The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role-Playing Games

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

Ah, the soft hushed sounds of the Magical Mystery Tour album.

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.

Yes and no, in some things; perhaps.

As I touched on in a earlier post it is highly dependant upon the system and whether it is a :

1. Integrated Rule System  (World Mechanic is central)
2. Core Rule System (No primary World Mechanic, open ended)
3. Generic/Universal Rle System (The "everything" rules mechanics)

The D&D family of games do, yet do not, have a centralized World Mechanic, at least in the sense which we have been discussing it in recent posts.  Palldium, Stormbringer, and perhaps Sorcerer (not having seen it I will have to take your word for it) are Integrated Rule Systems where the World Mechanic is central to the core rules.

Most systems, I think, fudge it.  Which is probably what some here might say AD&D does.  But when you overlay Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, well, it's a tough call.  There is a definitive "flavor" there, but it's not really a Integrated Rule System since it tried to leave itself open ended, but only to games of a type.

Speakin of Reality, which I see we are, going back to the Spelljammer example... there was one oddity which those here no familiar with the setting or system may not be aware of, but which I think is germane to the current discussion.

When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves.  Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

With all this talk of subjective mythology and things being the way they are because the "gods" say they are that way, I was wondering what you (and whoever else might like to reply) thought of such rules?

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.

Sadly, for some game companies, I have gotten the impression over the years that they do not really give "Premise" much thought.  At least beyond the premise of *getting product to the shelves*.  Of course we all know a company that we can probably say this of, probably because the industry seems to treat itself as if it is just an extension of the book industry, paying authors pennies on the word.

Why do I mention this?

For one main reason.  Most here have probably played self-published stuff at some point.  The "indie" games.  So, guys and gals, how would you say the indie games compare to the commercial grade mass produced gaming products you have?

Which, in your opinion, has treated Religion and other aspects of the "World Mechanic/Flavor" of a game better?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings 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.

Oddly enough, you could do that sort of thing in Spelljammer.  (Think it was even one of the examples in the rule books.)

Hmm...  slowly developing the urge to dig up my old campaign material.

Ah, nostalgic memories.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[greyorm]

1. Integrated Rule System  (World Mechanic is central)
2. Core Rule System (No primary World Mechanic, open ended)
3. Generic/Universal Rle System (The "everything" rules mechanics)

Honestly, I don't see a difference between #2 and #3, they are functionally the same thing.

As well, your later breakdown makes no sense to me. Palladium does not have a centralized World Mechanic...that is, the game's mechanics are not about the Premise, nor are Stormbringer's, from my reading of it.

Palladium, in fact, is simply AD&D gone through with a thesaurus. There is little actual difference between the two systems, and certainly nothing in Palladium's system specifically indicates Premise.

With all this talk of subjective mythology and things being the way they are because the "gods" say they are that way, I was wondering what you (and whoever else might like to reply) thought of such rules?

What's to think about them? They do speak loudly about the cosmology of the D&D worlds (and specifically the Spelljammer supplements) without outright stating what its saying.

As to how it relates to the subject at hand, as a specific example it looks like this is a manner of handling the issue which indicates the gods are not in charge of natural law, since their influence does not cross planar boundaries...in other words, it is unlike a mythic reality.

Of course, one has to take many other items into account in any dissection of this specifically, since there is a host of other factors to take into account that are published on D&D's cosmology, assumptions which underlie the game choice detailed in your post.

how would you say the indie games compare to the commercial grade mass produced gaming products you have?

Compare how? I'm afraid this question is so wide-open and easily subjective that there is no way to answer it as given.

Which, in your opinion, has treated Religion and other aspects of the "World Mechanic/Flavor" of a game better?

In my personal experience, I've found that it is the Indie market which does so to a greater degree than the commercial market. This, I think, is more due the nature of the beast than anything else, because of two factors: the time it takes for new ideas to take root (such as the idea of world-central, or Premise-based mechanics, as exist in "Sorcerer" and "Hero Wars" and similar), and that industries are nearly always slower to change than independent creators on the edges of the current markets.

On the other hand, my own experience with game systems is not nearly broad enough to give an actual accounting of the state of the industry in this regard, and I would leave such conjecture to individuals such as Ron and those who have a broader experience with, and more importantly, study of the industry/hobby and its history as a whole.

