If you DMed like OotS?

[Kish]

Some people did, explicitly and in so many words, find Miko's introduction an unwelcome intrusion of that ethics stuff into their escapism. Almost invariably, they stopped reading, or at least posting, entirely before we were more than a few pages into War and XPs at the latest (I remember one guy who posted "Roy is just a perfect leader" after the scene where the Order rallies to defend Belkar from Miko, then flipped out when the Mark of Justice was revealed). But most of the people I'm thinking of were, at least, honest enough to make the thrust of their complaints this NPC is shutting down the fun of watching Belkar commit brutal murder.

[pendell]

Some people did, explicitly and in so many words, find Miko's introduction an unwelcome intrusion of that ethics stuff into their escapism. Almost invariably, they stopped reading, or at least posting, entirely before we were more than a few pages into War and XPs at the latest (I remember one guy who posted "Roy is just a perfect leader" after the scene where the Order rallies to defend Belkar from Miko, then flipped out when the Mark of Justice was revealed). But most of the people I'm thinking of were, at least, honest enough to make the thrust of their complaints this NPC is shutting down the fun of watching Belkar commit brutal murder.

I've never entirely understood that. Isn't escapism about wanting to be a hero? To do something heroic, good, excellent and praiseworthy?

Surely a hero is about more than slaying bad guys -- although I can understand someone who just wants a war game, pure and simple, without any shades of grey or morally ambiguous enemies. Something like an old-school chessboard. But that's not the comic Rich is writing. Never has, come to think of it. At least, not since we first encountered the chaotic good goblin teenagers.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[woweedd]

I've never entirely understood that. Isn't escapism about wanting to be a hero? To do something heroic, good, excellent and praiseworthy?

Surely a hero is about more than slaying bad guys -- although I can understand someone who just wants a war game, pure and simple, without any shades of grey or morally ambiguous enemies. Something like an old-school chessboard. But that's not the comic Rich is writing. Never has, come to think of it. At least, not since we first encountered the chaotic good goblin teenagers.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, Escapism can mean many things to many people. For some people, "Escapism" is fantasizing about a world where there are no consequences for your actions. Not particularly nice people, I tend to find, granted, but still. Plus, hey, we've all had fantasies about that kind of thing. We've all thought a bit about that guy who cut us off in traffic or insists on treating us unfairly or refuses to listen to anything we say and we've all, at least a little, wanted to give that guy what-for, even if what-for doesn't usually mean murder. Look up "The Outbursts of Everett True" sometime. He's an old newspaper comic character whose entire premise is that he runs into all the annoying people that we've all interacted with at some point or another, and he gives them the beating/stern talking-to we wish we could. People who block his view at sports games, people who take too long to order at restaurants...Basically, imagine every little annoyance of your day-to-day existence, then imagine someone beating the crap out of the person responsible. That's what he is, and it is, admittedly, very satisfying to read.

[Kish]

Yeah, I never expect to (or, really, want to) understand those people whose concept of "escapism" is apparently "being exactly the kind of person Kish would want to escape from," but they exist, in large numbers.

[factotum]

I've never entirely understood that. Isn't escapism about wanting to be a hero? To do something heroic, good, excellent and praiseworthy?

Escapism can be about anything that it's different from your regular day-to-day life. A person who spends hours running down innocent pedestrians in GTA5 and then escaping from the cops is still getting escapism from that, and there's certainly nothing heroic, good, excellent or praiseworthy about it.

[woweedd]

Yeah, I never expect to (or, really, want to) understand those people whose concept of "escapism" is apparently "being exactly the kind of person Kish would want to escape from," but they exist, in large numbers.

In retrospect, a batter example may have been zombies. They're a fantasy that allows us to murder something without feeling bad about it. WHy someone would want that, I have no idea. Everett True is actually a bad example, in retrospect. The fantasy with him is also about karma, in a way. Namely, getitng to take people who are ashsoles and commit violence aganist them. I think all of us, at one point or another, have met someone who we wanted to beat the crap out of and who totally deserved it. Hell, all of us have probably BEEN that person to someone else at one point or another. I know i've earned a beating or two in my life.

[pendell]

Escapism can be about anything that it's different from your regular day-to-day life. A person who spends hours running down innocent pedestrians in GTA5 and then escaping from the cops is still getting escapism from that, and there's certainly nothing heroic, good, excellent or praiseworthy about it.

