A New Spin on the Old Magic/Religion Question

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

'Scuse me, but "challenge posting" isn't going to help this discussion. Such posts demand certain performance from one another: "Oh yeah? Then tell me how X can happen."

What's useful are proposed thought-experiments for mutual consideration, so that a general point at issue can be validated or refuted. These are not to be hurled at one another as weapons, but presented for the entirety of the readership.

Also, proper debate demands acknowledging valid points. I'm glad to see some of that on this thread and I hope it continues.

Best,
ron

[contracycle]

No, it's a game in which both myths are true (I'd rather say 'contain some truth'). Which is a more satisfying and revelatory truth is down to individual faith, which is what the contest is realy about.

"satisfying" is not on the agenda (falsehoods are always unsatisfying).  "revelatory" may be on the agenda if anything is actually revealed; if its a Subjective Reality game, revelation has no value.  Furthermore, this is most certainly NOT a game in which both truths "contain some truth" - that would mean that the myths cannot be LITERALLY true.  If they are True, they are True, accurate depictions of the Way Things Are.

Our disagreement is that I think I have, and you think I haven't.

Yes exactly.

To a religious person, the fact that one phenomenon is like another is not a coincidence, it is because the world was created with that similarity as a design decision. The magical Law of Similarity is, if we believe magicians, a real laws of the universe just like Newton's laws of motion.(c.f. 'Authentic Thaumaturgy' by Isaac Bonewits)

This at least is constructive (I have read Bonewitz, and Campell, FYI).  Although I would point out that not all mythologies require intelligent design.  

Whether such laws are valid in the real world is immaterial, if we suppose a fantasy world in which they are valid. Here we come down to the axiomatic proofs problem. Since sytems of logic are not provable in the real world, it is obviously impossible to logicaly prove a philosophical truth in a fantasy world in ours - even if we posit that it is provable within the fantasy world itself. Awkward, isn't it?

No.  Various things are provable in the real world, this we know.  I would therefore expect that if a mythic reality were true, it would still be causal and consistent.  Furthermore, this is a GAME and we can SAY what is true, abstract conceptions of proof be damned.  We can say because, like hypothetical  gods, we have total freedom of creation.  Your argument, as I understand it, is that it is not necessary to create a world external to the characters.

I'm not sure I entirely see it's relevence. The exploding boiler problem merely says that if you accept the doctrine of a faith, the rational response is to follow the tenets of that faith. That seems simple and non controversial enough.

If so, then you have been converted, and you now realise that you were wrong all along, there is no dung beetle, its Apollo.  Or whatever.  I take it you concede the point?

First of all, I don't see any particular reason why I should.

Becuase you are saying that this is doable, and not only is it doable but my own "scientific" mindset is preventing me from seeing how to do it.  I am asking you to show me then how you would do it, because at the moment I do not see how it could be done.

My point isn't that religious differences in arbitrary worlds can be reconciled. I'm saying (and have always said) that it is possible to construct a fantasy world in which they are reconcilable.

And, I assert that religions are world-systems, and that if one is true all others are implicitly not true.  If you believe that it is possible to construct a world with mutliple true truths, please show me how it is to be done and played at the table.

Whether or not the real world is such a world is an interesting, but entirely irrelevent point.

Correct

I have already answered this question in relation to how I would construct such a game world, with a relevent example (the oasis). Why is that not satisfactory?

I must have missed it somehow among all the threads and will look for it.

P.S. Just becaue I can't resist it - Christians believe in the resurection of the body, while Budhists believe that the body is a mere physical source of distraction from our inner Budha nature.

granted.

Therefore I'd describe the christian rising into the air towards heaven, while the Budhist's mere physical body would be consumed by the flames, freeing him to attain oneness with the cosmos.

You mean "to hell", surely.

The Christian sees the budhist burning in hellfire, while the budhist sees the christian trapped in an unending otherworld of material distraction. As I said with my other example, it's all a matter of points of view.

Why?  Seeing as this WAS THE RAPTURE, the buddhist is cowering under stones, from the wroth of god written so visibly in the sky.  Because the mythology is TRUE, right?

