A New Spin on the Old Magic/Religion Question

[M. J. Young]

This is yet another thread pursuing the popular topic about whether the referee has to understand the reality of the game world in some sense.

I say yet another, because it of these threads:

[*]It started when Kester Pelagius inaugurated http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4476">The Mechanic of "Religion" in Role-Playing Games; actually, that's not true, now that I think of it, as he was spinning that off something else. But after six pages, Ron called a halt to the growing dissension there, and I attempted to refocus the question into
[*]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4752">Unified Truth and Diverse Religions in Game Worlds, which garnered some excellent discussion capped at present by Reverend Daegmorgan's post. It also spun off
[*]http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4805">Engaging New Worlds with New Imagination, in which Christopher Kubasik made some excellent points about players abusing the character concept by being some sort of post-enlightenment scientist in a medieval fantasy world.[/list:u]
There were other threads that were contributory or derivative, but these are the major ones.

As I said in the last thread on that list, although my question as asked was well answered, my problem was not really resolved; and I realized there that it was a significant enough matter to take to yet another thread--hence this one, with the overlong preamble. (Sorry--in my mouth, all stories are long stories.)

I hold a time-honored belief that what we believe will control what we do, ultimately. I've expressed this in my http://www.mjyoung.net/bible/boiler.htm">parable of the boiler, but it goes beyond that simple illustration. C. S. Lewis explained the notion in comparing an atheist to a Christian in regard to attitudes toward people (he was both, at different times in his life). In this case, he maintained, it depends on what you believe about people. If, like the atheist, you think they live a few years and then cease to exist, you are inclined toward the opinion that societies, which last for centuries, are more important than individuals. If you hold the view that humans are, at least potentially, immortal, suddenly they matter far more than the short-lived planets and stars of this world. What you believe affects what you do, how you think about things, how you live.

Now, I see this as analogous. The way reality really is should have some impact on at least some aspects. This is a perennial complaint of some gamers, that there's all this magic in the game but the game world doesn't reflect the massive use of such magic.  Why aren't healing potions sold at the local drug store? For all the trouble a continual light spell would be, how come cities aren't lit with these on every street? It's as if simple things we know to be true in the world aren't true at all.

That's an obvious example of someone not thinking things through. It's a problem that's hard to avoid in some ways, as you can never be certain whether there's some aspect of your world that has repercussions you had not recognized.

My problem is that in order for me to understand how reality really is, I have to understand the foundations of that reality.

I think (if memory serves) it sprang from a question of whether referees needed to know how magic works in their world. Some (with whom I agree) maintained that indeed even if no one else understands it, the referee has to know how and why magic works so that he can work out what happens if the players attempt to do something outside the scope of the rules. Others said that the referee does not need to know anything at all on this count, as he just needs to apply the rules he knows--but it was not agreed what he does if the players push the envelope outside those parameters.

I'm of the opinion that if I understand the fundamental realities of a world I can extrapolate the rest from that; but if I don't have a grasp of them, there will be questions I can't answer. I think that a world designer who does not answer these fundamental questions leaves his referees adrift and invites trouble with internally inconsistent worlds.

Clearly not everyone shares that opinion; or else they don't think it matters.

Elsewhere there's a thread about how much detail a world needs. I think that one thing a world needs is fundamental explanations of its core reality; without that, everyone is shooting in the dark.

--M. J. Young

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Elsewhere there's a thread about how much detail a world needs. I think that one thing a world needs is fundamental explanations of its core reality; without that, everyone is shooting in the dark.

You had said that others would not agree and I am indeed one such person.

The problem here is completely a matter of mindset, I think, and not one that will be answered at all here or anyplace else.

Consider, there are some people who, where writing a story must have everything planned out. They write an outline of the plot developments, the keep notes on the different characters, their personalities, their backgrounds, their relationships to one another, and so on.

Other people simply sit down and write. No notes, no nothing. Just a vague idea in their head and they run with it.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are successful and failed writers in both groups. Neither one nor the other way of writing makes better or "more consistent" books or anything of that nature. (and this is often a matter of opinion anyway) This is simply how these people think and work and it has nothing to do with how one "should" write or not and everything to do with what works for a particular individual. The only thing that can be truthfully said is that people in the one group would be foolhardy to attempt the techniques of the other and are doubly foolhardy to attempt to force the people of the other group to use their techniques.