[M. J. Young]

When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves.  Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

I note that this reflects a little-known OAD&D rule. According to the Dragonlance rules, any cleric or druid who enters the realm of Krynn from beyond immediately loses all ability to call on his gods for spells, and so is rendered powerless. Only Krynn gods have power in Krynn.

This is an odd extension of henotheism, to my mind. Sure, the Philistines believe that Dagon is stronger than any other god around; but they don't believe that the other gods don't exist or have no power--they just believe that the god who chose them is the best on the block. Even the Israelites believed that Dagon was in some sense a god; they just thought that he didn't measure up to YHWH at all, perhaps wasn't a god in the same sense of that word.

Multiverser has a rule on this: although gods have been given authority over specific universes, and although there are bonuses and penalties on (holy) magic use based on whether the user is in accord with or opposed to the basic principles of the ruling power of the universe, it is forbidden that any god would totally prevent anyone from communicating with his own deity in any way that anyone else in that world is permitted to communicate with any deity. If Odin can throw lightning bolts at enemy targets in response to the prayers of his faithful, he can't prevent Zeus from offering the same assistance to those who call on him from that world.

I don't like the D&D/Spelljammer rule. (Of course, I've never given Spelljammer a fair chance--I really enjoyed StarFrontiers [probably my favorite game before I was introduced to Multiverser] and saw a lot of promise in Traveler, and the idea of Dungeons & Dragons in space left me cold from the beginning.) I think if you decree that gods are limited in their influence to certain geographic realms, even if those are akin to different universes, you destroy much of what it means to be a god.

E. R. Jones had an interesting rule for this: a god could work in any universe in which he had at least one worshipper. This led to interesting game opportunities, as the gods would sometimes arrange for magical "accidents" to transport their clerics to other universes so that they could get a foothold on new soil. I'm not for unlimited power of the gods (if nothing else, they limit each other); but I don't see geographical limits as making any sense at all.

--M. J. Young

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

1. Integrated Rule System  (World Mechanic is central)
2. Core Rule System (No primary World Mechanic, open ended)
3. Generic/Universal Rle System (The "everything" rules mechanics)

Honestly, I don't see a difference between #2 and #3, they are functionally the same thing.

If there wasn't a difference games like GURPS, CORPS, or what have wouldn't try to sell themselves by labeling themselves as a "universal" or "generic" system.

A "Core" rule system concerns itself with a single environment, usually limited and confined to a specific genre label like "Space Opera", "Action Adventure", "Martial Arts", or "Horror".

The "Generic/Universal" rule system attempts, as plainly stated, to cover a little bit of *everything* and will seldomly tie itself to any sort of genre label, save perhaps in supplments.

Of course the problem is that, more often than not, the line between the two blurs.  For instance some might think of GURPS as a "core rule" system, but it is not.  It is "Generic/Unieral", not just because that is what it's authors have labeled the system as, but because it is not a "core" mechanic linked to a specific genre type.

Skyrealms of Jorune, Arduin, Harn, Metamorphosis Alpha, James Bond 007, Marvel Superheroes, Traveller (all flavors), Twilight 2000, Star Trek; these are integrated systems.  World/Background and thus the underlying world and game mechanics are interlinked.

Dungeons & Dragons, Top Secret, Star Frontiers, Gamma World (a tough call); these are core systems.

Notice the list of core systems is rather small.  Also, of the games listed, the core systems I could think of off the top of my head were all from TSR; which perhaps speaks more to their early approach to game design than anything else.  It perhaps also explains these games appeal.

How so?

They created games that were divorced of a specific setting without being divorces of a specific setting.

Hos is that possible?

They used the basic genre archetypes/stereotypes.  Star Frontiers was basically every cliche about the Space Opera genre (heavily reliant upon Star Trek) you can think of.  Gamma World was a blatant effort at camp, again using genre cliches.  They had settings, yes, but they were systems meant to by *built* upon.  Not systems which laid downt he law ina set of rules which define how everything is, and thus setting the world mechanic in stone, and the game concept with it.

That, best as I can think to explain it, is the difference.  Core Mechanics are presented to be worked with, using standard, often cliched, genre labels.  Integrated mechanics are designed soley, strictly, and unwaveringly to create a specific setting; meaning they are games that simulate a very specific environment.