Well, better that than the real world certainly.

Maybe I'm overly pedantic, but I just don't see the appeal of a world without consequence. Because it means nothing you do actually matters. The world does not change for the better if you work to do so, and it does not become worse if you actively walk the dark path.

Now, if you say a world where the PC has impunity, that makes more sense. Lots of people would love to take consequential actions for which they, themselves, would receive no direct punishment, ever.

... Is that precisely the kind of thing that Undertale was written to parody? Or to critique?

I really ought to play that game at some point; I'm just afraid it'll ruin all the other games I play where fighting monsters is par for the course.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[woweedd]

Well, better that than the real world certainly.

Maybe I'm overly pedantic, but I just don't see the appeal of a world without consequence. Because it means nothing you do actually matters. The world does not change for the better if you work to do so, and it does not become worse if you actively walk the dark path.

Now, if you say a world where the PC has impunity, that makes more sense. Lots of people would love to take consequential actions for which they, themselves, would receive no direct punishment, ever.

... Is that precisely the kind of thing that Undertale was written to parody? Or to critique?

I really ought to play that game at some point; I'm just afraid it'll ruin all the other games I play where fighting monsters is par for the course.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Undertale is...kinda parodying that. I'll detail below the cut:

Spoiler: Undertale

Show

OK, you see, the thing is: In videogames, none of your actions matter. None. The game makes you pretend that your actions have consequences, and will give consequences to your actions, but, ultimately, none of it matters. You can always just Save and Reload and do something else. You can see the outcome of every possible choice. However, in most such games,
your Player Character cannot. To them, these choices are life-and-death and there are no do-overs. However, in Undertale, Frisk is operating on the same level you are. They too can go back and try every possible path, see every possible outcome. That's why Flowely is so willing to kill everyone: He's seen every possible outcome so many times, it's all become routine to him. His actions aren't monstrous to him because, from his point-of-view, his actions have no consequences, not permanently. That's also what make Genocide run Frisk so awful. Sans has an entire speech about it: If you have the ability to go back and, no matter how many times it takes, ensure the best possible outcome for everyone, does that not imply that Frisk (and, by extension, you, the player) has a a moral imperative to ensure the best possible scenario is the one that occurs? After all, you can go back forever. It costs you nothing to ensure that everyone is happy. And it also asks the question: What sort of messed-up person would want to watch their friends die, over and over again, just for 100% completion or to make a number max out or to see what would happen? That person...would be pretty dang screwed-up, no?

[Lacuna Caster]

For me, it was On The Origin of PCs that first led me to take a hard look at adventuring ethics - which was published around the time Miko met the Order, or just after - I read the first two books before reading the online strip.

Roy calls out the rest of his party for mistreatment of Durkon, and for wanting to "kill monsters because it's slightly more convenient than talking to them" (the monsters were orc music fans wanting to attend a concert).

Now the leader of that party was an embodiment of the worst way to play a paladin.

What chain of command issues would there really be before Miko?

Roy is, at least nominally, leader of the party, which theoretically means he has to take responsibility for what his underlings get up to.

I'm sure there are a variety of factors that contributed to Miko being divisive, but based on evidence available at the time I don't think any of them can justify the magnitude of the blowback. (Particularly given the similar outcry that erupted over Celia, who had many of Miko's virtues and rather less of her flaws.)

In retrospect, it reminds me of the furore that erupted over Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian- "Oh, we're just concerned about corruption in games journalism", they said, with reference to an industry riddled with corruption for decades before. Yeah, no ulterior motive there.

Surely a hero is about more than slaying bad guys -- although I can understand someone who just wants a war game, pure and simple, without any shades of grey or morally ambiguous enemies. Something like an old-school chessboard. But that's not the comic Rich is writing. Never has, come to think of it. At least, not since we first encountered the chaotic good goblin teenagers.

Speaking as someone who has no problem with honest escapism, I kinda have mixed feelings about the comic's attempts at long-form dramatic storytelling. My go-to analogy for this is what Lindsay Ellis had to say about Hercules.

[woweedd]

Now the leader of that party was an embodiment of the worst way to play a paladin.