This applies to roleplaying as well. I do not need to know the fundamental explanations of its core reality. I really don't care about that. I do not focus upon such things. Healing potione may or may not be sold in every drug store and Continual Light spells may or may not light street lamps in every town. It would depend on whether that bit of color appealed to me or not.

It is foolish for a game designer to expect me to plow through 10, 20, 50 pages of fundamental explanations of its core reality since I do not care about that and will not read it, much less use any of it in my game.

Likewise it is foolish for me to expect someone who wants or needs such things to "just let go, man!" even though I prefer to play in this manner. Attempting to do so makes such people feel like they are shooting in the dark.

Thios is not a judgement on people from either group, but an acknowledgement that there are (at least) two different ways of thinking upon this subject and that's all there is to it, really.

I hope this answers your question, MJ, although I am not sure if you had one, to be honest.

You see, I do think everyone does require these fundamental explanations of its core reality, but not everyone needs it to be upfront and explicit like that. Some people can work with kinda sorta an idea of how it works, others need the Worldbook encyclopedia. I suppose we could get all Freudian and try to find hang-ups in each other based on this, but what good will that do? This is how I run things and that is how you run things and so long as we and our respective players enjoy it, does it matter?

[clehrich]

Put the way M.J. has, I begin to think that this may actually be something of a GNS question.

Example 1 (SIM): I, the GM, know how and why magic works.  It has something to do with the nature of reality itself.  The PCs now explore the Setting, in the process learning about some of these rules.  (Unknown Armies would be a good example, at the Street-Level campaign.)

Example 2 (NAR): I, the GM, have some sort of feel for magic in this Setting.  I try to convey that feel through both in-game encounters and various meta-game explications (writeups, discussions, etc.).  The players and their characters differently, but in a sense in concert, develop the details of this feel into a larger conception of magic in the Setting.  It may turn out that some of what I thought was most fundamental isn't.

In both versions, the question of the relation of magic (and some sort of religion, perhaps) to the structure of the universe is critical, probably a central concern of the Premise.  But in one case I need to know the details ahead of time, and in the other I don't.

I can see both being playable as sustained, long-term games.  I can also see either option being oriented towards a pure fantasy Setting, or to a somewhat historical ("realist") Setting, without this affecting the basic dynamic.

Isn't it really a question of what the players (including GM) want from their game universe and their play experience?

[Le Joueur]

Jack hints at the curiosity you've raise for me M. J.

This is how I run things and that is how you run things and so long as we and our respective players enjoy it, does it matter?

I mean, you state your opinion pretty clearly.

I think that one thing a world needs is fundamental explanations of its core reality; without that, everyone is shooting in the dark.

And some people (like Jack) don't.  (Y'know, a lot of families are started with 'everyone shooting in the dark.')  Are we looking up at you on the soap box?  You've given your point of view, I accept and respect that, but what's the question here?

This is yet another thread pursuing the popular topic about whether the referee has to understand the reality of the game world in some sense.

You mean is there one right answer?  Despite what Jack says:

You see, I do think everyone does require these fundamental explanations of its core reality, but not everyone needs it to be upfront and explicit like that.

I really don't think so.  Sorcerer has been brought up as an example; you are never given where demons are from and what they do (as a statistical body, rather than individual units).  It has proven unnecessary in many situations.

It's like what we discussed in the thread about keeping "playable worlds" as simple as remains playable.  I believe in some cases, for some people, 'the referee does not need to understand the reality of the game world in some sense.'  Such games clearly don't appeal to you, but clearly (from the continual light spell example) they appeal to some.

You've given your preference; what's the question?

Fang Langford

[greyorm]

Sorcerer has been brought up as an example; you are never given where demons are from and what they do

Ah, but the question here (I think) is: what do I do as a gamemaster when the players decide they're going to find out?

The answer, once given, will have wide-ranging repercussions. This is the core issue that worries MJ, and I'll admit, myself as well.

Of course, in a game of Sorcerer, the fact is that the players themselves and their actions in game may likely have a direct effect on the answer.

