The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role-Playing Games

[greyorm]

MJ, thanks for answering my query.
Also for the detailed analysis of the view of deity as an "independent entity;" you'll note I did reference that view in the paragraph following my comment about my perception of it as odd, so as to contrast it with the pagan view of deity as non-external to the universe.

And to a couple others...watch yourselves, certain of you are starting to free-associate all over the place. Check the topic, then post.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

Kester, don't make me slap you with a mackerel.

You ask me a question about how a world of mythic reality influences the mechanics of play, I answer that it does not influence mechanics or need to, and you come back with an analysis of how the physics of the world would be different so the mechanics have to be different?!

Alright, then, I give. You explain to me, please, how the facts that the world is flat, has one edge beyond which lies the afterworld, and so forth will alter the following mechanic: roll D20 + your skill + your ability modifier.

*quirking eyebrow*

Mayhaps you skimmed over the part where I stated there is a difference between a RPG "core mechanics" and it's "world mechanics"?

So I shall reiterate in what, I hope, to be plain english.

The core mechanics are the base system mechanics, as all here know this covers character generation, maybe touches upon skills et al, but really covers little else.

The world mechanics are what delineate, define, establish, and precisely lay down the rules of play for the game environment.  viz. whether the world is flat, floating in mists, a oblong toroidal Dyson sphere, what have you.  There is a difference.

Once lets you generate a character.  The other presents the stage upon which the character is to be played.

No convoluted bullshit about the world impacting play and maybe adding this modifier here or there, either, please. Direct, clear examples of how the nature of this different reality fundamentally alters the mechanics of the game.

I really have no idea where this steam is venting from.  Save, perhaps, to assume that you have encountered some far less inspirational systems than I over the years?

I'm sorry to come off so harsh, but you've been here long enough to know better.

So, simple answer to the above question: it doesn't.
The game mechanics are no different than they would be in a plain old regular D&D campaign where the world is spherical and surrounded by a void.

In the world we're talking about, the physics can remain the same, the laws can remain the same, they don't have the same explanation, perhaps...and why go creating seperate physics?

There are many types of magic systems.  Some make use of Leylines, power nexii, or Manna.  By definition that is a world mechanic affecting character design.

For instance:  The world of Elric is not the world of the Soprano Sorceress anymore than either of those worlds are the world of Bilbo Baggins.  There exist subtle differences, expressed not just in character descriptions, but certain subtleties of the background which help define the world.

Of course how one decides to create a character for use in such a world matters not so much as does establishing the proper flavor of the world to play in.  That includes the sort of characters, monsters, monetary systems, et al which one may encounter within such a world.  Even the belief systems.  That is a world mechanic.

There is no need. We are telling a human story in a world that behaves is usually expected on the grossly physical level of common experience. We are playing in a world that is like the one we know, or as our ancestors knew it.

Your problem, perhaps, is that you're still thinking like a 20th-century native of modern Earth. Rational thought and the scientific method have clogged your thought-processes with their fingerprints, so that you believe everything must have a natural explanation, one that is logical and discernable (protests expected but ignored).

I got to this point and, quite frankly, saw the "ignored" bit and sat agasht, then became slightly digusted, then just shrugged.

Rant and rail as you will, I guess is the best response I can type.  (?)  I believe that I have expressed the distinctions clearly.  Still I shall make no attempt to clutter this thread further with this matter, since it is obviously a pinprick into some nerve or another I did not intend to set off and, as you have stated you are likely to ignore such posts...  *scratches head in confusion*  Sad, really, something might have devloped out of of such a discussion.

Here's hoping that our next discourse wont be on such techy grounds.


Good Evening,

Kester Pelagius

[greyorm]

Alright Kester, fair enough.
I overreacted, and much due to my missing any discerning between the ideas of "world mechanics" and "game mechanics" in your posting.

By "world mechanics" you are referring to alterations to or differences in the setting...but then I fail to see what your original disagreement was about? There are still no differences mechanics-wise.