Roy is, at least nominally, leader of the party, which theoretically means he has to take responsibility for what his underlings get up to.

I'm sure there are a variety of factors that contributed to Miko being divisive, but based on evidence available at the time I don't think any of them can justify the magnitude of the blowback. (Particularly given the similar outcry that erupted over Celia, who had many of Miko's virtues and rather less of her flaws.)

In retrospect, it reminds me of the furore that erupted over Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian- "Oh, we're just concerned about corruption in games journalism", they said, with reference to an industry riddled with corruption for decades before. Yeah, no ulterior motive there.


Speaking as someone who has no problem with honest escapism, I kinda have mixed feelings about the comic's attempts at long-form dramatic storytelling. My go-to analogy for this is what Lindsay Ellis had to say about Hercules.

Explain. I think I know what you mean, but I want clarification. Also, I agree the backlash against Cellia was unjustified, even for a character, who, while far more morally pure then Miko, was still meant to be a little annoying. That said, while I think quite a lot of the hatred towards Miko and Celia was Misogynistic in character, I think the Gamergate comparison is a bit much. Also, The weird thing is, Cellia has another parallel to Miko. They both spring from questions relating to the fundamentals of D&D. In Miko's case, her character idea was basically "How do you write a character who is both Lawful Good and still a very unlikeable antagonist?" and Celia's core concept, in my opinion, seems to have been "How would a normal person, who lives a life mostly free of violence, react to being placed into a D&D adventure scenario, where killing is done so often, it's basically mundane?" That conversation between her and Roy, where they talk about how her kind don't have Raise Dead or a known afterlife, and how that's made them far more averse to violence then the Material Plane's inhabitants, places her species as a clear surrogate for the audience, and humanity in general. A world where death is a great unknown and impossible to fix and life is treated as sacrosanct. Her view of things, trying to avoid violence whenever possible and considering murder a great tragedy even when done to someone's who's Evil, would be perfectly reasonable in our real-world. In a D&D world, where monsters are everywhere, massive injuries up to and including death are fixable, and Good and Evil are actual physical tangible forces that one can get a reading on like a fuel meter? Not so much.

[pendell]

Explain. I think I know what you mean, but I want clarification. Also, I agree the backlash against Cellia was unjustified, even for a character, who, while far more morally pure then Miko, was still meant to be a little annoying. That said, while I think quite a lot of the hatred towards Miko and Celia was Misogynistic in character, I think the Gamergate comparison is a bit much. Also, The weird thing is, Cellia has another parallel to Miko. They both spring from questions relating to the fundamentals of D&D. In Miko's case, her character idea was basically "How do you write a character who is both Lawful Good and still a very unlikeable antagonist?" and Celia's core concept, in my opinion, seems to have been "How would a normal person, who lives a life mostly free of violence, react to being placed into a D&D adventure scenario, where killing is done so often, it's basically mundane?" That conversation between her and Roy, where they talk about how her kind don't have Raise Dead or a known afterlife, and how that's made them far more averse to violence then the Material Plane's inhabitants, places her species as a clear surrogate for the audience, and humanity in general. A world where death is a great unknown and impossible to fix and life is treated as sacrosanct. Her view of things, trying to avoid violence whenever possible and considering murder a great tragedy even when done to someone's who's Evil, would be perfectly reasonable in our real-world. In a D&D world, where monsters are everywhere, massive injuries up to and including death are fixable, and Good and Evil are actual physical tangible forces that one can get a reading on like a fuel meter? Not so much.

An excellent writeup. I feel pity for Celia; She is a good person thrust into a bad situation, and she used the tools she had to try to craft a solution which would work for Haley, Bozzok, AND the Thieves' Guild. Unfortunately, she ran afoul of the problem many idealists discover, which is that many of the people she was trying to craft a solution for were not in the process in good faith.

If Bozzok, Crystal, and the Thieves' Guild had all honored their end of the bargain , Celia's solution to their problem was ideal. The problem was, the solution she came up with is designed for Sylphs, not humans. Or half-orcs or halflings , for that matter.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Doctor West]

You know, seeing as I wasn't around for the original Miko Wars it's very considerate of you guys to put on a rerun for me, but I think I've seen enough.

[Peelee]

You know, seeing as I wasn't around for the original Miko Wars it's very considerate of you guys to put on a rerun for me, but I think I've seen enough.