One possible answer is to never let them find out...however, this would be unsatisfying and dysfunctional to the mode of Sorcerer play: if the group's consensus is to find out, then that is the issue on the table to resolve: the game is all about finding out, so one must accomodate or not bother.

Another answer is described in the thread in my referenced post. But, regardless, I think the answer in part to the issue is that in a typical game of Sorcerer, being what it is, the players have all agreed to an unspoken part of the social contract that the demons are mysterious and unknowable as a group.

The game only breaks down when this contract is broken, and players decide to poke around to try and figure out what's up instead of riding the narrative wave -- the issue which Christopher adequately and sucinctly addresses in its own thread.

clherich has attempted to map the two accepted states of knowing (ie: unknown or detailed) to GNS. However, I think he's wrong; I don't believe either method is exclusively S or N, as given the nature of the beast, either may be either.

I believe a detailed cosmological overview is definitely more likely in a Simulationist game, but not necessary to it; a Narrativist game is equally as likely to have a detailed cosmological overview as not.

Drawing conclusions from the apparent use of such methods in Simulationism is comitting synedoche, I believe, of the same sort committed when the terms Rules-Lite and Narrativism are confounded or mapped, and that's why I've tried to avoid it despite seeing the same patterns clherich did.

I did use Narrativist structure in some of my examples in the post that Christopher and MJ have referenced, as it was more easy for me to describe using such, but I think an equally valid and similar method would work just fine in Simulationist play as well. The core issue with establishing a "malleable" or "narrative" mythic reality as explained is really that of the contractual dysfunction Christopher brings up.

So, let's skip over whether this is a GNS issue for the moment and get to the issue MJ raises.

However, I do have to ask MJ, rather like Fang, what is the question above? Though I have some ideas, I'm a little lost as to what, precisely, you are asking above, or bringing into focus for discussion: what, specifically, is the problem that has not yet been resolved?

[clehrich]

Rev. Daegmorgan wrote:

I don't believe either method is exclusively S or N, as given the nature of the beast, either may be either.
I believe a detailed cosmological overview is definitely more likely in a Simulationist game, but not necessary to it; a Narrativist game is equally as likely to have a detailed cosmological overview as not.

Actually, I quite agree.  I didn't mean my two examples to be exclusive in any sense.  All I meant was that it is entirely possible to have a game in which cosmological / metaphysical exploration is central (unlike normative Sorcerer, as you explain) in which the GM does not know the rules of the universe.  Such a game might well be run within a NAR framework, with the players co-constructing the rules.  But you're probably right in wanting to drop GNS issues from the debate.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings M J,

That was certainly quite a bit to think about.

So, let's see, what can we say about the nature of reality and game mechanics.  Hmm...

As I've stated (and sorry to muddle your question yet further) there is, or rather should be, a line drawn between what is presented within the frame work of the core system, meaning the "rules of play", and the larger mechanic of the game world, meaning the background setting.  Of course it is easily arguable that this is not always necessarily the case, especially where specific game worlds, like those based upon novels, are concerned.

In your question to understand the basic fundamentals of game world reality one has to further realize that each game has its own unique reality.  Which is perhaps why this question has perplexed us so.

If I start to talk about the AD&D magic system many will instantly want to know what version of AD&D I am talking about, which campaign world, and what sort of optional rules (kits, prestige classes, etc) are in use.  It's a subtle yet very real difference in basic game mechanics, yet magic functions differently in just about every game.

In Stormbringer the reality presented is one of pure sorcery.  But what is sorcery?

In Stormbringer it is the binding (not necessarily pacts, as that would be more Daemonic) of Demons into objects to create power.  In fact in that system Power is (if memory serves ) the main Attribute which characters have to let them know how magically attuned they are.

But what of games that use Manna Systems?  Spell Points?

Conceptions of reality are all around us.  You mention how some players wonder why potions aren't sold in every corner store and why the effects of magic aren't more visibily pronounced.  Funny.

Why?

Because look at all that we take for granted.  We live in a fast food, disposably, consumer culture.  Yet where is the evidence of it all?

Land fills.  Thousands of land fills.

As for potions, one might as well ask why alchemists philtres weren't equally available everywhere.  Of course in our realy world the answers are simple: secrecy and money.