However, if the buddhist does get to go to Nirvana (although, no event in the buddhists cosmos caused them to die, I would point out), then clearly this event was NOT the rapture.  This result is therefore not satisfying (because it proves that both mythologies were fictions superceded by some sort of relativism) nor revelatory (becuase nothing is revealed, the observers are simply coccooned even further by their delusions).

Thus you have failed to demonstrate how they could both be true.  They are in fact both not true, and remain as mutually exclusive as they were before .  You have provided no basis for explaining why the buddhists false belief makes them immune to gods response; you have once again simply tried to avoid the question of common experience.

I say again: to take your proposition seriously (that it is possible to construct a game without an objective world but with mythologies which are really true) seriously requires that some model be presented as to how that might be done.  So far, no model has explained to my satisfaction that it might.  I am therefore at the point of not being willing to take this idea seriously and will give up on this well-whipped horse.

[Le Joueur]

Now that we have word from M. J. (thank you responding and sorry to hear about your travails; may all get well soon), I think I can make a few somewhat uncomfortable statements to clarify a bit of the confusion here (but not on the topic of religion in general).

Regarding Sorcerer, and Gareth has said, that's a red herring. No, the game doesn't tell you what the demons are. The game does tell you that the demons are whatever it is that tears down your humanity, and that you have to work out to some degree the realities of the demons and the nature of humanity for this game session to work. If in one game demons are tragic flaws and in another their spirit beings, it's because humanity is slightly different in those two games--but as the game begins, we've established what they are sufficiently to play.

This is probably the most telling point in the whole post.  As I see it, a lot of the commentary suffers from a 'universal answer' problem.  The idea that all games must provide the exact same kind of philosophical underpinning or 'crux' (as I've called it) in order to satisfy the 'Young Problem.'

Here, this is shown to be false.  As mentioned elsewhere, a gamemaster ought to be provided with instruction of 'how things work.'  The Sorcerer example is not a red herring; it clearly states that the 'crux' is different for different games (even so far as different games of Sorcerer).  Follow; what happens if a Sorcerer player character decides to go to the 'realm of demons' and get some whathaveyou for himself?  Where is such a realm?  How do you go there?  What's there to see?  All are valid questions, providing a certain kind of gaming mentality.  And that's just it; that mentality is contrary to the inherent makeup of the game.

As M. J. puts it, "demons are whatever it is that tears down your humanity."  Sorcerer is a game about people, humans, or humanity, not demons; exploring the 'realm of demons' is 'out of bounds' because it has no bearing on humanity.  Lots of games rightly have these 'out of bounds' areas, I commonly call that 'black boxing' part of the cosmology.  Later in his response, M. J. talks about interstellar travel; of course one needs to know the process of that, but what you don't need to know is the physics of it.  (Where is "the void?"  Does anyone live there?  Can we build there?  Is it a good parking space?  All of that resides quietly in a 'black box' marked "turn on to enter void, will shut off automatically.")  The point is that M. J. is not saying he needs everything described, just the relevant parts.

Jack has several times said that it really doesn't matter how the sun moves across the sky because no one can get to it. In a game world in which my player characters and thousands of other non-player characters can, if they wish, visit the fourth heaven or the sixth hell or the two hundred thirty-third plane of the abyss or the elemental plane of air, it seem foolish to say that they can't get to the sun. Even if you say that they can't get close enough to the sun to get a good look because even in its fantasy form it's very bright and very hot (and goodness, wouldn't darkness and fire protection spells suffice to get us a lot closer?), that in itself reduces the number of possible truths about it. Saying that it doesn't matter because you can't get to the sun is ducking the question; more importantly, it's ducking the point of the question, which is that sometimes the characters are going to do things which make the truth about reality matter, even if they don't do it with the fixed idea that they are doing that.

