I think gollum is a great example of no prep leading to emergent story. Gollum is a random encounter, with random treasure that later is developed into more.
I'm on the same track as LikelyArrow. It would explain why Pg.175 of the AD&D DMG says beyond here Hirelings (read as: normal men) will go no further, and the deeper depths must be plumbed by PCs and their Henchmen (read as: Heroes and Superheroes)
I think that the big hang up is that the "world view"/culture of gaming that the creators of early D&D/RPGs had was very different than that of the average gamer of today that didn't grow up playing war games and and reading history and mythology. It seems the older gamers were more academically minded, well read, or at least intellectually curious enough to be familiar with the mythic underworld context. The Concepts of Law vs Chaos made more sense and held more weight to gamers at that time. Law originates from the gods on their mountain tops or in their gardens and chaos coming from darker forces hidden in the deep darkness of the underworld. The game as it gets presented today , is marketed to and created by people with a fundamentally different world views and our present culture sets their context. Just my opinion. Great Video!!
Many people lack the ability, or more likely the skill, to choose to look at the world in different ways. Annoying, because the point of many sci-fi and some fantasy stories is experiencing a different world, and a character with a different worldview, ethics, and social and political realities. We need more book recommendations for new players and DMs. This is where Dragon game handbooks could have been truly helpful. Newbs need fiction and myth to understand what fantasy means. I miss that about the old WW publishing books, they gave you a media list for tone and setting. When you present the game as X with Y starter setting, or build the whole game around a setting, you can give the gm/players media context to dig into.
I'm familiar with myths (Greek mostly) but I don't think that "dungeons" in D&D means go to a different plane/reality or a focus on supernatural things that don't make logical sense. They mean more like exploring ruins.
I know we hashed out this topic on X but I think the primary disconnect comes from the idea that "dungeons" to myself and many (I'd wager the majority) people means like exploring old ruins/crypts. The concept of "mythic underworld" indicates something different and detached from logic and reality, closer to the actual Underworld of mythology (think Orpheus finding the entrance to Tartarus). But that would imply that ALL dungeons are vast underground things, rather than being like "a ruined keep that was sacked 50 years ago" or "an abandoned crypt in the swamp", which doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of verisimilitude. It's controversial because it feels like there's no "realism" to the world when you have the concept of the mythic underworld. That the "Mythic underworld" says "have random monsters there because of course you'd have monsters" without the whys or hows. It's a very, pardon my term, "primitive" way of handling the game because it comes from a period when we didn't have a lot of media to give other ideas, and the game itself was brand new so nobody really knew what to do with it. Is it a wrong idea? No, it can be fun. But it also feels "fake" I guess is the term, because it doesn't feel like part of a living, breathing world. You keep referencing how the underworld is the realm of the dead/supernatural, but that shouldn't always be the case for a dungeon.
You keep saying it's "Random" but this is, again, a belief for people for thousands of years in ancient history. It was real for them. How do you account for that? I made an Aztec game. The Aztecs literally believed that every cave was an entrance into the underworld and the womb the earth. So people with a modern mindset can say it doesn't feel real but for most of human history their modern conception of things never existed.
I'm surprised nobody brought up Mirkwood. It's an other worldly place where it can be perpetual twilight and the woods themselves mislead travelers off course and guide them towards their doom. The Underdark setting within D&D has a lot of these same aspects. I don't know why this should be a controversial opinion.
I think because the Underdark isn't every dungeon, and every dungeon shouldn't be treated like the underdark either. "Dungeons" to me are things like a ruined keep, a forgotten crypt, a haunted castle, that sort of thing. Those IMHO need to make logical sense in the world and be filled with creatures that fit that theme, not "This room has 3 goblins, the next has an ogre, the next is empty, the next has 8 kobolds" without any reason for why those things are in the dungeon. A random assortment of monsters breaks the feel of a "real" world and makes the world feel like you're playing a game where things don't make sense.
@@Nobleshield Well as we pointed out it is not presented as "random." These are not "Lol so random" dungeons we are talking about. The term "dungeon" in this game was used interchangeably with the underworld. Gary says in 0e that a proper dungeon is AT LEAST 12 levels.
I think gollum is a great example of no prep leading to emergent story. Gollum is a random encounter, with random treasure that later is developed into more.
I'm on the same track as LikelyArrow.
It would explain why Pg.175 of the AD&D DMG says beyond here Hirelings (read as: normal men) will go no further, and the deeper depths must be plumbed by PCs and their Henchmen (read as: Heroes and Superheroes)
@@AuthoritativeNewsNetwork this is a superb observation.
I think there is dark forces behind the demythologizing of our culture and society.
I agree with this, too, actually.
