Unified Truth and Diverse Religions in Game Worlds

[simon_hibbs]

But if I'm the referee, I have to know whether there is a supreme deity, and who that is if there is one; or if there isn't one, what is the relationship between all these gods, and how do you determine what is really true?

Our difference of opinion is that I believe that it's perfectly valid for a game designer to say 'Nobody in the game world realy knows for sure, they have to take it on faith. In fact, it's unprovable within the game world'.

I happen to think that's a valid answer, and since it's the answer we have to accept in the real world, it's one I'm pretty familiar with.


Simon Hibbs

[Gordon C. Landis]

What simon just said, mostly.  Faith is a particular subcase that I'm not personally interested in using as an example, but essentially - if it's unprovable within the game world, no reason it has to be provable within the game system.  And ultimate explanations rarely need to be provable - behavior needs to be well described, but "why" need not be.  There have to be descriptions of the behavior of (e.g.) magic, but there is no NEED for ultimate explanations.

(Lapsing into personal/anecdotal mode - look, I've had this converstation with 3 different game groups over the course of 10+ years.  We play fine without ultimate explanations (and fine with 'em, in some cases).  There are two problems I've seen - one is that some people REALLY like to have ultimate explanations and play with things from there, and the other is the situation I mentioned before, where everything is building/pointing to a particular ultimate explanation and then the GM (or whoever) does something that's just wildly inconsistent with that established direction (in a way that feels wrong - I have seen sudden reversals about, say, the nature of the gods thaat feel right).

But I confess to a bit of frustration with people saying there HAS to be an explanation - we've gone without on many occasions.  Some games/game designers (Talislanta, Glorantha - others?) go out of their way to say they WANT to be lacking in these kinds of explanations.  They work.  Not to everyone's taste, but . . . not everyone likes Traveller, either.)

Let's take demons in Sorcerer.  What are they, REALLY?  Do you need to establish what they are, REALLY, to play Sorcerer?  No.  You need to have rules for what they do in the world, how they interact with the PC's, but part of the point is that they are an UNKNOWN (in most Sorcerer descriptions I've seen - obviously, you could explain 'em if you want).

Any part of a game world can be seen that way.  Taste will vary, and a game world where everything was like this (if Sorcerer didn't have a REAL - for the particular game - definition of Humanity) that might be "bad design."  I've never seen such a game world (there's always something explained fully), but if folks are attacking that notion - OK, I'll agree.  But I'm not buying the "must explain everything/everything basic" claims.

Another angle, so I can respond to Kester:

Sorry, Gordon, but that's just not true. Especially not in something as complex as the environment of a role-playing game. By definition the rules of play *have* to govern the basic and essential questions of what is or is not possible within the context of a game

OK - my claim is that (e.g.) details about the FINAL, TRUE, and REAL source of various mystical powers are not basic and essential concepts.  They can be, if you want them to be.  And if you don't make them that way, you'll need to keep the issues around that decison in mind.  But in the big, shared, imagined reality that is an RPG, a lack of ultimate explanation (managed appropriately) is (IME) actually often an asset.  Rarely is it a liability - again, except for reasons of taste.

Boiling it all down - how things work in the RPG world needs to be well described, I'll agree to that.  Why they work that way, I'll STRONGLY claim, need only be described as personal taste dictates.  Yes, why can have a big influence on how - and it's fun playing with why, in lots of different ways.  Why often/always comes up as an issue.  But it need not be dealt with head-on.  "No one knows why."  Those words can be your friend.

MUCH longer than I thought - but as this thread progreses, I become more and more certain that we ARE talking about the exact issues I've gone round and round with various game groups on.  And as a result of those rounds, I've formed a pretty strong opinion.  Appologies if it comes across as TOO strong - I'm honestly mystified that folks would think there's an absolute need for an ultimate explanation of, say, MYTH in an RPG game world.  Maybe you want it - maybe you like games that have it, and/or hate those that don't.   Those are different statements.

To me, the only issues with lack of explanation are the ones I cited above.  So from a design advice point of view, I'd say focus on those issues, not on a need to explain the ultimate nature of something.