Yes, again, there are differences setting-wise...the very differences I stated are the differences in setting (which is blatantly obvious). And your talk about different sources of magic, such as ley lines or mana, differing depending on the world, this is more of the same: description of the specific color of a setting.

Simply, I am left scratching my head at the reason for mentioning such things at all, for it sounds to me as though you are saying, "Settings have differences depending on their differences."

What, precisely, was the point of your original question and your later disagreement, especially as it relates to the topic at hand?

[Valamir]

Well, I hate to jump into the middle of this discussion, but if I may, I think I see what Kester was getting at...mainly because its something of a pet peeve of mine.

In much the way Raven, that you have a distaste for the science nerd (a distaste I share but in a slightly different fashion...I like the hole poking to a point, because it tells me where they myth is weak and lets me fill in the holes I would have missed) I have a distaste for fanciful things that aren't taken to their logical conclusion (like D&D with lists of the 350 kings who ruled Oberthanahal...wait a minute...for a simple payment of gold my 7th level fighter got himself ressurected 3 times...the only reason there should ever be more than 1 king is if there was a coup, a death that resulted in total destruction of the body, or the king ran afoul of the church (all churches).  That sort of thing.

So a strong but fantastical world myth (I love those...I have one involving a race being cursed by the moon, because the moon's lover begat the race on the sea...thinking the sea was it was the moon, because the trickster god put the moon's reflection in the water...that sort of thing) should have an impact on how the world works, and some of that can/could be reflected in mechanics.  Now when I think mechanics I go beyond the very basic mechanism of the mechanic (die + modifier or what have you).  To me rules for WHEN to invoke that mechanism are as much a part of the mechanic as the mechanism itself is, and so on.

As a concrete example, you indicated your world was flat.  Well, the horizon is caused because of the curvature of the earth, distant objects being literally too "low" to see.  If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.  Even with a enormously powerful telescope I can't see all the way across the Atlantic...the curvature of the earth sees to that.  But with a flat world...on a clear day...with a powerful enough telescope, I could stand in New York and watch fishing boats in the Bay of Biscay.  Now while that may not effect the core mechanism of the game, it should effect things like when a party needs to roll to see if they've been spotted...which could happen MUCH farther away than our reality based intuition would suggest.  In other words WHEN the mechanism gets invoked might be different based on the underlying myth.

For instance in the world I mentioned above weather is actually created in a manner similar to the Heat Miser / Frost Miser feud from the old Christmas Special...an ongoing war between cloud living Fire and Frost giants.  If I were to play D&D3E in such a world I might well have to rework how "weather sense" abilities work...they might be cleric based instead of ranger based.  Spells like Lightning Strike, or Call Weather, might have to be rewritten.  Summoning cold weather might well piss off the local cloud of Fire Giants (like snow in South Town), may even change the balance of power in the on going war and herald the beggining of an Ice Age.

So I can definitely see places where a mythology (if its actually true and factual mythology) could have an impact on the broader set of what I would consider mechanics (i.e. mechanisms plus implementation of mechanisms).

[greyorm]

If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.

Thanks, Ralph, I get what you are saying about Kester's idea...however, the above example is exactly the kind of notion I'm talking about ridding oneself of.

You're talking physical reality...you can't see beyond a certain distance because the earth curves, and if it didn't, you could. But...it's unimportant.

Simply, the world is flat and you still can't see beyond that certain distance because that's just the way the world is. No explanation necessary. Same physical laws, same gross physical "reality"...different actual cases of reality.

Regardless, I realize that's picking at the point, and I understand the intent behind the example. Ultimately, I agree, in a number of given cases alteration of the game world could affect the specific usage or usage-result of the mechanics.

[contracycle]

If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.

You're talking physical reality...you can't see beyond a certain distance because the earth curves, and if it didn't, you could. But...it's unimportant.