I wish the forum had a "favorite poster" function along with "ignore poster."

[Porthos]

You know, seeing as I wasn't around for the original Miko Wars it's very considerate of you guys to put on a rerun for me, but I think I've seen enough.

This discussion is nothing compared to the real thing that were The Miko Wars.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I wish the forum had a "favorite poster" function along with "ignore poster."

What would it do? Gold plate the posts of people on the list?

GW

[danielxcutter]

What would it do? Gold plate the posts of people on the list?

GW

Why not?

[Porthos]

What would it do? Gold plate the posts of people on the list?

GW

On other forums it can be known as a "Buddy List" where you either know that your friends are currently on the board and/or you can click a link to see their posts (like a refined search).

One of my other forums I haunt has the feature, FWIW.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why not?

I was quite serious - sorry, I can see now how I might have come across as making fun of the idea, but I promise I did mean it. Maybe gold plated is a bit gaudy, but I wouldn't mind some kind of indication that a given post is by someone I've designated as especially worth listening to. Especially these days, when half the bloody forum's avatars are the "you haven't paid us! No image for you!" image.

On other forums it can be known as a "Buddy List" where you either know that your friends are currently on the board and/or you can click a link to see their posts (like a refined search).

One of my other forums I haunt has the feature, FWIW.

You mean, like the contact list on the left sidebar of this forum?
(See, this I meant a bit mockingly)

GW

[Porthos]

You mean, like the contact list on the left sidebar of this forum?
(See, this I meant a bit mockingly)

GW

Same feature by another name.

(I almost never use it on that other forum and only half looked on the settings here to see if GitP had it by another name )

FWIW, it's designed to let folks know what their friends on the board are up to, thus it provides a logical counterpart to the Ignore List. If Ignore Lists are a list of folks you want to Ignore, a Friends List should therefore be a list of folks you want to know to know more about. And on a forum like this, it'd be When Online and Show Posts.

===

Alternatively, there is the (in)famous Like Button. But that's a whole other daunting discussion,

[Peelee]

What would it do? Gold plate the posts of people on the list?

I prefer silver.

This discussion is nothing compared to the real thing that were The Miko Wars.

Well, yeah. Recreationists can only go so far.

[Lacuna Caster]

I wish the forum had a "favorite poster" function along with "ignore poster."

Why? Because back-handed contempt is so endearing?

[danielxcutter]

Waaaaay off topic, guys. This is about if your DM pulled as much fiat as Rich does to tell OotS, not Miko War II.

[woweedd]

Waaaaay off topic, guys. This is about if your DM pulled as much fiat as Rich does to tell OotS, not Miko War II.

Bit late, my friend. That ship has sailed, circled the globe, and come back into port laden with spices from far-off lands.

[Lacuna Caster]

Explain. I think I know what you mean, but I want clarification.

Spoiler

Show

I think there are a lot of parallels, particularly if you back and watch the video from the start, but basically I feel that tonal whiplash and glaring contrivance tend to undermine the seriousness of the story's intended message, and while I have a lot of fondness for the primary villains and various proactive NPCs, the protagonists tend to be dragged by the nose toward key plot junctures by circumstances they have little say in.

There's also a fair analogy between Roy's blood oath and Hercules' desire to rejoin his heavenly father- Roy could love or hate Eugene, but he's still gonna be obliged to go hunt Xykon or face a potential eternity in aimless limbo, which means his core motivation is more-or-less foisted upon him. Sure, there are enough nuances to how he goes about it that I can generally give him credit for being well-meaning, but I actually find it more endearing that he's willing to stay up late standing watch over the party than that he's willing to jump on a zombie dragon. (I should state here that when analysing people's motives, I make a point to pay absolutely no attention to what they say and look exclusive at concrete behaviour.)

Since we've wandered pretty far off-topic, I'll try to close the loop and say that this is a problem which afflicts a lot of traditional D&D campaigns- namely, that the intended structure of the story exists completely independent of the PCs and their personal concerns, and the latter have to be subsequently spliced into the former- a task which is greatly complicated if the PCs are a random grab-bag of disparate individuals with little in the way of social embedding or common background, and would probably be tearing eachothers' throats out if not punted hither and thither by illusionist devices and the metagame desire of the players for a quiet evening.

