Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scion: Dragon in the works

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16



    So according to this interview: https://youtu.be/7AwdYpkngRk it seems that this isn't about playing the scions of dragons but actually playing dragons which is interesting.
    Last edited by Snakesandsuns; 01-18-2019, 12:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Snakesandsuns View Post


      So according to this interview: https://youtu.be/7AwdYpkngRk it seems that this isn't about playing the scions of dragons but actually playing dragons which is interesting.
      Yeah, I'm a whore for dragons so having several "Dragons And Other Lizards" paths will make me squee with delight.


      Disclaimer: I'll huff, grump, and defend my position, but if you're having fun I'll never say you're doing it wrong.

      Comment


      • #18
        Dragons...I hope that the "draconic being" shows itself to be very different from the "human being."


        Mankind was once an endangered species. It will likely be so again. And mankind will only have itself to blame.

        Comment


        • #19
          I've personally been looking forward to the possibility of beings that are on the same Tier as Gods, Titans, and Primordials, but aren't God's, Titans, or Primordials. If at least some of the “dragons” in this book fit that bill, I'll be quite happy.


          Comment


          • #20
            This announcement is the most exciting thing to come to scion since I heard about the game. I want to play dragon in an RPG, or get eaten by Dagon. Lol.


            Craft rewrite.
            Twitter Handle: at maudova

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kyman201 View Post
              Yeah, I'm a whore for dragons so having several "Dragons And Other Lizards" paths will make me squee with delight.

              Absolutely! I mean people will either include the content in their games or they won't, but any content is welcome. You just tailor to taste

              Comment


              • #22
                I think by “faction” they just mean another cosmic, divine force - not necessarily a “side in a war.”

                Comment


                • #23
                  I see it as a vaguely racial based Denizens political grouping that leverages the pantheons of gods and titans to their advantage.

                  I look forward to seeing what it ACTUALLY is.


                  Thoughts ripple out, birthing others

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I love dragons! I was working on a scion of Kura Okami but now that I know this book is coming there'll be so much more in the way of lore and mechanics. Hell, Kura might be actually be in the book! I've never been happier to table a character concept!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      If you're not sure whether dragons fit in something, just remember this rule of thumb: dragons are dragons, therefore dragon.

                      For example, back when elder scrolls 5 came out, some lore buffs for elder scrolls were talking about how it was not lore friendly, that there were reasons that dragons weren't around anymore. They were technically correct, but they forgot that dragons are dragons, and therefore dragon.

                      Any complaint that dragons shouldn't be in Scion similarly fails to take this important rule into account.

                      I mean, they're flat out just one of those things that improves everything they're added to.
                      Last edited by Dragonchild; 01-22-2019, 05:58 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dragonchild View Post
                        If you're not sure whether dragons fit in something, just remember this rule of thumb: dragons are dragons, therefore dragon.

                        For example, back when elder scrolls 5 came out, some lore buffs for elder scrolls were talking about how it was not lore friendly, that there were reasons that dragons weren't around anymore. They were technically correct, but they forgot that dragons are dragons, and therefore dragon.

                        Any complaint that dragons shouldn't be in Scion similarly fails to take this important rule into account.

                        I mean, they're flat out just one of those things that improves everything they're added to.
                        Now to be fair, there IS a point in calling out Euro-centric tendency to try and cram square pegs into dragon-shaped holes, to the point where there's an unfortunate tendency to just hear about any Generic Large Angry Vaguely Reptilian Monster and go "Oh that's a dragon!"

                        Like the Tarasque. Body of a turtle, large tail, no fire or rot or plague breath, head of a lion... Some people call it a dragon because uh, it's large, angry, and vaguely reptilian?

                        That's why I wouldn't mind the first chapter going "So ask yourself: What is a dragon? Not so easy to narrow down, is it?"
                        Last edited by Kyman201; 01-22-2019, 06:40 AM.


                        Disclaimer: I'll huff, grump, and defend my position, but if you're having fun I'll never say you're doing it wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yeah, there's a lot of creatures people call dragons that I wouldn't at all consider dragons. Godzilla and the tarrasque have some things in common with dragons, but they just don't represent the same things or feel the same as a dragon to me. Most depictions of the loch Ness monster are also not dragons. Lungs, wyverns, wyrms, and 4 legged euro dragons all tend to be portrayed with qualities that imo make them "real" dragons though, i.e. more than just vaguely reptilian, some kind of elemental power, intelligent (although admittedly that isn't true of all euro dragons. But hey, we have idiots, dragons might too.) and associated with power and wealth.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I fundamentally agree about the term "Dragon" not being applicable to many of the mythical creatures that are labeled with it. Hell, even European Dragons and Lungs, the two most commonly accepted forms of "Dragon" have next to nothing in common besides being reptilian, and in the case of Lungs, only vaguely even that.