Gordon

[damion]

Let us imagine two different fantasy worlds, Unitia and Freethinkia.
In Unitia there is a single obviously, and provably true religion which all rational beings must accept as the one true religion. Dissent is not possible, because the natural laws of the universe show that the religion is infalibly correct.
In Freethinkia, the full range of human philosophies exist, and it's cultures display a huge variety of modes of thought and cultural values. No one ideology can absolutely prove itself to the detriment of the others, indead individuals must decide for themselves what is important in their lives.
Which setting is ramming ideological truisms down people's throats, and which is offering the players (and their characters) the most freedom of expression?
Simon Hibbs

I don't think 'idealogical' truism must reduce the freedom of expression.
I can think of several reasons to have a game world like this, and there are most likely others. The most basic argument would be, that even if religion is a 'solved' problem, many other interesting things can happen.

1)One reason would be to make religious conflict a  non-issue, which is fairly different from RL. Heck, imagine a world where you could understand any natural even by asking the correct priest, what would society be like? This could be very intersting from an exploration POV.

2)Also, you can still have conflicts, even if everyone agrees.  Even if everyone knows Apollo moves the sun accross the sky, people could disagree on how the gods want them to behave, or you could have completely inane disagreements, like weathers Apollo's chariot has two horses or four....

I'm just saying I don't think idealogical truisms constrict a game designer at all and in fact, intersting things can be done.

[simon_hibbs]

I don't think 'idealogical' truism must reduce the freedom of expression.
I can think of several reasons to have a game world like this, and there are most likely others.

For example?

The most basic argument would be, that even if religion is a 'solved' problem, many other interesting things can happen.

That's fair enough. I'm not arguing that all settings that do so are bad, I was meeting the challenge that doing so is necessery for a setting to be playable or interesting.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Simon, you might be fighting a battle or two in a war that isn't occurring. Battle #1 is to defend Glorantha against all comers, which, I think isn't much of an issue. Ultimately, its quality as a game-world (even at the most basic philosophical level) is not controversial. Battle #2 is to "meet the challenge" that you mention in your most recent post. I think that is doomed to failure - disagreement in internet debates always skirts perilously close to issue-dodging by redefining the question. Therefore the best you can hope for is to be understood, and I think you've achieved that.

Over and over, Cehrlich has stated the fundamental issue: perceived meaning of "what is" is the issue, not whether "what is" really has meaning. As Gordon has observed as well, there isn't much light to be generated by expecting meaning of an imaginary world to illuminate real meaning, or its perception - especially not by citing "evidence" within the context of that imaginary world and its workings.

Let's consider as well this issue: what is the role of a GM relative to the game-world? Does its issues/metaphysics represent (1) something that he or she uniquely knows as a mechanism, in ways that players don't, or (2) something that should intrigue him or her on the same basis that it intrigues the players?

It seems to me that both sorts of approaches are viable in role-playing terms, but that differing views will prevent either approach's arguments to be satisfying to the other.

Best,
Ron

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Simon,

No time like the present, now where'd I put my fork.

Yes, I realize that is what you quoted and were responding to.  But the key phrase is GAME PRODUCT.  Real world philosophies, while perhaps good for source material, have no place in a game.  A game is meant to be an entertainment, not a soap box platform to ram ideologicial truisms down peoples throat.

Let us imagine two different fantasy worlds, Unitia and Freethinkia.

In Unitia there is a single obviously, and provably true religion which all rational beings must accept as the one true religion. Dissent is not possible, because the natural laws of the universe show that the religion is infalibly correct.

In Freethinkia, the full range of human philosophies exist, and it's cultures display a huge variety of modes of thought and cultural values. No one ideology can absolutely prove itself to the detriment of the others, indead individuals must decide for themselves what is important in their lives.

Which setting is ramming ideological truisms down people's throats, and which is offering the players (and their characters) the most freedom of expression?

This is a fallacious argument.

Why?

Because what you have posited are world cultures.  Within the world cultures both would provide the players with a full range of playability.

How?

Lack of knowledge that there is any other (better or worse) way to do things.

Now, had you posited Freethinkia and Unitia as diverse cultures, perhaps on the same or adjacent continents, my answer would be thus:

The freedom would come from the dynamic interaction of characters playing roles based upon each distinct culture, yet the freedom would not stem from the cultures, per se, but rather the game itself.

Let us say this is a fantasy game and Freethinkia and Unitia are (located on the world of Urantia?) seperated by a mountain range.  They are located on the same continent.  There are no other cultures of note extant, save of course for those pesky "NPC" and "monster" races, but do they really count as cultures?