It is not unimportant.  This is one of the examples, I feel, of the denial of wisdom; nobody in the game knows or cares why there is a limit to vision, not for any particular reason, but just "because".  In this case, seeing as there is no alternative explanation, players will continue to operate on their default understanding of how the world works.  And our priests and diviners don't know either, apparently, so why does anyone expect us to treat them with any respect?

Of course we are talking about physical reality - this is inescapable because the entire model we use is one of physical creatures moving about a physical space.  To establish such things as both unkown and unknowable makes all forms of comprehension meaningless and valueless; is it any wonder then that players ignore them?

[greyorm]

Gareth,

I agree, that would be a problem, and precisely what I feel (and am finding) my method allows the group to avoid, so you don't get characters or peoples who ignore their priests and diviners, nor players who fall back into "Just Like Earth(tm)" modes of thought and behavior.

Note that nowhere have I ever said "leave it utterly undefined" and similar statements about unknowing and unknowable. You're ascribing statements to me I'm not making: I'm saying that such things are best left to description through the campaign's mythology, and that such is supported as the truth in order to be recognized as such.

There is some context in regards to the issue of "unimportant" physical reality that is set up in previous posts in this thread as well as following the portion of my statement you quoted, which detail my reasons for making the statement that you might wish to reread to get a better idea of what I was promoting and what I was disapproving of, and why.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

Alright Kester, fair enough.
I overreacted, and much due to my missing any discerning between the ideas of "world mechanics" and "game mechanics" in your posting.

By "world mechanics" you are referring to alterations to or differences in the setting...but then I fail to see what your original disagreement was about? There are still no differences mechanics-wise.

Yes, again, there are differences setting-wise...the very differences I stated are the differences in setting (which is blatantly obvious). And your talk about different sources of magic, such as ley lines or mana, differing depending on the world, this is more of the same: description of the specific color of a setting.

Ok, I'll try this one more time.

In Stormbringer the way magic works is not how it works in, say, oh, just about any other novel prior to the series publication.  Since then, sure, plenty of demon swords.  However, it is not merely "flavor" or "setting", witness the Stormbringer boxed set.

Ah, the Stormbringer boxed set.  It's magic is not AD&D magic.  It's not even Palladium magic.  Nor is it MERP magic.  Rather, it is something else altogether.

Yet how can that be?

You would argue there is no difference, save in minor details of the setting.  That this doesn't mean anything.  But it does!

Many novel series present a world in which magic comes with a cost, which can often be expressed in terms of *mechanics* as Fatigue or Lifeforce Drain.  Which, of course, is dependant upon how the world is established.  That is a world mechanic.

If magic will only work by rote, blood letting, summoning of daemonic forces, or while standing on one foot and reciting love poetry under a full moon on the 11th day of Aum then you have just established a world mechanic by defining conditonals within the framework of the world setting cum background cum flavor.

Of course there is one good *bad* example of this I can think of, though only because it's implementation bore the obvious earmarks of having too many wouldbe cooks putting too many spices into the stew.  That would be, IMO, the Spelljammer campaign setting from TSR.  (A campaign set I liked a lot, despite it's faults.)

It borrows much from early Cosmology, mostly medieval and Ptolemaic, alas beyond the use of names and certain ideas the material presented takes off on one too many tangents.   Thus it looses itself.

Why is this important?

Because your game mechanics should derive directly from your world mechanics.  All novels that make it to print generally do so because they have a strong world mechanic, meaning they allow the reader reasonable room for suspension of disbelief.  Thus they seem realistic within their own environment, even if they bear no resemblance to our perceived reality.

Those familiar with Spelljammer will probably be instantly able to cite several falws with the basic combat ship-to-ship system.  A system which, oddly enough, would have made a great 2D naval warfare system, if printed as such.   Alas that is also why the system was a failure.

Why, if I just stated it was such a good 2D naval combat system, would I then say it was a failure?