Universal systems do neither, explicitly, but rather attempt to provide rules to cover a little bit of everything.

As well, your later breakdown makes no sense to me. Palladium does not have a centralized World Mechanic...that is, the game's mechanics are not about the Premise, nor are Stormbringer's, from my reading of it.

Palladium, in fact, is simply AD&D gone through with a thesaurus. There is little actual difference between the two systems, and certainly nothing in Palladium's system specifically indicates Premise.

Stormbringer is VERY specifically designed to simulate, re-created, and establish a world environment based upon the series of novels set in the universe of Michael Moorcock's Elric of Melnibone's Eternal Champion.

Palladium established with its opening chapters that it is setting the stage for a very specific world.  It has it's own races, it's own currency, it's own list of deites, establishes a game world, et al.  Is it's system derivative of
D&D?  Obviously so.  As could be said of most games of the era, but what it does up front is establish that the rules are NOT a core system, meaning they are NOT something intentionally designed to be built upon or tinkered with.

Which is what D&D pretty much claimed.  It was a set of core FANTASY rules, albeit for a highly Tolkeinized universe.  Yet it doesn't limit itself to that template.

Of course once you can identify a game as being a integrated system, you can also learn to identify games with strong world mechanics.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

Take note, much of what follows is based upon recollection of games played in the long long ago.

With all this talk of subjective mythology and things being the way they are because the "gods" say they are that way, I was wondering what you (and whoever else might like to reply) thought of such rules?

What's to think about them? They do speak loudly about the cosmology of the D&D worlds (and specifically the Spelljammer supplements) without outright stating what its saying.

As to how it relates to the subject at hand, as a specific example it looks like this is a manner of handling the issue which indicates the gods are not in charge of natural law, since their influence does not cross planar boundaries...in other words, it is unlike a mythic reality.

Well you hit on the general gist of it.

Here's the problem, which everyone in every group I ever talked to that played (or made a go of it) Spelljammer, as I recall it:

A) To allow a Cleric to cast spells in a sphere oustide their deities influence or (now this is a VERY important point) where their deity is known to NOT exist was... extremely ludicrous.  Not even the players undestood it, though the munchkins love the ruling.

B) To say that a Cleric can have access to spells if a deity of a suitable *type* (ie: any generic deity with the same general sphere of influence) existed, but limited those spells to a certain level, souned ridiculous... especially when one considers that the rules essentially say a Cleric would then have to convert to that deity to be able to cast spells.  IE: EVERY time they enter a sphere this would occur.  Uh... HELLO, can you say wishy-washy waffle Cleric you'll never get a third deity to care?

The rules were bad.

That simple.

Oh, yeah, did I forget to mention that Clerics seemed to be able to sometimes (pending how you read the rules) have spell ability in the Phlogiston?

The Phlem- what?

The area of hyperspace outside the "spheres".  Where NO deities existed.

I remember this because it came up in a game once.  I think that was also the last game we ever played of Spelljammer, since even my resident rules lawyer didn't want to have anything to do with it!!!

Now I can't speak to anyone else's experience with newer game product, but somehow I just can't imagine a system presenting the deity/priest dynamc any worse.  Though if anyone here would like to chime in, say with how such matters were handled in Planescape, or whatever game system might have tried to cover such matters, I'd be very interested to read about it.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

PS.  For those interested.  I had a quick and simple fix, which worked until the group tired of the bad rules.  It was sooo simples.  The cleric, now brace yourself, the priest, ever humble hierophant.... Had to set up a ALTAR to their deity in a new sphere to get ANY sort of spells.  Of course they also had to try to establish contact, commune, etc...    Yeah, an altar.  Much more important than a holy symbol, least in my game world.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings M. J. Young,

When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves.  Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

I note that this reflects a little-known OAD&D rule. According to the Dragonlance rules, any cleric or druid who enters the realm of Krynn from beyond immediately loses all ability to call on his gods for spells, and so is rendered powerless. Only Krynn gods have power in Krynn.

Yeah, we speculated about that.

Then again I also applied a few "patches" to how D&D was played from the Dragonlance source book.  At least for one campaign.

Funny that, no one cared for the Dragonlance setting (at the time), but everyone like some minor detail from the rule book.  Like Kender and swashbuckling Minotaurs.  *shrugs*

Made for some... interesting games.