Now then here we have two diverse and divergent cultures seperated by a figurative and literal divide.

How might a game be set up to best establish a game world in which the players must interact in such cultures?

What genre would be best for this?

(Of course if you make this sci-fi and place both planets in a single solar system we can use the same analogy.  Just turn the mountains into a asteroid belt or some such.)


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Another angle, so I can respond to Kester:

Sorry, Gordon, but that's just not true. Especially not in something as complex as the environment of a role-playing game. By definition the rules of play *have* to govern the basic and essential questions of what is or is not possible within the context of a game

OK - my claim is that (e.g.) details about the FINAL, TRUE, and REAL source of various mystical powers are not basic and essential concepts.  They can be, if you want them to be.  And if you don't make them that way, you'll need to keep the issues around that decison in mind.  But in the big, shared, imagined reality that is an RPG, a lack of ultimate explanation (managed appropriately) is (IME) actually often an asset.  Rarely is it a liability - again, except for reasons of taste.

There is some validity to this, of that there is no doubt.

However let us consider magic systems.  Some use "Manna".  No ephmeral "spell points" but "Manna" that require the mages to make use of "ley lines" or "vortices" or "conduits" or (insert other catchy phrase here) to "channel" or "focus" magical energies.

Thus, in such systems, the source of what is "mystical powers" has become a basic and essential concept of game play.  Not only that it established a premise, a truism, a meta game mechanic, et al.

Yes, I know, this is not the case is every system.  But it is for some, and perhaps it should be for more?

Boiling it all down - how things work in the RPG world needs to be well described, I'll agree to that.  Why they work that way, I'll STRONGLY claim, need only be described as personal taste dictates.  Yes, why can have a big influence on how - and it's fun playing with why, in lots of different ways.  Why often/always comes up as an issue.  But it need not be dealt with head-on.  "No one knows why."  Those words can be your friend.

Which is why AD&D is so popular.  The AD&D family of games are generic, yet the system isn't a generic ("universal") game per se.  And thus it continues to be playable for many.

This despite the fact its basic underlying rules mechanics have been used in upwards of hundreds of systems.

Why aren't those system more popular?

For precisely the reasons you outlined.  Both Palladium and Chaosium locked their systems into very specific world archetypes with set and establish world mechanics.  Sure, Chaosium's BRPS was used as the "game engine" under the hood for most of their games but, truth be told, there is only so much that can be done with Elf Quest, Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, Sanctuary (or whatever they called their Theives World game), before it gets boring.

AD&D, and game systems like it, allows just the sort of freedom which you are looking for.  If a bit clunkily.

MUCH longer than I thought - but as this thread progreses, I become more and more certain that we ARE talking about the exact issues I've gone round and round with various game groups on.  And as a result of those rounds, I've formed a pretty strong opinion.  Appologies if it comes across as TOO strong - I'm honestly mystified that folks would think there's an absolute need for an ultimate explanation of, say, MYTH in an RPG game world.

Or maybe it's just confusion about the basic myths themselves, and what they are "meant" to mean.

Remember most who get into RPGs have probably not even read Bulfinch's or Hamilton's mythology, and those books are the first ones most will read to learn more.

Few will move on to Grave's works or even take the trouble to track down copies of the originals to read.  Then again some translations are a bit difficult to read, which may explain why more of us don't read them all.

And there are those who believe that life here began out there...  Sitchin, Daniken, to name but a few (great way to cover for not knowing any others to mention, eh?) and *their* interpretations of mythology.

Plenty enough to confuse and scare, no?

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Gordon C. Landis]

OK, a little more - while myth, Glorantha and the rest are fascinating things, the issue I've been meaning to tackle head-on is whether it is always a good idea to have a known-to(at least)-the-GM ultimate explanation behind (most) everything on in the game world.  I don't think it is, always - e.g., if we explain what happens (at an entirely practical level) when the conflicting priests interact with their conflicting sun-images, that can be enough.  Apollo's chariot looses a wheel, we have a drought.  The dung beetle is fed the corpse of a Pharoh's son - all is normal again.

Kester's ley lines and vortices for mana  . . .  We know that if you cast a spell at a particular vortex, it has x effect mechanically in the game system.  That's real - vortices have x effect.  Why do they?  Do we need to know?  Why would we need to know?