The answer is simple.  What was needed was not a 2D table-top naval warfare system but a 3D ship-to-ship system.  That is what the world mechanic called for.  That is not what the boxed set presented.  The game mechanic went against the established world mechanic.

Spelljammer was supposed to be AD&D in space.  Yet not only was Spellhjammer ship to ship combat presented without taking the 3D nature of space into account it, amazingly, ignored the world setting which it attempted to establish.  Namely that vessels, once they left an planetary atmosphere more or less became a planetoid, meaning it retained its own gravity plane and "air envelope".

Why is that a problem in ship to ship combat?

Because it sets up a system whereby a ships personal gravity must be taken into account when firing a catapult or crossbow.  I mean, think about it, once a projectile leaves a vessel's gravity well it would be in freefall.  Alas, in Spelljammer, you had the wonderful roll the dice to see if you hit method.  A method which, I have to admit, even the gamers in my group that didn't care for worrying over rules began to question.  Why?

Because it didn't make sense.  The game says that you are in a ship with it's own gravity well.  Thus, effectively, you are firing from a gravity well through the void, hoping to hit a target that has it's own gravity well.  Yet once a projectile leaves the vessel's gravity influence what is to keep it on it's trajectory?  And what about catapults?

That is a prime example of what can happen when a game mechanic is applied without first considering the world setting.

When done properly there should be no conflict.  Thus, in a novel, if casting spells drains life energy a good mechanic might be to use a Fatigue system.  However if magic is powered by some form of mystical energy, then a Manna System might be preferred.

Thus the world setting matters a great deal.  Because it defines the world mechanic, and the world mechanic defines the environment of the game; thus the rules of play should be reflective of the world setting.

Going back to our Spelljammer example:  If you establish that a vessel can leave a planet's atmosphere, and procede to explain how this is achieved, your game mechanics must fit the world mechanics which you have established.  Spelljammer failed to do this with 100% accuracy.  Sure, it only took a few tweaks, alas most casual designers seem unware that there is a difference in core game mechanics which govern a character's creation and the world mechanics which govern what those characters are (or should) be able to do within the environment that has been established.

Setting is not merely background.  It is the stage upon which the characters are going to play.  If you tell me that the stage is being dressed for a swashbuckling epic then I would expect to see cutlasses and a certain cut of costume like we see in most pirate movies, not laser wielding scantily clad g-string cheerleaders fighting mutant ninja frogs; would you?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius


Edit:  This also affects the Mechanics of Religion as presented within a RPG environment.  Or should be.  Alas, as I believe I might have stated, from most appearanced Priest types are merely specialist magic-users.  It's all about presentation, don't you think?

[contracycle]

Note that nowhere have I ever said "leave it utterly undefined" and similar statements about unknowing and unknowable. You're ascribing statements to me I'm not making: I'm saying that such things are best left to description through the campaign's mythology, and that such is supported as the truth in order to be recognized as such.

Sure, but putting it in the mythology is not enough, IMO, especially if the mythology is contradictory.  All the players need to share the vision of how the world works so there is no assumption clash - and I strongly agree with Kesters presentation of how important this is and how it interacts with the de facto uses to which mechanics are put.  Mythology may well be the vector by which exposition of the facts is laid out, but they must still be hard facts in the game world.  So this is exactly why you cannot say:

Simply, the world is flat and you still can't see beyond that certain distance because that's just the way the world is. No explanation necessary. Same physical laws, same gross physical "reality"...different actual cases of reality.

An explanation is most certainly necessary, cannot be otherwise: for I as the GM have responsibility to adjudicate and to do so with the illusion of fairness.  If explanation of how the world works is just plain missing, then I cannot do so with any confidence.  If the explanation is located in mythology, and the mythology is given as subjective, then I will be responsible for resolving the clashes.  Therefore, even if the detail happens to be ommitted from the presentation delivered to the players, it absolutely must be given to the GM.  These characters will be active, will Do Stuff, and they will try to exploit their situation to the best of there ability.  We have to know that the situation is.