We keep talking about the trek to the sun as if we were trying to find out which was true. But let's put a different spin on it. What if the characters need something from the gods. In addition to driving the sun across the sky, Apollo has been known to give special arrows to mortals. We need an arrow that will enable us to fight some evil kracken, and our cleric of Zeus says that Apollo will surely give us such an arrow, but we'll have to speak to him while he's driving the sun across the sky, so we're going to quest to speak with Apollo. But we've also got a Cleric of Osiris in the party who insists that we're on a wasted mission, because Ra has nothing to do with archery or arrows, and all we're going to find is the holy dung beetle rolling the sun across the sky. He goes along, because he's part of the party and won't leave them in the lurch (and besides, they might need him when they face Ra). The way Jack talks about it, you'd think that the only solution is they can't talk to Apollo or Ra. Sure, there are ways to prevent them from getting to the sun, if there's reason for them not to know. But this starts to seem a bit high-handed, if they can get everywhere in any universe except the sun.

Now the main reason I've been chafing at the whole 'trip to the sun' example is because it's being hampered by our modern thinking (or rather the expressions resulting from the modern understanding).  These well-traveled characters aren't going to the sun; to them 'the sun' isn't a place.  To us, the sun is a position in our solar system where lies the stellar body central to that system.  A chariot or a ball of dung are not places, but objects.  Discussing the latter with the terminology of the former has been greatly confusing matters (and obscuring many points attempted).

Let's take the example 'by the horns.'  First, let's say the characters head off to see Apollo.  Are they going to a point in the vacuum of space to see the brightest object?  Are they going to 'go straight up' at noon?  Doubtful, I posit that they'll either head for 'Olympus Stables' and find 'the path of the sun' or seek a place on the 'dome of the sky' (y'know, the one Atlas holds up).  Both of these are physical places in no way related to the modern sensibility of the vacuum of space; neither are they 'the sun.'  Now, unless you are setting the crux of the world to match that of modern man (introducing a separate "Unified Truth" of a ball of incandescent gas), they're going to get there.  I have to say that I cannot imagine Olympus having any points of contact with the cosmology of ancient Egypt, so there won't be any conflict if they go there.  Both religions have a 'dome of the sky' however.  Even then, the manner in reaching 'the dome' should be significant.  If I remember correctly, Egyptians used boats to visit the body of Nut (Nuit) whereas it was 'solid' to the Greeks.  Do you see where I am going here?  One way of treating the 'parallelism' of these two examples is by noting the specifics.  If you take the Cleric of Osiris to the celestial firmament of the Greeks, he will see no conflict with his cosmology; obviously that chariot isn't 'the real sun.'  Likewise, boating up the Milky Way to observe the rolling ball would not threaten the cosmology of the Greek, he knows that the sky is not the body of an Egyptian deity that one travels to by boat.  If either 'stops the sun' and the world goes dark, they'll look for their answers in separate locations.  This isn't about symbology or philosophical relativism, it's about things as we view 'economic drivers' in our culture; different people see the answers differently and get them from alternative sources.

Whew!  A lot of text for ultimately a red herring.  Stepping outside of philosophical relativism, I have to point out that 'relativism' itself is an "Unified Truth."  The flaw in using examples to paint this 'relativism' as impossible makes the assumption that only simplistic games are viable.  Furthermore it assumes that a game with many valid "Diverse Religions" will be capable of being simple.  I should think that it'd be clear that a game with a 'crux' of 'all religions are valid' would clearly not be simple; therefore a simple-enough-for-the-forum answer cannot be submitted.  This does not, in the least, invalidate that approach.

This is why I have come down so hard on the point of not using examples.  When you posit an example of two parallel religions held in a situation of supposed conflict, you must be specific enough to show the actual point of contact.  Simply saying that 'both have a different concept of the sun' fails to be specific enough to suggest that it cannot be done, only that it cannot be done simply.  Insofar as that goes, I believe M. J. is right; such a game will have to be considered 'broken' when played to the extreme where those two worldviews cross swords.  The problem is, and this is illustrated by what I described as 'the Sorcerer example,' some games are designed not to go to that extreme.