We take it for granted that we have the "rights" to our work.  That we can claim copyright or patent.  Yet, even today, there are some things which the creaters are well aware they would loose control of if they actually set down their formulae in a copyright or patent.

Don't think so?

What's KFC's secret recipe?

What is in that can of WD40?

Speaking of potions, we have those too.  They are in our grocery stores.  They are called various things, most should be familiar with one: soda.

Not a potion?

Caffein = instant energy boost.

Of course we don't really use the word potion anymore, not really.

And that is a matter of perspective, how we percieve our reality.  It is a potion, yet it isn't.  Just like a grimoire is a book of spells, yet a grammar is a book of spelling.

Funny how that works out, eh?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings Jack,

Once more I shall refrain from mentioning the beanstalk incident during the Kafer attack and trod straight into discussion.  *smirk*

The problem here is completely a matter of mindset, I think, and not one that will be answered at all here or anyplace else.

Consider, there are some people who, where writing a story must have everything planned out. They write an outline of the plot developments, the keep notes on the different characters, their personalities, their backgrounds, their relationships to one another, and so on.

Other people simply sit down and write. No notes, no nothing. Just a vague idea in their head and they run with it.

The thing to keep in mind is that there are successful and failed writers in both groups. Neither one nor the other way of writing makes better or "more consistent" books or anything of that nature. (and this is often a matter of opinion anyway) This is simply how these people think and work and it has nothing to do with how one "should" write or not and everything to do with what works for a particular individual. The only thing that can be truthfully said is that people in the one group would be foolhardy to attempt the techniques of the other and are doubly foolhardy to attempt to force the people of the other group to use their techniques.

Amen brother!

One has to use what works best for them.  It's a matter of approach.

It is foolish for a game designer to expect me to plow through 10, 20, 50 pages of fundamental explanations of its core reality since I do not care about that and will not read it, much less use any of it in my game.

Halleleuiah!

Not that I have anything against explanations, where world backgrounds are concerned.  But most games could eacily condense their rules into a few pages, or should be able to.  Present what we as gamers need to create a character up front.  Save the (too often bad) fiction for the world books!

Of course this probably wont happen since, unless I miss my guess, game books are treated like any other book project.  Meaning they are paid by the word.  And that means author are going to fall into the habit of padding their work to get a larger word count/check.

Then again that could just be a cynical view?


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[contracycle]

It has already been made clear that the objection vanishes if the game explicitly makes it the groups responsibility to defines what is true.

I disagree with the non-explained worlds necessarily according with Nar, as I have asked and been advised that no self-conscious knowledge of acting as Nar is needed to do so; hence the self-conscious knowledge that the game world exists only to mold itself around whatever whim take the players would be just as relevant there as in sim.

The boiler question has not really been addressed.  If it is PROVEd to you that your faith is a lie, how do you react?  What is your response to the imminently exploding boiler?  If your End Times happened, here and now - what would that mean for the infidels?  At the moment, if the Christian Rapture happened, and people started literally vanishing up into heaven, the argument from the non-absoluet camp is that this would mean nothing to atheists, hindu's and muslims.  Atheists would live in world that is true (these people never went up to heaven? dunno), the enRaptured christians have their beliefes totally verified, the Muslims don't see ny rapture or 1000 years of peace under gods kingdom as the christians do, they are waiting for their own end of thew world.  The hindu's don;t see any end times either, they are awaiting individual enlightentment.

So what is the world on day 1 after the rapture?  Are the atheists and non-believers swimming in lakes of fire, or not?  In THIS game world, was Revelations the truth, or not?  And if neither, how do we reconcile multiple beleifs without positing relativism?

[simon_hibbs]

Honestly, I don't realy see what the 'new spin' is, but here we go...:)

My problem is that in order for me to understand how reality really is, I have to understand the foundations of that reality.

I presume this would apply to other genres as well? For example if you were to run a Traveller game you would want to know for definite how jump Drive wroks, and how it reconciles with relativity (it doesn't)?

I'm of the opinion that if I understand the fundamental realities of a world I can extrapolate the rest from that; but if I don't have a grasp of them, there will be questions I can't answer. I think that a world designer who does not answer these fundamental questions leaves his referees adrift and invites trouble with internally inconsistent worlds.

That's true. I would be the last person the advocate no rules or advice on how magic works in a fantasy game. There are plenty of real world examples of highly organised and systematic magical theories and these can provide a wealth of source material for constructing imaginary magic systems. There are also plenty of examples of completely original magical theories out there in the realm of fiction and roleplaying.

Clearly not everyone shares that opinion; or else they don't think it matters.

I don't think it always matters. While I think it's generaly preferable, it depends very much on the premise of the game. Some games have a very tight focus, and so abstruse metaphysical treatises may simply be outside the game's scope. However for general purpose fantasy game settings, I generaly agree.

Elsewhere there's a thread about how much detail a world needs. I think that one thing a world needs is fundamental explanations of its core reality; without that, everyone is shooting in the dark.

This is true, and not particularly controversial, at least with respect to my opinion. Our difference is about how far such an explanation needs to go.


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

It has already been made clear that the objection vanishes if the game explicitly makes it the groups responsibility to defines what is true.

I agree, it's orthogonal to the subject of this discussion.

The boiler question has not really been addressed.  If it is PROVEd to you that your faith is a lie, how do you react?

I suppose Call of Cthulhu touches on this a bit inthat it's established in the background that humanity is about to be made extinct. It's an interesting premise for a dark fantasy game.

So what is the world on day 1 after the rapture?  Are the atheists and non-believers swimming in lakes of fire, or not?  In THIS game world, was Revelations the truth, or not?  And if neither, how do we reconcile multiple beleifs without positing relativism?

I'm not quite sure that we do. If you as GM/game designer have created the game world with the premise that one faith was right and the others were wrong, then that's a done deal.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

So what is the world on day 1 after the rapture?  Are the atheists and non-believers swimming in lakes of fire, or not?  In THIS game world, was Revelations the truth, or not?  And if neither, how do we reconcile multiple beleifs without positing relativism?

I'm not quite sure that we do. If you as GM/game designer have created the game world with the premise that one faith was right and the others were wrong, then that's a done deal.

No, I want to know how to do it and keep the doubt, keep the mythic mindset that has a way to parse apparently contradictory information. Yesh, if I set it up as True it's a done deal, the same always applied to the solar dung beetle.  Why is the Rapture scenario not the same as the simultaneously-true ball of dung and Apollonion chariot?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Why is the Rapture scenario not the same as the simultaneously-true ball of dung and Apollonion chariot?

I really do want to focus on specific situations like this because specific questions, like hypethetical situations, tend to break down the discussion as everyone picks apart the specific details and the main point we all should have been focusing on gets missed and lost in the mirk.

That said, there are a couple differences between the Rapture and and the sun movement. The first is distance. We really cant get to the sun. We can see it but it is too far away to get close enough to see what makes it tick. A similar question would be to find out if the stars are pinholes in the curtain of night of not. How the hell are you going to get up there to find out? In the Rapture, people all over the place would be suddenly disappearing and such. It's right upclose and personal. The difference is like the difference between seeing a war on television taking place in some distant country and having tanks rolling through your back yard and soldiers marching through your neighborhood. How do you know the war on TV isn't just a show and special effects? You know the tank drove through your yard and flattened the neighbor's dog. You saw it and there are the tread marks. You see? That's the difference. The problem of the sun can be ignored while the rapture thing is difficult to ignore.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Ah, but the question here (I think) is: what do I do as a gamemaster when the players decide they're going to find out?

The answer, once given, will have wide-ranging repercussions. This is the core issue that worries MJ, and I'll admit, myself as well.

Is this the issue, then? The worry is being consistent? That when an answer to such a question is given there may be reprucussions that will effect play from then on and may show inconsistency in previous play sessions and thus the game breaks down?

I'm asking if this is the question and concern here. I have answers and they are similar to Raven's but I want to make sure I'm addressing the correct concern first.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

You see, I do think everyone does require these fundamental explanations of its core reality, but not everyone needs it to be upfront and explicit like that.

I really don't think so.  Sorcerer has been brought up as an example; you are never given where demons are from and what they do (as a statistical body, rather than individual units).  It has proven unnecessary in many situations.

Well, by that I meant that some people keep it as a vague notion in the back of their minds, just enough to guide them when they need it, I guess. So I suppose what I really meant was people need at least a good idea of how the world works, but not everyone needs it spelled out for them.