[greyorm]

Because your game mechanics should derive directly from your world mechanics. All novels that make it to print generally do so because they have a strong world mechanic, meaning they allow the reader reasonable room for suspension of disbelief. Thus they seem realistic within their own environment, even if they bear no resemblance to our perceived reality.

Kester,

I agree wholeheartedly with your statements! However, note that what you are discussing as "world mechanics" is what the GNS essay precisely refers to as "Color" and the idea you are presenting is one long supported by the Forge and by Ron's original "System Does Matter" essay: that the system must support the intended goals of the design.

That is, what you are talking about is making your mechanics reflective of the goals of the game itself. As a specific example, if a goal of the game is to support the Exploration of Setting and Color, then the mechanics need to focus on and support the important parts of the Setting and the Color, centralizing them.

I've long been a proponent of this, and steadfastly dislike any system which does not follow this philosophy...it is my objective criteria for judgement: do the game mechanics support the intended goals of the game itself?

A specific example is "Sorcerer," which supports its Premise through its specific mechanics and makes it the center of play by making the mechanic of the Premise of central importance in the game.

An explanation is most certainly necessary, cannot be otherwise: for I as the GM have responsibility to adjudicate and to do so with the illusion of fairness...If the explanation is located in mythology, and the mythology is given as subjective

Gareth,

I agree; it's my fault for being terribly unclear in my later examples. I assumed the reader would build off my previous statements and stay with me, instead of interpreting the "no explanation necessary" statements as existing by themselves without the context of the mythology discussion.

What I should have said instead is that no explanation is necessary in the scientific realm, and once the world is established as existing in its shape and form by the whim of the gods, explanations themselves need not be given for gross, experienced reality...because the explanation IS "that's the way the gods want it."

Further, determining the precise explanatory details of an observable fact is precisely what mythology does...it establishes why things are the way they are (and this, I think, would be an excellent cornerstone for a game about mythology).

As well, most people of a typical pre-industrial (or even modern) mindset will simply not notice or question such things as the Earth's curvature...the world is simply the way it is, and only occasionally will someone notice it and question it.

(You would be surprised how many people are actually unaware of simple scientific facts or phenomena like this; including individuals whom you have to take down to a dock and show them it occuring specifically before they believe it happens...which is more people than you think)

Finally, you bring up a complaint about subjective mythology interfering with your ability to GM. I don't believe I've stated the mythology in the context we're discussing is subjective, in fact, I've stated numerous times in this context it is fact.

I haven't yet explored that certain items in a mythology can be subjective, YET TRUE. At this point, I don't think I want to get so deep when we haven't gotten past the shores of what I've already established of the method.

[contracycle]

What I should have said instead is that no explanation is necessary in the scientific realm, and once the world is established as existing in its shape and form by the whim of the gods, explanations themselves need not be given for gross, experienced reality...because the explanation IS "that's the way the gods want it."

Further, determining the precise explanatory details of an observable fact is precisely what mythology does...it establishes why things are the way they are (and this, I think, would be an excellent cornerstone for a game about mythology).

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other.  You see, I understand your initial position, that the world must be realised, but I disagree that subjective mythology goes anywhere toward achieveing that.

So the explanation offered is "because thats the way the gods wanted it".  What information do I gain from this fact?  Nothing; it adds nothing to my body of observational data.  Why does water run downwards?  Will of the gods.  Why does rain fall?  Will of the gods.  Why does the lion not lie down with the lamb?  Will of the gods.  At the end of this Q&A session, I understand nothing more than when I started.  There is nothing that I can take from this back to the real world; there are no general principles I could try or insights I could verify.  My ability to act, my degree of comprehension, remains unchanged.

Will of the gods is not an explanation; it is an excuse to not provide an explanation.  Mythology very seldom provides us with seriously useful information, it tends to explain the world in moral terms and be self-referential to an established model of social conduct.  Thats perfectly legit in terms of character knowledge, but it is not adequate in terms of GM knowledge.  Nor does it challenge the probability that a player will default to a modern understanding of the sun and the moon or the horizon, because no alternative model is being presented.