'Mythic mindset' is therefore (while extremely interesting and a great topic for another thread) completely off-topic here.  It is too bound up in one potential solution to make a clear statement on the problem at hand.  Unless you can show that 'mythic mindset' is the only alternative to defining a 'crux,' you cannot defeat its utility and make any statement whatsoever on the necessity of a 'crux.'  It doesn't speak completely for the opposition of problem described by M. J. so it can't be used to prove or disprove his point.

I think that the game has to either give me the information I need to understand how its important things work (and in a fantasy world, the supernatural realm is certainly one of the "important things"), or it has to make clear to me how I determine how those things work. The alternative, I suppose, is that it doesn't care how they work--but this inherently sounds like it's claiming that those things aren't important.

...

But in the things that matter, I either must have an explanation or I must have something that enables me to understand the world well enough that I can create a consistent explanation when I need it.

There seems to be an idea abroad that games don't have to provide that. I don't understand how it can be avoided.

What I've colored red is what I think is the root of both the communication problem and the confusion here.  There are two issues that seem to be clouding the overall statement.  First, how much information is enough. The second is what ontological approach can or should be taken in games.  The reason they cloud what is being said is that different games have different needs.  What those needs are, are bound up very tightly with what the game is trying to do and what it expects of the players.

When M. J. says he needs a 'crux' of 'how things work,' he isn't saying that he needs to know absolutely everything (quantity of information).  Sorcerer doesn't need a treatment of the 'realm of demons' because it is a game about Humanity, going after the "Unified Truth" of demons is 'out of bounds.'  He is saying that if something is important in the game, it should be explained.  It'd be really hard to argue against that, but if you let the ontological approach issue 'get in the way,' you wind up with an unrelated discussion of specific examples that don't prove anything about design in general or the apprehension that every game needs the same 'kind' of information.

M. J. also isn't saying that he needs a scientific treatise on the nature of Apollo's chariot (ontological approach).  He isn't saying he needs to know why ultraviolet light affects vampires, but that it is light as a property of the modern physics as opposed to light as a representation of religious presence or the nature of vampires in a separate metaphysical fashion, that creates the effect.  Each of these talks strongly about what's important in the game.  He's saying that 'how things work' is a feature of the underpinning point of the game; in Sorcerer that demons are "whatever it is that tears down your humanity," that means that a 'scientific approach' (like sunscreen for vampires) is 'out of bounds.'  As above, it would be hard to argue that how the game approaches metaphysics is unimportant to what the game is about.  If you let the 'quantity of information' issue creep in though, you get lose how the approach is relevant to the most basic question of 'what the game is about' (re: Sorcerer is about humanity).

So basically I see this being about how 'what the game is about' is central to defining a 'crux' both in terms of how the game approaches describing things and how much is the minimum necessary to know about in order to 'get it.'  I quite agree that an incomplete game (in these terms) is, well...incomplete.  Unfortunately, the biggest problem I see in coming to a consensus on this issue has to do a lot with personal preference.  How could a person whose desires are for a game of færie tale wonderment require a similar amount or 'style' of information to one who likes 'hard science fiction?'  The two require clearly different approaches, but measured separately, I don't see why there won't be a 'minimum' amount of 'crux' necessary for these game to function, not just in basic quantity of information, but in clarity of approach to describing that information.  (And there are a lot of games out there that are 'incomplete' in their texts that function largely upon the largess of the participants bringing their own knowledge to the game.)

So that brings me back to the question I've had from the beginning.  What you seem to be saying, M. J., is that an incomplete game hasn't enough presented to be complete.  All tautologies are true.  So?  (Unless you'd like to create diagnostic criteria, I don't know what else you what out of this thread.)

Does that clarify things better?

Fang Langford

[contracycle]

Hello,

'Scuse me, but "challenge posting" isn't going to help this discussion. Such posts demand certain performance from one another: "Oh yeah? Then tell me how X can happen."

Point taken, but I would defend myself on the basis that I am honestly looking for a demonstration.  It is/was not intended to be a provocative act, although I do feel real concern that the crux of the matter is being serially evaded.  I'm not asking for much, only to be shown something that it is claimed is easy to do.  So lets see it, say I.