This is an odd extension of henotheism, to my mind. Sure, the Philistines believe that Dagon is stronger than any other god around; but they don't believe that the other gods don't exist or have no power--they just believe that the god who chose them is the best on the block. Even the Israelites believed that Dagon was in some sense a god; they just thought that he didn't measure up to YHWH at all, perhaps wasn't a god in the same sense of that word.

Works fine, in a real world sort of way.  But in a game like Spelljammer, where deities may literally not exist in the "shere" being traveled too...  I mean every sphere is literally a soap bubble reality floating in the phlogiston sea.  Thus you could, theoretically, go from the world of Elric to the world of Ulysses, if your DM decided to present them to you.

I don't like the D&D/Spelljammer rule. (Of course, I've never given Spelljammer a fair chance--I really enjoyed StarFrontiers [probably my favorite game before I was introduced to Multiverser] and saw a lot of promise in Traveler, and the idea of Dungeons & Dragons in space left me cold from the beginning.) I think if you decree that gods are limited in their influence to certain geographic realms, even if those are akin to different universes, you destroy much of what it means to be a god.

Only if you define all in-game deities as being omnipotent.

All my in-game deities were mythological constructs, meaning they had a chain of command, a command center, and a limited range/sphere of influence.  viz. the Greek deities.

Seemed to work.  Then again I really only ever had two players who cared to play full blown clerics.  The rest multi-classed, but basically did so only to have a medic in party.

E. R. Jones had an interesting rule for this: a god could work in any universe in which he had at least one worshipper. This led to interesting game opportunities, as the gods would sometimes arrange for magical "accidents" to transport their clerics to other universes so that they could get a foothold on new soil. I'm not for unlimited power of the gods (if nothing else, they limit each other); but I don't see geographical limits as making any sense at all.

Yeah, funny how we lowly DMs managed to come up with quick fixes, eh?

That was sort of what my "patch" was about.  I mean you take one Cleric/Priest and an Altar liberally sprinkled with holy water, stir, spice with a Commune spell; equals instant access to Deity.  Most times.  

*smiles*

Funny thing is I don't recall any of these problems with the planes, not even when I got the Manual of the Planes.  Of course before that it was mostly find gate/portal, activate, move through... adventure on.

Matter of fact I can't really think of any other game that made such a fuss about it all.  Hmm, wonder if that's just because Spelljammer flubbed so much of it that *it* sticks out in my memory all these years later?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[contracycle]

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.

Perhaps we have been talking past each other a bit.  What I really mean is that you cannot have conflicting mythology and hand-wave it away by saying mythology is subjective and/or cultural construct - not if it it has in game mechanical effects.  I'm saying the mythology cannot really be subjective at all, really, it must be True, or at least largely true.  If it is established the the sun is a god who is reborn every day, and there is a tribe over the hill who believes something else, then either you or they is Wrong (or there is a complicated reason you are both right in some qualified way).  But at that point perhaps what we are talking about is more akin to pseudoscience than mythology.  If there is a game mechanical effect dependant on the implications of the daily risen god, like magical endowments, then these facts, as they have become, need to be laid out in non-subjective terms for arbitration of in game events.

[simon_hibbs]

When traveling from one "sphere" to another Clerics were strictly forbidden from having any spells above 2nd Level *if entering a "spjere" where their deity was unknown*, if memory serves.  Also, it was stated, that to regain spell levels (meaning the ability to cast spells above 2nd Level) they would have to find a deity whose basic template was relatively similar to their own to worship... or some such.

This is an odd extension of henotheism, to my mind. Sure, the Philistines believe that Dagon is stronger than any other god around; but they don't believe that the other gods don't exist or have no power--they just believe that the god who chose them is the best on the block. Even the Israelites believed that Dagon was in some sense a god; they just thought that he didn't measure up to YHWH at all, perhaps wasn't a god in the same sense of that word.

The problem here is a seperation of the god as a being from the thing he/she/it is a god of. This is a common and fundamental error made by many modern marterialists. If you look at the way ancient writers used their languages, there is little or no distinction made between a god and the related phenomena. Odin literaly means Breath, Zeus _is_ storm, a person filled with battle lust is literaly possessed by Mars, etc. Is the nature of war itself so different in the new world? Are the metaphysics of magic and religion so alien? These are the real questions.