I do not favour this approach to role-playing.

That said, while I think quite a lot of the hatred towards Miko and Celia was Misogynistic in character, I think the Gamergate comparison is a bit much. Also, The weird thing is, Cellia has another parallel to Miko. They both spring from questions relating to the fundamentals of D&D. In Miko's case, her character idea was basically "How do you write a character who is both Lawful Good and still a very unlikeable antagonist?" and Celia's core concept, in my opinion, seems to have been "How would a normal person, who lives a life mostly free of violence, react to being placed into a D&D adventure scenario, where killing is done so often, it's basically mundane?" That conversation between her and Roy, where they talk about how her kind don't have Raise Dead or a known afterlife, and how that's made them far more averse to violence then the Material Plane's inhabitants, places her species as a clear surrogate for the audience, and humanity in general. A world where death is a great unknown and impossible to fix and life is treated as sacrosanct. Her view of things, trying to avoid violence whenever possible and considering murder a great tragedy even when done to someone's who's Evil, would be perfectly reasonable in our real-world. In a D&D world, where monsters are everywhere, massive injuries up to and including death are fixable, and Good and Evil are actual physical tangible forces that one can get a reading on like a fuel meter? Not so much.

While the scale of uproar was obviously more confined, one can draw parallels between one zealous, overbearing moral crusader who challenges in-group preconceptions and happens to be more-or-less technically justified and another... well, you get the picture. That Celia, in various ways, was Miko-as-the-nicest-person-in-the-world also tends to colour my perspective.

I'm sure that the moral ramifications of D&D cosmology would be severe, in the same sense that D&D metaphysics rapidly leads to a Tippyverse environment, but... in the same sense that OOTS does not take place in Tippyverse, I'm not sure that the universe-as-playground-of-harmless-violence is particularly consistent with the overall tone of the narrative. It's... odd to have Roy telling Celia that the afterlife is a comforting safety net before pleading with the Gods to spare everyone's mortal lives.

[woweedd]

Spoiler

Show

I think there are a lot of parallels, particularly if you back and watch the video from the start, but basically I feel that tonal whiplash and glaring contrivance tend to undermine the seriousness of the story's intended message, and while I have a lot of fondness for the primary villains and various proactive NPCs, the protagonists tend to be dragged by the nose toward key plot junctures by circumstances they have little say in.

There's also a fair analogy between Roy's blood oath and Hercules' desire to rejoin his heavenly father- Roy could love or hate Eugene, but he's still gonna be obliged to go hunt Xykon or face a potential eternity in aimless limbo, which means his core motivation is more-or-less foisted upon him. Sure, there are enough nuances to how he goes about it that I can generally give him credit for being well-meaning, but I actually find it more endearing that he's willing to stay up late standing watch over the party than that he's willing to jump on a zombie dragon. (I should state here that when analysing people's motives, I make a point to pay absolutely no attention to what they say and look exclusive at concrete behaviour.)

Since we've wandered pretty far off-topic, I'll try to close the loop and say that this is a problem which afflicts a lot of traditional D&D campaigns- namely, that the intended structure of the story exists completely independent of the PCs and their personal concerns, and the latter have to be subsequently spliced into the former- a task which is greatly complicated if the PCs are a random grab-bag of disparate individuals with little in the way of social embedding or common background, and would probably be tearing eachothers' throats out if not punted hither and thither by illusionist devices and the metagame desire of the players for a quiet evening.

I do not favour this approach to role-playing.


While the scale of uproar was obviously more confined, one can draw parallels between one zealous, overbearing moral crusader who challenges in-group preconceptions and happens to be more-or-less technically justified and another... well, you get the picture. That Celia, in various ways, was Miko-as-the-nicest-person-in-the-world also tends to colour my perspective.

I'm sure that the moral ramifications of D&D cosmology would be severe, in the same sense that D&D metaphysics rapidly leads to a Tippyverse environment, but... in the same sense that OOTS does not take place in Tippyverse, I'm not sure that the universe-as-playground-of-harmless-violence is particularly consistent with the overall tone of the narrative. It's... odd to have Roy telling Celia that the afterlife is a comforting safety net before pleading with the Gods to spare everyone's mortal lives.