[contracycle]

Here, this is shown to be false. As mentioned elsewhere, a gamemaster ought to be provided with instruction of 'how things work.' The Sorcerer example is not a red herring; it clearly states that the 'crux' is different for different games (even so far as different games of Sorcerer).

This herring is a red so bright you could see it from space.  Sorceror is NOT obscure; it is merely undefined so that you may define it.  the definition is NOT subjective nor variable to the person.  If you character has a mistaken understanding about demons or humanity, they get eaten or whatever; there is no opt out on the basis that they believe something different.

This is way way different to HW, in which as I discussed previously, a Lunar priest and a Heortling priest can succesivley "prove" the validity of their respective faiths.  There is no such conceptual problem with Sorcere at all.  Sorcerer declines to explain, it does not produce contradictory explanations.

It cannot therefore serve as defense of contradictory explanations.

(and equally, all those fools in sorcerer games who think that demons don't exist - the mundanes.  Boy are THEY in for a nasty surprise.  Their opinion matters not a jot.)

For the rest of Fangs post, we know relativism is also a universal truth, if it is stated as true.  Thats the point, citing relativism doesn't excuse contradiction.  If you cite reraltivism, then it is the relativism that is the truth and not the myths.  We have said so many times.

[Le Joueur]

Here, this is shown to be false. As mentioned elsewhere, a gamemaster ought to be provided with instruction of 'how things work.' The Sorcerer example is not a red herring; it clearly states that the 'crux' is different for different games (even so far as different games of Sorcerer).

This herring is a red so bright you could see it from space.  Sorcerer is NOT obscure; it is merely undefined so that you may define it.  The definition is NOT subjective, nor variable to the person.  If your character has a mistaken understanding about demons or humanity, they get eaten or whatever; there is no opt out on the basis that they believe something different.

...Sorcerer declines to explain, it does not produce contradictory explanations.

It cannot therefore serve as defense of contradictory explanations.

You don't seem to be reading what I wrote very carefully.  In the way I am attempting to explain, Sorcerer isn't a herring because it does exactly what you say.  I'm not defending contradictory explanations; I never intend to.  I'm talking about different games needing not only different amounts of "definition" but different kinds.  Sorcerer is a red herring in terms of contradictory "definitions," but not in terms of different requirements for "definition" between different games.

I never said Sorcerer was obscure, in fact, I felt my post was getting a little too long to say that I felt the presence of a 'crux' in Sorcerer is actually in kit form for the consumer to satisfy.  That is far from obscure and in fact demonstrates an awareness that some kind of 'crux' is necessary.  No, the "definition" is not subjective, nor does it vary from person to person; it does vary from game to game, demonstrating that Sorcerer asks the consumer to provide a new 'crux' each time they start anew.  In doing so, it is not 'incomplete' in the way that M. J. complains about.

I'm not sure why you feel inclined to include me in your flame war over conflicting cosmologies; I don't consider it at issue in this thread.  (It is an issue, but can you take it somewhere else?)  I have neither sided on the issue of conflicted cosmologies, nor do I intend to.  That they have sides is important though, and I think speaks volumes about differences of opinions as well as becoming itself overwhelmed with the confusion of ontological approach and 'minimum necessary' presentation.

Like I said, I believe certain relationships between supposed conflicting cosmologies might be possibly handled by a complication of rules; all your arguing does is prove that it cannot be done simply.  How is that relevant to what M. J. is saying?  If it isn't, shouldn't it have its own thread?

Now, if you're done, can you address what I said?  (I don't think it relevant to your war on contradictory religions, so I won't worry if you don't.)

Edited in because of a late change:

For the rest of Fang's post, we know relativism is also a universal truth, if it is stated as true. That's the point; citing relativism doesn't excuse contradiction. If you cite relativism, then it is the relativism that is the truth and not the myths. We have said so many times.

Again, I am neither defending relativism, nor vilifying it.  I feel it is a separate point to this thread.  If you look closely, I describe a fashion of relativism working simply to show that that whole thing is off-topic and wrapped up in a mire of 'the problem with too much simplicity.'