IMHO a much more usefull way to view this problem is to make a distinction between the power being worshiped and the particular cult or religion of which the priest or cleric is a member. The ancient greeks and egyptians recognised each other's gods as being the same powers worshiped through different ritual methods, for example. The problem in xD&D is that almost no information is given about the ritual practices of the religious cults, or their metaphysics.


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

What I really mean is that you cannot have conflicting mythology and hand-wave it away by saying mythology is subjective and/or cultural construct - not if it it has in game mechanical effects.

I think that's a fair assessment, I'm no fan of pure subjectivism in game world metaphysics.

I'm saying the mythology cannot really be subjective at all, really, it must be True, or at least largely true.

For mutualy agreeable definitions of true, yes. What I am talking about are religious truths, not scientific materialist truth. The power of myth is alegorical. Consider the classical 'laws' of occult magic - Knowledge (understanding brings controll), Names (knowing the true name of a thing gives power over it), Similarity (Effects resemble their cause), etc. If you know a myth, then this can give power because the myth is similar to the phenomenon it explains.

The sun goes below the horizon, like a dead man being burried. It rises again, like a child being born. These conceptual keys unlock magical power. So what if another culture uses a different mythological explanation, utilising alternative symbolic language to achieve different effects? Why is that a problem?

If it is established the the sun is a god who is reborn every day, and there is a tribe over the hill who believes something else, then either you or they is Wrong (or there is a complicated reason you are both right in some qualified way).  

The sun goes below the horizon, like a dead man being burried. It rises again, like a child being born. These conceptual keys unlock magical power. So what if another culture uses a different mythological explanation, utilising alternative symbolic language to achieve different effects?

But at that point perhaps what we are talking about is more akin to pseudoscience than mythology.  If there is a game mechanical effect dependant on the implications of the daily risen god, like magical endowments, then these facts, as they have become, need to be laid out in non-subjective terms for arbitration of in game events.

It is a fact that the sun falls 'below' the world every night like a soul embraced by the darkness of death, and the body buried in the earth, yet it rises again every day like the joyous brith of a new child. These facts are obvious, what more proof is necessery?

The symbolism is psychologicaly powerfull in the real world, and therefore magicaly powerfull in the game world (and arguably the real world, for those with religious leanings).


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

The sun goes below the horizon, like a dead man being burried. It rises again, like a child being born. These conceptual keys unlock magical power. So what if another culture uses a different mythological explanation, utilising alternative symbolic language to achieve different effects?

Then they are both Right in a qualified way; their stories may only be relevant to the praxis of supernatural power, then, if the true basis is elsewhere (such as latent unconscious psionics).  It is the mental construct which, in some way, is addressing power.

It is a fact that the sun falls 'below' the world every night like a soul embraced by the darkness of death, and the body buried in the earth, yet it rises again every day like the joyous brith of a new child. These facts are obvious, what more proof is necessery?

But surely it is obvious to the naked eye that every day the celestial dung-beetle rolls his ball of dung over the world and buries it at night, wence we are denied its lif-giving emanations.

The symbolism is psychologicaly powerfull in the real world, and therefore magicaly powerfull in the game world (and arguably the real world, for those with religious leanings).

Perfectly legitimiate if you provide an ultimate source of power, such as latent psionics or the hidden divinity; but how does the GM adjudicate a face-off between a priest-of-the-dung-beetle and the priest-of-the-newborn-sun?  In game mechanical terms, if they are both effective then the "truth" or otherwise of their stories is unimportant and I would hazard unlikely to feature in game play much.

[greyorm]

I agree, Gareth, there needs to be some method of fair arbitration beyond fiat lain out for the GM or things can and will quickly become sticky.

But consider this: we're mostly talking about the idea of problems arising rather than providing concrete examples of such doing so. Let's get some definite concrete examples before continuing (that is, mythology with in-game mechanical effects).

Your example of the sun providing magical endowments isn't a problem in my mind; could you detail the exact problem faced by having two true-but-subjective mythologies and sun-based mechanical endowments affected by these? (or some problem of a similar sort)

Regardless, this isn't precisely the issue I'm thinking about; for example, I was watching the new "He-man" on Cartoon Network. Here we have a world full of technology like rocket-powered gliders, laser blasters, cybernetic implants right along side sorcery, magic and dragons...and more importantly, all the trappings of medival culture: swords, armor, crossbows, castles and so forth.