I think that the big hang up is that the "world view"/culture of gaming that the creators of early D&D/RPGs had was very different than that of the average gamer of today that didn't grow up playing war games and and reading history and mythology. It seems the older gamers were more academically minded, well read, or at least intellectually curious enough to be familiar with the mythic underworld context. The Concepts of Law vs Chaos made more sense and held more weight to gamers at that time. Law originates from the gods on their mountain tops or in their gardens and chaos coming from darker forces hidden in the deep darkness of the underworld. The game as it gets presented today , is marketed to and created by people with a fundamentally different world views and our present culture sets their context. Just my opinion. Great Video!!
The shift in mindset is a big factor. I agree.
Viktor, hurts the feelings of Orcs!
Many people lack the ability, or more likely the skill, to choose to look at the world in different ways.
Annoying, because the point of many sci-fi and some fantasy stories is experiencing a different world, and a character with a different worldview, ethics, and social and political realities.
We need more book recommendations for new players and DMs. This is where Dragon game handbooks could have been truly helpful. Newbs need fiction and myth to understand what fantasy means. I miss that about the old WW publishing books, they gave you a media list for tone and setting.
When you present the game as X with Y starter setting, or build the whole game around a setting, you can give the gm/players media context to dig into.
Great video guys, lots of interesting food for thought.
The haters are just jealous, that’s all. Keep on keepin on!
Again, proving that the hobby is largely illiterate. Gygax and co. expected players to have read a few myths in their time.
I'm familiar with myths (Greek mostly) but I don't think that "dungeons" in D&D means go to a different plane/reality or a focus on supernatural things that don't make logical sense. They mean more like exploring ruins.
I joined an Appendix N book club, and the more I do it, the more I understand why/how D&D came into being
Twitter Anklebiters joining players among the category of people who deserve LESS
53:40 lairs and dungeons?
The argument sounds like they want want all dungeons to be lairs when not all dungeons should be
We kind of mention that in the discussion a bit. That they think a Goblin warren for example is the same thing as what we are talking about.
18:54 And in Japanese light novels it's a frequent trope that monsters are formed by accumulated mana or miasma or magic etc.
You went to hell? What did you get? A T-shirt?
No T-Shirt. Just smooth brain replies.
@@TheBasicExpert all this over dunegon ecology?
Found you through your comments on barrel-aged faith's stream. Cool channel bro! 😎👍
Hey welcome!
I know we hashed out this topic on X but I think the primary disconnect comes from the idea that "dungeons" to myself and many (I'd wager the majority) people means like exploring old ruins/crypts. The concept of "mythic underworld" indicates something different and detached from logic and reality, closer to the actual Underworld of mythology (think Orpheus finding the entrance to Tartarus). But that would imply that ALL dungeons are vast underground things, rather than being like "a ruined keep that was sacked 50 years ago" or "an abandoned crypt in the swamp", which doesn't make a lot of sense in the context of verisimilitude.
It's controversial because it feels like there's no "realism" to the world when you have the concept of the mythic underworld. That the "Mythic underworld" says "have random monsters there because of course you'd have monsters" without the whys or hows. It's a very, pardon my term, "primitive" way of handling the game because it comes from a period when we didn't have a lot of media to give other ideas, and the game itself was brand new so nobody really knew what to do with it.
Is it a wrong idea? No, it can be fun. But it also feels "fake" I guess is the term, because it doesn't feel like part of a living, breathing world. You keep referencing how the underworld is the realm of the dead/supernatural, but that shouldn't always be the case for a dungeon.
You keep saying it's "Random" but this is, again, a belief for people for thousands of years in ancient history. It was real for them. How do you account for that? I made an Aztec game. The Aztecs literally believed that every cave was an entrance into the underworld and the womb the earth. So people with a modern mindset can say it doesn't feel real but for most of human history their modern conception of things never existed.
Sorry i missed the stream. it happened about about 1 am my time.
@@mercuriusaulicus it was an impromptu one.
Dungeon Keeper was indeed the game
I'm surprised nobody brought up Mirkwood. It's an other worldly place where it can be perpetual twilight and the woods themselves mislead travelers off course and guide them towards their doom.
The Underdark setting within D&D has a lot of these same aspects. I don't know why this should be a controversial opinion.
Yeah good example actually.
I think because the Underdark isn't every dungeon, and every dungeon shouldn't be treated like the underdark either.
"Dungeons" to me are things like a ruined keep, a forgotten crypt, a haunted castle, that sort of thing. Those IMHO need to make logical sense in the world and be filled with creatures that fit that theme, not "This room has 3 goblins, the next has an ogre, the next is empty, the next has 8 kobolds" without any reason for why those things are in the dungeon.
A random assortment of monsters breaks the feel of a "real" world and makes the world feel like you're playing a game where things don't make sense.
@@Nobleshield Well as we pointed out it is not presented as "random." These are not "Lol so random" dungeons we are talking about.
The term "dungeon" in this game was used interchangeably with the underworld. Gary says in 0e that a proper dungeon is AT LEAST 12 levels.