So it seems to me that to say that no explanation must be given for gross perceived reality is false; that is exactly what needs the most explanation.

[Valamir]

Will of the gods is not an explanation; it is an excuse to not provide an explanation.  Mythology very seldom provides us with seriously useful information, it tends to explain the world in moral terms and be self-referential to an established model of social conduct.  Thats perfectly legit in terms of character knowledge, but it is not adequate in terms of GM knowledge.  Nor does it challenge the probability that a player will default to a modern understanding of the sun and the moon or the horizon, because no alternative model is being presented.

Well, the other side of that Gareth is that in Raven's case the Myth isn't a myth at all.  So while it is an excuse to not provide an explanation in our world, in a world where it is reality it IS the explanation.

That's the difference between:

A) People really BELIEVE that lighting is the thunder bolts of Zeus when really they're a meteorlogical event, and.

B) lighting really IS the thunder bolts of Zeus.  As in if a wizard cast a fly spell and flew up into the middle of a storm he'd see a big god flinging cyclops forged bars of bronze around the sky.

My comment to Raven to above was to illustrate that if B is the case that there are ripple effects that would have repurcussions in the mechanics of the game.  But I do agree with the essential difference between a world that is reality but people have myths to explain what they don't understand about reality vs. a world where the myths ARE the reality...the world really IS carried on the back of a turtle.

[Valamir]

If the world is flat, visual distances would work much differently.

Thanks, Ralph, I get what you are saying about Kester's idea...however, the above example is exactly the kind of notion I'm talking about ridding oneself of.

You're talking physical reality...you can't see beyond a certain distance because the earth curves, and if it didn't, you could. But...it's unimportant.

Simply, the world is flat and you still can't see beyond that certain distance because that's just the way the world is. No explanation necessary. Same physical laws, same gross physical "reality"...different actual cases of reality.

Regardless, I realize that's picking at the point, and I understand the intent behind the example. Ultimately, I agree, in a number of given cases alteration of the game world could affect the specific usage or usage-result of the mechanics.

Quite, this is where my tangent about liking the science nerds to poke at came from.  Real world reality must always be the default because in the absence of description to the contrary that's what all of our brains are programmed in.  So by real world reality you should be able to see "forever" on a flat world.  If that isn't the case in your world...if the horizon is only 6 miles or so, then there should be some other facet of your myth to explain why this is so...

One could come up with really good ones.  Something like the god of mist and obfuscation covered the entire earth such that no one could see their hand before their face.  Some big blah blah event happen where the sun god casts him out but in the final solution (like the compromise of the pomegranates) the horizon was created as the boundary beyond which the god could obfuscate but within which he couldn't (except when he rebels against the agreement and invades the land with fog until the sun god is again able to drive him away.

[contracycle]

Right, yeah, we agree - if the myth says that Zeus is up there, then Zeus had better be up there.  If the mythology says the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, I want to hang over the edge and tickle its nose.

[greyorm]

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. You see, I understand your initial position, that the world must be realised, but I disagree that subjective mythology

Gareth, again, you are on about "subjective mythology," ignoring the ending paragraphs of my last post, where I specifically address the issue of "subjectivity" and mythology in the context of this discussion.

As well, you have twisted my statements about "the will of the gods," stating I am saying it should be used as an excuse! Honestly, what did you think I meant when I said "[mythology] establishes why things are the way they are"?

In that same vein, you've failed to note my use of mythology facts like "the sun is the creator god, who dies every night and returns every morning" as game truth in support of this method.

You have missed everything I stated about creating a mythic reality and the methods to do it, though I fail to see how that is possible.

If you wanted to bring these important issues up as seperate thought lines, instead of in responses to my statements, then you should have done so, because you are right that such things need to be addressed...but not by building cases from straw-men, presenting opposition to things I didn't say.