About Roy's Blood Oath, Roy explicitly will NOT be faced with an eternity in the limbo. The Deva saw fit to offer an exception. Indeed, I imagine one of the reasons Rich had Roy go to the afterlife was to demonstrate that there really is nothing forcing Roy to stop Xykon other then his own desire to help people/the world. Xykon has stated that he doesn't wnat the world destroyed. Crushed under his bone-steel fist? Sure. Destroyed? No. Rpy really could just follow his suggestion and leave. He doesn't, and he give his life for it.

[Lacuna Caster]

About Roy's Blood Oath, Roy explicitly will NOT be faced with an eternity in the limbo. The Deva saw fit to offer an exception. Indeed, I imagine one of the reasons Rich had Roy go to the afterlife was to demonstrate that there really is nothing forcing Roy to stop Xykon other then his own desire to help people/the world. Xykon has stated that he doesn't wnat the world destroyed. Crushed under his bone-steel fist? Sure. Destroyed? No. Rpy really could just follow his suggestion and leave. He doesn't, and he give his life for it.

The deva allowed Roy into Celestia only because he made a solid good-faith effort at stopping Xykon... which means that if Roy stops trying, he'll be stuck outside the pearly gates. In any case, he had no idea of this before getting killed. (As an aside, my preferred head-canon version of the story is that the blood oath was satisfied and Eugene released by Roy's death in the line of duty. Then, when he came back, we'd know he's working purely out of the good of his heart. But alas... such a view is not supported by the data.)

And yeah, sure, after the Godsmoot it's nice of him to make a timely diversion to save the world (and/or Durkon), but... when you get right down to it, this is actually a pretty low threshold for altruism. This is partly what I mean about being shoehorned into the plot- it's not a bad thing to try and save the world, but if he didn't it would kinda make him a huge jerk.

[Kish]

It's also worth noting that, as far as "pleading with the gods to spare everyone's mortal lives," Roy first says he's not sure he's right to oppose the world being destroyed in light of the danger to people's souls, then Hel speaks up and helpfully gives Roy a guarantee that the next world would be worse than the current one and millions of souls would go to eternal torture if he didn't prevent the world ending.

[Lacuna Caster]

4th-wall factors aren't mainly what I mean (though highly selective application of D&D cartoon-physics might.) I'm talking more about loopy coincidence and regular use of the idiot ball- stuff that's fine in comedy, but starts to wear thin when propelling events of great consequence.

The scenario Hel describes is awful, sure, but again, this is not an argument for the afterlife being a comforting safety net, and Roy doesn't need extraordinary altruism to want to prevent it.

We can quibble about the details of Tippyverse, but the basic conclusion that, e.g, mid-level wizards teleporting hundreds of miles each day would have utterly transformative effects on the fabric of medieval life is difficult to avoid. I mean, people travelled thousands of miles at exorbitant expense to trade silk in the ancient world- can you imagine what would happen if ten years of training let you make the trip in a week or two?

[TidePriestess]

4th-wall factors aren't mainly what I mean (though highly selective application of D&D cartoon-physics might.) I'm talking more about loopy coincidence and regular use of the idiot ball- stuff that's fine in comedy, but starts to wear thin when propelling events of great consequence.

The scenario Hel describes is awful, sure, but again, this is not an argument for the afterlife being a comforting safety net, and Roy doesn't need extraordinary altruism to want to prevent it.

We can quibble about the details of Tippyverse, but the basic conclusion that, e.g, mid-level wizards teleporting hundreds of miles each day would have utterly transformative effects on the fabric of medieval life is difficult to avoid. I mean, people travelled thousands of miles at exorbitant expense to trade silk in the ancient world- can you imagine what would happen if ten years of training let you make the trip in a week or two?

It's worth noting, I think, that it requires at least 15 Intelligence to cast Teleport, and the vast majority of people won't go beyond, like, 12 or 13. I would argue that the main thing that makes adventurers special isn't class levels, but ability scores.

[Kish]

1) I don't know how many ninth-level-and-above wizards you're assuming exist in the OotS setting, 2) I don't know how the presented OotS world, as opposed to an imagined medieval world, shows signs of lacking teleporting wizards, and 3) if by "Tippyverse" you mean "it doesn't resemble an imagined medieval world" rather than the "everyone important is in huge cities" stuff, sure.