMAAe6AD


Modern writers call this "trope deconstruction" or more recently "subversion of expectations" but what they end up doing is just destruction. Because to de-construct you first need to understand the construction itself. In writing this would be successfully being able to take a trope and build stories around it and understand why and how said tropes even exist. Only after that you can start deconstructing anything. Without that first step you are just destroying the old trope without really replacing it with anything.

To be more specific, take the orcs. The classic trope of orcs is a set of characteristics that ultimately paint the orcs as a force of nature that is about as strong as the humans. They are still wild, unpredictable and naturalistic as a typhoon but they exist in a way that the hero of the story can realistically tackle. This then further informs the attitude of the broader fantasy world towards them, their look and the way they are used in the story.
To deconstruct this you would have to keep all the existing characteristics but slot them into a different or broader context. For example you could make the point that orcs are objectively evil and animal like but as an active part of the ecosystem that helps prevent other problems from growing out of control(in case of D&D lets say it the giant wolf population). Or you can make the point that without them there is nothing uniting the many different fantasy races together and a much worse conflict would arise without them. Or you could take a moralistic stance and argue that if you cross the threshold of genociding one race what is there to prevent you from genociding another and another?

What the comic and most modern writers do however is that they flush the whole concept of an orc and just make them into regular dudes who just happen to be green and (sometimes) ugly. This just completely removes the trope. Nothing is deconstructed because now that orcs are no longer savage beast but just green dudes a world and narrative built around the assumption that they are beasts no longer works. Sure they are now more complex and "psychological" characters but that is at the expense of everything else. "Expense" because once the writer is OK with breaking one building block of his narrative there is nothing keeping him from doing the same with all the other blocks.

The addition of psychological focus is not the problem. The reason why and how is.

The end result is a work of fiction that is dysfunctional both internally and externally. Internally its a mess of contradictory plot points/ideas and externally in the author's head its a dunk on something that exists entirely outside of the work itself(and mostly also the perspective reader).
There’s no such thing as deconstruction. That’s nonsense made up by tv tropes.

Tolkien wrote idealistic fantasy. Martin wrote nihilistic fantasy. Leftists write bad fantasy. It’s that simple.

So, similarly, in the fantasy realm, the orc "just happens to be green" etc., etc.
So Warcraft 3 was woke and bad back in 2002 when it did exactly this? I guess that would make sense.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom