What do you think of Ragnarok?

Hahaha, what a funny thing to ask at this moment in time! I actually mean the mystical event.

When I read ancient things, I can’t help but think of the bicameralism, specifically to explain how the humans seem to interact with their panpsychic world view.

So, I was wondering if folks read ancient works with a kind of detached cognitive disposition. And I’m also thinking about our WR&M game. I’m trying to hit the tone, but I have a personal issue with “creating to genre” in the media sense, though I of course appreciate a good exploration of the human condition.

I’ve been reading a lot of Cynthia Rylant recently, and I found a retelling of six Greek myths to be inspiring. I was wondering if I could call upon my knowledge of various mythologies to tell a story framed by a setting I’m personally unfamiliar with (the ancient world) and explain some modern thoughts. :thinking:

This was originally a PM to @tim, but I figured this is good to open up, since I’m about to lay some myths on ya’ll, in ways you may not have experienced, and I want to know the materials I have to play with (your imagination). :sunglasses:

1 Like

So, first off you know how I feel about Norse mythology. So, Ragnarok x 10000 for me.

I love the story idea of people entering a hard battle that they know they will lose. (Like a certain game idea, ne maiki??) Doing something like this, or during the time of history when this is happening… it shows the true character of… well the character.

A fantasy-ish world that is rapidly ending, an old crappy prophesy is coming to pass… How do you behave in that situation? Helping others, keeping them safe, etc for as long as you’re able?

This may have not answered your question, but as is the case with all myth, I can kind of say whatever I want and it is mostly ok, since it’s all about a personal interpretation anyway.

:crossed_swords: :fire: :dagger:

1 Like

Interesting! So the theme is something you observe, and the characters are a stand-in for your personal interpretation? I know that sounds weird as a question, I’m trying to understand: if we changed all the things (setting, characters, locations) but kept the theme, would you still see it as Ragnarok, and/or would the theme speak to you as a trope that draws you to it?

I’m trying to figure out why fantasy pisses me off so much, and I think it is a particular type of fantasy world-building that basically dismisses what we know about reality. Example: I’m okay with wood and water nymphs being children of the land spirits and can communion with the gods from their mountain home. But if you try to tell me the family trees and honor-poems of a particular family of Elvish warrior-mages I just think: we aren’t talking about symbolism anymore, we are talking about “aliens with magic”, and that doesn’t work for me, because that kind of fantasy is very poor sci-fi, so…

And of course D&D, as presented, is this sandbox of cultural reference, but also they try to make it work in the laziest ways possible. Gods did it. Mad wizards did it. As a creative, collaborative franchise, current mainstream fantasy worlds irritate the hell out of me.

Okay, so where I’m at now:

  • Read modern stories with game rules: so irritated!
  • Read myths: so inspired!
  • Try to make a game from myths: so… engaged.

I’m starting to think that the games I like playing for narrative reasons fit into both genre gaming and telling symbolic stories. Crunchier games I like, things with grids and look up charts and too many dice, those don’t tell symbolic stories well for me. So this is a process of finding the rules that match the story, and how I approach it.

Also also, a fight we can’t win… :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Yes I think so. The trope of fighting a losing battle (by battle I mean any kind of “fight”, ecological, actual fighting/war, etc) is very interesting to me, personally.

Yeah, same here. Tolkien gets a pass because he started all this. But like, random fantasy story #446, and you’re going to try to sell me on that kind of worldbuilding? It’s not helpful, it’s artificial facts. I don’t care about artificial historical trivia.

“Real” myths don’t do any of that stuff, which is interesting. The way they’re written, they assume you already know all necessary background and just dive in. In times of old, myths were like the movie quotes interspersed in conversation we have today.

I believe you are speaking to thing I’m thinking. Perhaps it is just that: I’m trying to understand something being transmitted to me through various translations and is ultimately a half-documented (at best) inside story.

Or maybe humans were freaky-deaky and our brains have more than one person in them and we might actually have gods they are just the least interesting versions possible. :roll_eyes:


1 Like