MJ concentrated on a question just like this from an earlier post of mine - let me quote him a bit:

That, really, is the rub. The game creator can't answer every question. He hands the ball off to the game referee, who continues writing the background as it's needed. But the game creator has to explain to the referee what he's thinking, and in sufficient detail that the that the referee can pick up the task and continue in a way which is consistent with what already appears.

Gareth and I are not arguing that it can't be subjective; we're arguing that even if it is subjective, the reality has to be explained.

Taken out of context, I can agree with this 100% (ignoring the highly privledged GM/referee question Ron points out).  But the context is that there are only these two choices - explained objectivity, and explained subjectivity (objective/subjective are often lousy words/concepts, really, but I think they're close enough for what people are trying to say here).  And that's just wrong, IMO - I think one of the BEST options is to say it could be subjective, or it could be objective in any one of these many ways.  Or some combination.  That IS an explanation, often sufficient for a game world. In my experience, often PREFERABLE for a game world.  It's EASIER to be consistent (in terms of satisying play, if not in "rigorous world construction") if many ultimates are left uncertain.

A particular fully explained objectivity and an acknowledged as TRUE subjectivity can be done, but IMO they are actually really, really hard.  And often - for me -  not fun.  ESPECIALLY as a GM.

Gordon

[contracycle]

What simon just said, mostly.  Faith is a particular subcase that I'm not personally interested in using as an example, but essentially - if it's unprovable within the game world, no reason it has to be provable within the game system.  

I completely agree.  My only disconnect appears when it IS "provable" in the game world through the mechanics.  If this is not the case, I don't care (in a number of senses).

Let's take demons in Sorcerer. What are they, REALLY? Do you need to establish what they are, REALLY, to play Sorcerer? No.

IMO, yes.  Or more accurately, I do not lay upon the published product the need to explain what demons are, because it makes it explicitly clear its up to me.  It also provides a number of "thought experiments" into what they might be, for my edification.  From this position, I know at the outset that it is my responsibility, as GM of this group at this table, to define what demons - and hence humanity (or vice versa) - are.

Ron said:

Ultimately, its quality as a game-world (even at the most basic philosophical level) is not controversial.

I just wanted to remark that I too think this.  I routinely reccomend HW; in fact it... irks, annoys disapoints, I dunno.. me to criticise it publicly.

[Le Joueur]

Hi Guys,

You sure light up the internet with these discussions.  There's just one problem:

Am I the only one who sees that this is absolutely an insoluble argument?

I mean, what we're really, really, really talking about here is the Unstoppable Force and Immovable Object.  I'm referring to that old philosophical trick question, "What if the Unstoppable Force hits the Immovable Object?"  It's a trick question; by definition if there is an "Unstoppable Force," it means that there is no such thing as an "Immovable Object."  And vice versa.  Taken as a thought experiment, the presence of one in the imagined universe rules out the existence of the other, therefore they do not meet, ever.

How does that apply here?  Simple, if there's an "Unified Truth," then there cannot be valid "Diverse Religions."  If there are valid "Diverse Religions," there cannot be a single "Unified Truth."  Very simple, case closed.

This big hole was started back at the beginning of this thread.  M. J. Young practically explained it right off:

And as the referee, I have to know how the sun really moves across the sky, just so that I've got that answer when the players attempt to determine it for real; unless I'm prepared to railroad them by thwarting their every effort to make that determination.

That said, I think that there are a lot of solutions to this.... ...Yet in the end, something has to be the reality of the situation, or else the world has to be such that all reality is subjective.

I'm not comfortable with "all the reality is subjective".

...I feel I, as referee, would need to know why it works and how it works if I am going to have to present the outcome of its efforts.

He's pretty much saying he doesn't like to run games that don't have an "Unified Truth."  Therefore, in his games, there can be no more than one "Diverse Religion" that 'has the right answer,' by definition (and probably none).

A few people have ghosted around this fact, talking about 'unknowable truths' and 'myths that don't really describe things;' these are both examples of handling the concept of having no valid "Diverse Religions."  Likewise arguments like 'each works differently on a different world' or 'everyone sees the ultimate truth differently,' are simply ways to get around having an "Unified Truth."  Each of these attempts to make one case look like the other in some attempt to create a situation that seems to satisfy the patently impossible.