That relativism is a choice is the point; choosing relativism is setting up the 'crux' ontologically.  In doing so, you plan to deal with supposed contradictions relativistically.  That is creating a 'crux' and a specific "definition," neither of which is of much use in discussing whether a 'crux' is even needed at all (or more importantly how much of a 'crux' is needed or what kind and how that varies from game to game).

Fang Langford

[Drew Stevens]

Question-

I will prefice this by saying that I have only skimmed this thread.  But has the idea been brought up of having multiple concurrent truths, such as Nobilis' Prosaic / Mythic reality split?

Or, but another way- in the Subjective World, the Egyptian priest sees a dung beetle pushing the sun, the Greek priest would see Apollo pulling the sun in his chariot.

In the Objective world, the sun is a massive ball of incadecent gas.

However, everything is true- if you make the right offering to the bettle, so that it stops pushing the sun for a little while- Apollo's Chariot throws a wheel, and *some* physical, objective explanation will also exist for the world to stop spinning briefly.

[Gordon C. Landis]

Here, this is shown to be false. As mentioned elsewhere, a gamemaster ought to be provided with instruction of 'how things work.' The Sorcerer example is not a red herring; it clearly states that the 'crux' is different for different games (even so far as different games of Sorcerer).

This herring is a red so bright you could see it from space.  Sorceror is NOT obscure; it is merely undefined so that you may define it.  the definition is NOT subjective nor variable to the person.  If you character has a mistaken understanding about demons or humanity, they get eaten or whatever; there is no opt out on the basis that they believe something different.

I think this demonstrates a (almost certainly not the) major difference between how I look at these things and how Gareth and M.J. seem to see it.  One option re: demons in Sorcerer, which I've seen many descriptions of Actual Play including, is that the nature of demons remains UNKNOWN.  Demons (as opposed to Humanity) are not undefined merely so that individual game groups can define them (though they can of course do that if they want), they are undefined (it seems to me) partially so that you can KEEP IT THAT WAY if you want.  That maintains their aura of the mysterious and prevents the kind of in-depth analysis of their "nature" which can lead to problems with consistency and contradiction.  You're not meant to "figure out" how demons work at a level deeper than the game has already established and then be able to use that advanced knowledge.  You have a Lore, and Humanity, and a Binding - they have abilities, and Needs, and etc.  That's all you need.

(I'll re-read the various Sorcerer books tonight, but I'm pretty sure one of 'em  - S&S? - explicitly discusses this option, so I don't think I'm imposing a personal interpretation on here.)

Seems to me that same logic can be applied to any facet of a game world.  Does anyone understand that?  I am the only one who thinks that keeping things unknown (to the players, GM - everyone) is the solution to this dilemna?

Gordon

[Blake Hutchins]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there a difference between contrasting the metaphysical coexistence of self-contained, exclusive truth, black-and-white mystical religions (often monotheistic) and contrasting the more open-ended polytheistic or animist faiths?  In the Ancient World, you had Ra-Herakles or Minerva-Ishtar-Vach kinds of "god-kitbashing."  I'm not saying polytheistic religions were tolerant, per se, but there frequently seemed to be absorbing and sharing among pantheons, with gods having multiple incarnations and (I presume) multiple mythological structures.  Point is, you can have polytheistic pantheons that coexist in objective reality, each with its own "godworld" in the otherworlds if necessary (the Hero Wars approach, game-wise), but when you start dealing with a monotheistic cosmology, you get the one true GAWD with all the assorted trickle-down repercussions (maybe the Ars Magica approach).  Then you have pagan faiths that by definition must be mere cults that venerate lesser-than-God entities.

My starting points relevant to this debate would be: what role do I want mythology to have in my game?  How much do I or my players want gameplay to be about confronting Mystery?  Do the gods manifest objectively in my world?  Is a religion monotheistic?  If so, how does it place other spirits or gods, manifest or not, in its belief framework?  How do I handle faith?  Is it a question of player belief in and desire for possible miracles that leave the proof of God's or the gods' existence open to interpretation, or is it a spiritual currency traded for bona fide magical power from a supernatural patron?