"He-man" has this weird blend of sorcery and technology, something that is both futuristic and medieval, and the question arises: why would anyone use a sword or a crossbow when they could use a laser blaster instead?

And actually, asking that question misses the point.

He-man doesn't "suck" because of this odd disparity and obvious incongruence, it rocks BECAUSE of it...it's modern mythology. You don't use a laser blaster instead of a crossbow because the world wouldn't be Eternia if you (and everyone else) were using laser blasters instead of crossbows.

This is what I said about hating the whole gamer-geek thing...reference the Simpsons episode about "Poochy" I mentioned..."He-man" wouldn't be "He-man" if you asked those sorts of questions or even arbitrated the damn things while designing the show. The show is what it is precisely because it avoids all that garbage.

Its a story, not a simulation. The fact that He-man uses a sword, his friends use crossbows, quarterstaves and laser pistols and go up against guys with lasers and magic in these psuedo-futuristic (or bizzare psychedelic) landscapes is what's important.

Its the color and events of the story that are important, not the logic. Kids get right past all that crap and enjoy the story for what it is, not what its "supposed" to be.

Yet for all our supposed immersion into this artform of creating stories, most gamers are utterly incompetent at even remotely realizing or capitalizing on this attitude, which is the essential attitude of story.

Dragons fly because they're SUPPOSED to, not because of some mystical hoodoo-judo mythological "explanation" that's really a sort of science wrapped up in a concealing cloak.

Eternia has lasers and crossbows alongside each other because its SUPPOSED to, and there is no other explanation...in fact, looking for an "explanation" that appeals to modern logic is foolish, because it misses the point.

If there is a game mechanical effect dependant on the implications of the daily risen god, like magical endowments, then these facts, as they have become, need to be laid out in non-subjective terms for arbitration of in game events.

However, consider for a moment that the answer isn't in making true mythology objective instead of subjective...that is, making the myths of one game culture be the actual truth and those of another simply false, but instead making them all true.

Consider quantum physics: reality depends on the observer. The universe, at least subatomically, is unformed and undecided until observed...until a conscious being decides to look at the answer...and weirder, the observer affects the results.

So...why not...they're all true, to the individual...even competing game effects arising from different mythologies are both right and both have effects.

[contracycle]

Eternia has lasers and crossbows alongside each other because its SUPPOSED to, and there is no other explanation...in fact, looking for an "explanation" that appeals to modern logic is foolish, because it misses the point.

And if that is overtly expressed in the social contract, and is hopefully mechanically expressed as some form of Fangs genre expectation, all is well and good.  But I'm not sure "don't ask don't tell" serves as a mechanism of religion (rather than magic).  For one thing you have a serious problem with any problem solving activity because it makes the true nature of the world inaccessible.  Its also difficult to have moral dilemmas over such narratives with no real need to consider whether your course of action is wright or wrong, as this no longer has significant meaning or consequence.  You could not in this context accomodate a One God scenario, with which it inherently conflicts.

Consider quantum physics: reality depends on the observer. The universe, at least subatomically, is unformed and undecided until observed...until a conscious being decides to look at the answer...and weirder, the observer affects the results.

Hmm. Schroedingers cat is 'neither alive nor dead', as it were, UNTIL observed; but the dead cat and the live cat are in sparate universes.  Quantum uncertainty is often invoked to support subjectivity but it doesn't, really.  Schroedingers cat is a demonstrative thought experiment, not a literal description of quantum probability behaviour.

So...why not...they're all true, to the individual...even competing game effects arising from different mythologies are both right and both have effects.

Then what makes them work?  I mean they can't all be true unless "true" means something other then "true", something like "moral" or "valid".  Even so, in what way does this achieve the goal of making the content of mythology Really True in the game world; in fact it is not Really True but only true if you choose to think so.  This would seem to reduce the religious beliefs to colourful tokenism.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

I hope your holiday brought you gifts a-plenty and happy tidings of joy.

Failing that, there's a whole new year ahead of us.  Plenty of time to scheme your revenge. . .  or something.  ;)

But consider this: we're mostly talking about the idea of problems arising rather than providing concrete examples of such doing so. Let's get some definite concrete examples before continuing (that is, mythology with in-game mechanical effects).