It's like saying, "Here's a Force Unstopped by any object (so far)" or "The Immovable Object cannot be found" and "Unstoppable Forces flow around the Immovable Object" or "This Object is Immovable to Forces of this specific kind."  All we're doing is creating lies to cover up the fact that either you can have an Unstoppable Force or you can have an Immovable Object, but not both.  Which brings us to the simplest of solutions:

PICK ONE!

If you want an "Unified Truth," let the game mechanisms reflect it; treat each application of diverse religion gently, like a confused child, or better ask why the characters are so concerned with rooting out myths.  Treat the "Unified Truth" as a singular incontrovertible fact, often misunderstood, but never wrong.  (That's what unification means, don't it?)  This works great with systems that use concrete mechanisms with specific results and not so great with systems open to broad interpretation ('highly flexible') or giving only cursory (meaning they require interpretation) results.

If you want "Diverse Religions," realize that each has diverse ways of revealing truth.  If the Greek wants to see Apollo on that chariot, he isn't going to fly into space, he's going to that road (that's right it'd be a road), the one that leaves Apollo's stable and he's going to be there early in the morning; where is that road?  That stable?  Not on the physical plane, that's for sure.  The same is true of the home of that dung beetle or any other purveyor of sunshine.  Each will be reached differently and found in different places.  (And let's not forget that some days they don't go out at all; all you modern types seem to think that everyone back then felt the sun was all what lit up the day.  Sometimes clouds rule the sky and the sun is not welcome.)

Not only that, but let's not forget to question why these characters of "Diverse Religions" are haring off together to see their deities in the first place; did you forget to ask why?

Let's stop a moment and mention the 'smaller miracles.'  They just happen, see?  Why?  Because that's how the rules handle it, isn't that obvious?  Why does it matter about ley lines, vortices and such?  Is the game you're running really about the nature and scientific approach to the magic being done?  If so, I hope the game is designed for 'scientifically' modeled magic, because that's the only game where that type of play will work.  If not, shouldn't the players have something else to do?

Or, turned on its head, okay the players are trying to determine the nature of magic within a system that is not 'built that way.'  What do they find?  Whatever they want or whatever you want.  Since the system was never geared to be so rigorously tested, this play is 'wrong' by its standards; you're on your own then, have fun.  (Id est, PICK ONE!)  Otherwise point out that 'this is not what the game is about' and get back to something more interesting and less controversial.

Sheesh, you'd think we were discussing real religion here.  We're not, this is gaming; magic works 'by the rules,' not by some Universally Acceptable Paradigm.  It's different for each game and for each taste.

There is no One Right Answer™

Fang Langford

[Gordon C. Landis]

Hey Fang,

Pick One is perfectly good advice.  But my posting in this thread has been all about "Don't Pick One."  Don't answer the Immoveable Object/Irresistable force question - it almost never comes up, and in fact CAN'T come up if the issue about whether either can even exist in the first place is established as unknowable.  As Gareth says, don't let it be proveable in your game world, and you're cool.

Maybe I've got an irrational bias against this whole irreconcilable dualities thing, but really, I've found "don't pick one" the very best answer in Magic/Myth/Religion related gaming situations.  Doesn't work for me in SciFi, though.  Well - as applied to religon it does.  Not to anything else.

Gordon, apparently Mr. "The only winning move is not to play" is this debate

[Le Joueur]

Pick One is perfectly good advice.  But my posting in this thread has been all about "Don't Pick One."  Don't answer the Immoveable Object/Irresistable Force question - it almost never comes up, and in fact CAN'T come up if the issue about whether either can even exist in the first place is established as unknowable.  As Gareth says, don't let it be proveable in your game world, and you're cool.

Maybe I've got an irrational bias against this whole irreconcilable dualities thing, but really, I've found "don't pick one" the very best answer in Magic/Myth/Religion related gaming situations.  Doesn't work for me in SciFi, though.  Well - as applied to religon it does.  Not to anything else.

Sorry, choosing 'not to choose' is picking one.  Like I said, "talking about 'unknowable truths' [is an example] of handling the concept of having no valid 'Diverse Religions.'"  The "Unified Truth" is that nobody can know.  Any single solution is clearly a "Unified Truth."