                            That being said, and I'm honestly playing the devil's advocate here, perhaps the word "Dragon" is being used in the same manner as the word "Titan." "Titan," in mythology, is a Greek word with a very specific definition, i.e. the second generation of gods. To every other culture, Titan is meaningless. The Japanese would not think to call Raijin a Titan, nor would the Hindus think of Ravana in that terminology, or the Irish of Balor. Yet, it's well accepted within the context of the game, that this large and disparate menagerie of beings are all "Titans." So my point is, perhaps the word "Dragon" is just a word being used collectively for the purpose of classifying disparate entities within the game in the same sense as the words "Titan" and even "God" are. I mean, after all, the Orishas and Yazatas probably don't think of themselves as "gods" but the game still calls them that for simplicities' sake.

                            Nevertheless, I still feel like the word "Dragon" shouldn't be used so loosely in scholarly settings. After all, I wouldn't call any of the North American Horned Serpents one except for in the comparatively casual gaming environment, and simply calling all reptilian monsters dragons is reductionary in a scholarly sense. Just like I wouldn't call Raijin a Titan or Sraosha a god in scholarly materials.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Wannabe Demon Lord View Post
                              I fundamentally agree about the term "Dragon" not being applicable to many of the mythical creatures that are labeled with it. Hell, even European Dragons and Lungs, the two most commonly accepted forms of "Dragon" have next to nothing in common besides being reptilian, and in the case of Lungs, only vaguely even that.

                              That being said, and I'm honestly playing the devil's advocate here, perhaps the word "Dragon" is being used in the same manner as the word "Titan." "Titan," in mythology, is a Greek word with a very specific definition, i.e. the second generation of gods. To every other culture, Titan is meaningless. The Japanese would not think to call Raijin a Titan, nor would the Hindus think of Ravana in that terminology, or the Irish of Balor. Yet, it's well accepted within the context of the game, that this large and disparate menagerie of beings are all "Titans." So my point is, perhaps the word "Dragon" is just a word being used collectively for the purpose of classifying disparate entities within the game in the same sense as the words "Titan" and even "God" are. I mean, after all, the Orishas and Yazatas probably don't think of themselves as "gods" but the game still calls them that for simplicities' sake.

                              Nevertheless, I still feel like the word "Dragon" shouldn't be used so loosely in scholarly settings. After all, I wouldn't call any of the North American Horned Serpents one except for in the comparatively casual gaming environment, and simply calling all reptilian monsters dragons is reductionary in a scholarly sense. Just like I wouldn't call Raijin a Titan or Sraosha a god in scholarly materials.
                              You make extremely good points here. I must admit I missed that perspective when I first developed my mixed feeling towards the use of the term dragon here, but if is implemented like that, that could actually be a very productive thing. Especially in the view of how Pantheon names have been used to discuss the meaning of "god" and how the opening up of the term "Titan" in 2e has helped problematise that term. With this direction, the book could be not only a good addition, but a fundamental expansion of the game.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Wannabe Demon Lord View Post
                                I fundamentally agree about the term "Dragon" not being applicable to many of the mythical creatures that are labeled with it. Hell, even European Dragons and Lungs, the two most commonly accepted forms of "Dragon" have next to nothing in common besides being reptilian, and in the case of Lungs, only vaguely even that.

                                That being said, and I'm honestly playing the devil's advocate here, perhaps the word "Dragon" is being used in the same manner as the word "Titan." "Titan," in mythology, is a Greek word with a very specific definition, i.e. the second generation of gods. To every other culture, Titan is meaningless. The Japanese would not think to call Raijin a Titan, nor would the Hindus think of Ravana in that terminology, or the Irish of Balor. Yet, it's well accepted within the context of the game, that this large and disparate menagerie of beings are all "Titans." So my point is, perhaps the word "Dragon" is just a word being used collectively for the purpose of classifying disparate entities within the game in the same sense as the words "Titan" and even "God" are. I mean, after all, the Orishas and Yazatas probably don't think of themselves as "gods" but the game still calls them that for simplicities' sake.

                                Nevertheless, I still feel like the word "Dragon" shouldn't be used so loosely in scholarly settings. After all, I wouldn't call any of the North American Horned Serpents one except for in the comparatively casual gaming environment, and simply calling all reptilian monsters dragons is reductionary in a scholarly sense. Just like I wouldn't call Raijin a Titan or Sraosha a god in scholarly materials.

                                That's a possible interest from me too. If the work deconstructs the word along with the meaning behind it. If "Titan" as a concept is not fully accepted by some of the pantheons (such as the Orisha) then hopefully "Dragon" is also sometimes viewed with a bit of skepticism. For example, in some interviews about the product it was mentioned that "Dragon" might be the weapons but is that how every pantheon views it ?


                                How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
                                -Zhuangzi

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X