The simple answer is that the supplied in-game mechanic (read: explanation of reality through the game world's cosmology) is what sets the stage for the game.  If you are using Ptolemaic cosmology, then you would be limited to the precepts outlined therein.  However there are many good examples of games that have used such a mechanic to define their world.

Of course in a campaign using a singular pantheon in a basically Earth like setting most GMs probably rarely tackle the hard questions which are being asked here.  I know I didn't until that "undeveloped" portion of my campaign maps started to fill out with sketches of kingdoms and principalities and what not.

Still there are many commercial products which most of us should be able to discuss, if peripherally, as examples.  The main one which pops into mind is the D&D Hollow World setting, followed closely TSRs Dune-ish rip-off game setting that was "Athas" (?), the boxed set incarnation of the *demi-plane of dread* Ravenloft, etcetera.

Of course just about every game has its own unique meta-world and setting, which reaches beyond mere window dressing for what archetypes to expect to play.  Yet even that could be considered part of the meta-game mechanic which establishes a game's reality.

Take the D&D Hollow World campaign set.  I am pretty sure it's nothing at all like the Hollow World of myth and legend.  And while I can still recall that my initial impression of Athas as being "Dune like" I know others here would probably have other comparissons to offer.

It's all a matter of perspective.

A Hollow World can be populated by elves and ents, giants and dinosaurs, or UFOs and aliens.  A Hollow World can even be all but divorced from concepts of religion, if you're using a science fiction setting.

Then again in a world where religion plays a major role, worlds where Priests and Clerics are amongst the major characters on the stage, then I agree that the in-game explanations for the what's and why's are very important.  If a game author says the sky is gilded bronze, apples taste like blue cheese, and ogres looks like Santa Claus then, by gum, you know you are going to want the author to provide a rhyme and reason for why that is.  Same holds true for matters concerning myth and religion.

Especially since in most fantasty games it is the myths and legends that are used to establish the setting.

Well, mostly.  I still wonder wonder about the presense of Tolkien elves in so many non-Tolkien games.  But that is neither here nor there.  *smile*



Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[simon_hibbs]

The sun goes below the horizon, like a dead man being burried. It rises again, like a child being born. These conceptual keys unlock magical power. So what if another culture uses a different mythological explanation, utilising alternative symbolic language to achieve different effects?

Then they are both Right in a qualified way; their stories may only be relevant to the praxis of supernatural power, then, if the true basis is elsewhere (such as latent unconscious psionics).  It is the mental construct which, in some way, is addressing power.

That's correct. The religious/magical world view is not of a mechanistic world which blindly follows arbitrary formulaic laws. It is a world in which the ultimate reason for being, the ultimate cause and arbiter of destiny is divine authority (in whatever form that takes). To modern hermetic magicians, the laws of names, similarity, contagion, are just as powwrfull and valid as Newton's laws of motion. Will is Power, but not power in the sense only of mechanistic energies, power in the sense that George Bush is powerfull - at a mere word men die and governments fall. This has nothing to do with his physical ability to exert Force according to newton's laws.

It is a fact that the sun falls 'below' the world every night like a soul embraced by the darkness of death, and the body buried in the earth, yet it rises again every day like the joyous brith of a new child. These facts are obvious, what more proof is necessery?

But surely it is obvious to the naked eye that every day the celestial dung-beetle rolls his ball of dung over the world and buries it at night, wence we are denied its lif-giving emanations.

The religious/magical world view does not require that it's symbolism, or alegory be literaly true in order to be powerfull. Any serious student of religion will tell you that ultimate religious truth is unknowable to mere mortals, for we are neither god, nor gods.

The symbolism is psychologicaly powerfull in the real world, and therefore magicaly powerfull in the game world (and arguably the real world, for those with religious leanings).

Perfectly legitimiate if you provide an ultimate source of power, such as latent psionics or the hidden divinity;

How does invoking 'psionics' explain anything?

but how does the GM adjudicate a face-off between a priest-of-the-dung-beetle and the priest-of-the-newborn-sun?  In game mechanical terms, if they are both effective then the "truth" or otherwise of their stories is unimportant and I would hazard unlikely to feature in game play much.

Precisely. I'd adjudicate such a face-off using the rules of the roleplaying game in question. My personal preference would probably be Hero wars, but tastes vary. I realy don't see the problem.


Simon Hibbs