And you're right, "the only winning move is not to play"...any role-playing games (the obvious application of that truism).  Thanks for helping clarify that point (to win an argument about religion you must 'not argue').

Fang Langford

[Gordon C. Landis]

Sorry, choosing 'not to choose' is picking one.  Like I said, "talking about 'unknowable truths' [is an example] of handling the concept of having no valid 'Diverse Religions.'"  The "Unified Truth" is that nobody can know.  Any single solution is clearly a "Unified Truth."

Hmm . . . I think it's time (for me, anyway) to just let this one go.  I disagree very strongly that Not Picking in any way means, by neccesity, there are no valid Diverse Religions, at least in terms of RPG play (I'm really trying NOT to pull too much real world philosophy in here).  Not Picking between your two choices is, of course, a choice, and no one can stop you from insisting that as such it MUST fit into one of your categories.

But (again, RPG play is all I'm applying this to here) my experience is that making the "Don't Pick One" choice is entirely different than making the Unified Truth Choice, and very different from the Valid Diverse Religions choice.  And often results in better (for me) play - easier to manage, more rewarding.

But like you say, it's different for each game and taste.

Gordon

[clehrich]

Hi.  (Warning --- LONG again!)

Ron started a new "challenge," if you will:

Let's consider as well this issue: what is the role of a GM relative to the game-world? Does its issues/metaphysics represent (1) something that he or she uniquely knows as a mechanism, in ways that players don't, or (2) something that should intrigue him or her on the same basis that it intrigues the players?

As he notes, both are possible, but he also wonders whether "differing views will prevent either approach's arguments to be satisfying to the other."  Let me see if I can unpack that last question a bit, and use that to open up the challenge.

In version (1), the GM has made a final decision about some basic metaphysical question; in version (2) she hasn't.  Tied to this, as Ron describes it, you have the point that in (1) the GM knows the truth and the players do not, and in (2) whatever interest the players have in the truth is parallel to the GM's own interest in exploring that question.

Now from this way of putting it, I think it might well be that version (2) as stated is fairly strongly in line with a Simulationist approach, in that exploration of the setting is a central issue for all players (including GM).  But before this turns into a GNS fight, let me point out that Ron has to some degree collapsed several different possibilities in this description.

Suppose we lay it out as a series of binaries:

A. Truth: known / not known
B. GM privilege: exclusive / open
C. Interest (in metaphysics): significant / insignificant

There are probably more, but with just these we can describe most of the positions represented in the course of the present debate.

Start with C.  Much of the current debate has centered around whether it is important that the GM (or anyone else) know the Truth.  But what I think has come out is that it is a vital issue whether it makes a bit of difference.  For example, we could run a two-fisted 30s-pulp campaign in which there was magic, but in which the focus of all players (including GM) was such that there was absolutely no interest in discovering why there is magic, or whether God exists, or whatever.  So here the GM does not necessarily need to know the Truth (although she might), and certainly it would be something of a waste of time to put huge effort into detailing the metaphysical underpinnings of the Setting.

Now there's B.  Suppose we've decided that metaphysical issues (in the loose sense, not the technical) will be important in our campaign, and everyone is cool with this.  Okay, now does the group mutually compose the Truth (at the outset or over the course of play), or is it secret knowledge for the GM to know and the players to find out (or fail to find out)?  Take Call of Cthulhu, for example.  The characters do not, as a rule, know the Truth, but finding it out is a major component of play.  The players actually do know the Truth, because if they didn't they would not likely sign up for a CoC game.  The more specific Truth in this particular campaign they of course do not know, and they will work hard at finding it out (although this will kill their characters).  And the GM really does have to know the Truth here, because it's a mystery in the detective-fiction sort of way, and it breaks the CoC-type contract to say, "Here's a mystery I'm challenging you to solve, but actually I'm making it up as I go along" (unless you admit this at the outset, and are doing an experimental game or whatever).

Only now can we get to A.  We can now determine several points:
- are the players interested in these sorts of questions?
- are the PCs interested likewise (not at all the same thing)?
- will the answers be group-determined or exclusive to the GM?
- can the answers be found by the PCs?
- can the answers be found by the players?

Okay, NOW we can ask whether it is important for the GM to know the Truth, or to set conditions upon what sort of Truth it is.  As noted before, if players and PCs don't give a damn, it's hardly worth the time coming up with a lot of detail about this, unless that's your thing.  

If group exploration of Setting to determine Truth is going to be a big part of play, you may want to think twice about predetermining the conclusions: if you do, you're setting up a mystery (Actor and Author play will be central); if you don't, you're setting up a group construction thing, in which Directorial stance will probably be added to the mix.  

And finally, if the PCs can't get there from here, i.e. they can never really know the answers (as in ordinary reality), then you need to think about the ramifications of having the players able to figure out what you had in mind, and interested in doing so.

So I think that Ron's supposition - - that different design choices about these issues will strongly affect whether other styles or approaches are workable - - seems to be accurate.  Thus it's not a question of whether one should or should not, as a rule, know the Truth; rather, one must make a series of choices about the type of game in question, and that will tell you whether knowing the Truth is (1) required, (2) optional but possibly helpful, (3) a waste of time, or (4) damaging.

Let me conclude by pointing out that you can do all this backwards.  That is, you can make a decision about the status of Truth as the first part of Premise and/or Setting, and then build up the rest of the campaign from there.  Of course, this already determines that epistemology will be in some sense or other an important issue in the campaign.

Okay, that's long enough.  Just wanted to make a stab at responding directly to Ron's challenge.

[Le Joueur]

Sorry, choosing 'not to choose' is picking one.  Like I said, "talking about 'unknowable truths' [is an example] of handling the concept of having no valid 'Diverse Religions.'"  The "Unified Truth" is that nobody can know.  Any single solution is clearly an "Unified Truth."

Hmm . . . I think it's time (for me, anyway) to just let this one go.  I disagree very strongly that Not Picking in any way means, by necessity, there are no valid Diverse Religions, at least in terms of RPG play (I'm really trying NOT to pull too much real world philosophy in here).  Not Picking between your two choices is, of course, a choice, and no one can stop you from insisting that as such it MUST fit into one of your categories.

But (again, RPG play is all I'm applying this to here) my experience is that making the "Don't Pick One" choice is entirely different than making the Unified Truth Choice,

Here's where our opinions differ.  I'm pretty sure you're thinking that the "Unified Truth" is a 'Unified metaphysical Truth.'  What I've been trying to do is get people to look a little higher than in-game metaphysics.  If we don't, we're literally just arguing about religion; you know what they say about that.

I'm saying that ultimately, 'arguing about religion' is a poor ruse; it's meaningless because these aren't real religions, they're fiction.  None is more 'real' than any other and trying to compare different relationships of "Diverse Religions" or different 'Unified metaphysical Truth' approaches is a hopeless diatribe of people shouting their opinions.

Once you rise above the 'metaphysical level,' and see that we're just talking about different game systems, it becomes nothing more than a discussion of different approaches to emulation; a much easier conversation.  This is then much like discussing the difference between weapon comparison in a detailed system and one that calls upon the users to interpret the resolutions to differentiate between the effects of two similar weapons.

making the "Don't Pick One" choice is entirely different than making the Unified Truth choice, and very different from the Valid Diverse Religions choice.  And often results in better (for me) play - easier to manage, more rewarding.

Y'see the separation I'm suggesting is "Don't Pick One" is an "Unified Truth" ("nobody can know") from a 'Game Designer Perspective' and both an "Unified metaphysical Truth" and multi-"Valid Diverse Religions" are in-game and thus pretty much a unified antipode to it.  People have been confusing the "Unified Truth" solution with the "Unified metaphysical Truth" solution.  (Kind like the old "It's just a TV show!" solution.)

The problem I've been underscoring is that getting tangled up in the proposed "Irreconcilable Duality," is succumbing to the idea that these religions are real to the designer (Apollo, Glorantha, and Dung Beetles don't count unless you know how you want to 'dignify' religion with the overall design).  They aren't, they're just fiction, just system.  Treated as such, and recognizing the "Irreconcilability" should let us end this thread cleanly, clearly, and with no one 'losing.'

The only real concern I could see discussed is 'how to dignify' either multiple "Diverse Religions" or an "Unified metaphysical Truth," because you clearly can't have both.  (And at this level, the specifics, chariots, beetles, or extant systems, don't matter, only preferences of "Diverse" or "Unified.")  Thanks for identifying 'the higher level' of discussion; it really helps a lot to clarify what can and cannot be discussed here.

Fang Langford