I think it's interesting to contrast Engel with Fading Suns for radically different approaches to the "objective reality" of settings with heavy religious flavor.  One ultimately rests on a science fictional rationale, whereas the other wraps its setting in "genuine mystery" and mysticism.

Best,

Blake

[simon_hibbs]

...Furthermore, this is most certainly NOT a game in which both truths "contain some truth" - that would mean that the myths cannot be LITERALLY true.  If they are True, they are True, accurate depictions of the Way Things Are.

To a religious person, the fact that one phenomenon is like another is not a coincidence, it is because the world was created with that similarity as a design decision. The magical Law of Similarity is, if we believe magicians, a real laws of the universe just like Newton's laws of motion.(c.f. 'Authentic Thaumaturgy' by Isaac Bonewits)

This at least is constructive (I have read Bonewitz, and Campell, FYI).  [/quote]

These two are the same point. If the Law of Similarity is true, then the fact that myths are similar to the thing they are a myth about is sufficient. The dung beetle doesn't literaly have to push the sun across the sky, because the similarity of real dung beetle's pushing real dung, laying their eggs and briging about the rebirth of a new generation, to the sky rolling across heaven and burying itself only to rise again, is sufficient to power the magic. Literal physical truth is not required.

Although I would point out that not all mythologies require intelligent design.  

Quite correct, I think I was trying to over-emphasize my point.

No.  Various things are provable in the real world, this we know.  I would therefore expect that if a mythic reality were true, it would still be causal and consistent.  Furthermore, this is a GAME and we can SAY what is true, abstract conceptions of proof be damned.  We can say because, like hypothetical  gods, we have total freedom of creation.  Your argument, as I understand it, is that it is not necessary to create a world external to the characters.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes a little, which is good because it means there's even more scope for agreement (real progress - wow!).

What I mean is that proofs in the real world are only possible if we accept certain axiomatic assumptions (even science requires unprovable axiomatic assumptions, fortunately they're fairly easily accepted ones such as causality, etc). If we choose different axiomatic assumptions for our game world (e.g. The Law of Similarity is true) then we cannot expect those assumptions to be provable.

Noting of course the difference between demonstrability and provability. I can demonstrate causality, but I can't prove it. All it would take is for one experiment to not behave causaly and poof - it's gone. It's just that fortunately (cross fingers) causality ahs done us proud so far. This is basic modern logic theory.

I'm not sure I entirely see it's relevence. The exploding boiler problem merely says that if you accept the doctrine of a faith, the rational response is to follow the tenets of that faith. That seems simple and non controversial enough.

If so, then you have been converted, and you now realise that you were wrong all along, there is no dung beetle, its Apollo.  Or whatever.  I take it you concede the point?

I agree that the guy who's faith has failed is in a sticky theological dilema, sure. How can his magic, using the law of similarity, still work if he now knows the sun is more similar to a firey chariot than the dung beetle he previously believed in? The similarity is weakened in his mind. Why is that a problem for me, the world designer/GM?

-- snips to get to the crux again --

Why?  Seeing as this WAS THE RAPTURE, the buddhist is cowering under stones, from the wroth of god written so visibly in the sky.  Because the mythology is TRUE, right?

However, if the buddhist does get to go to Nirvana (although, no event in the buddhists cosmos caused them to die, I would point out), then clearly this event was NOT the rapture.  

Whether the budhist's body is buried under a mountain or whatever is beside the point - budhism doesn't give a toss what happens to the body, it's a distraction. This is why they were so happy to incinerate themselves publicly in Vietnam to protest the war. You chose a bad example - Budhists freely accept the truth and existence of other religions, including christianity. A Budhist faced with the rapture would not experience a test of faith, he'd just probably feel pleased that christians would get what they wanted, since it's all the same to him.


Simon Hibbs

[Gordon C. Landis]

Thus you have failed to demonstrate how they could both be true. They are in fact both not true, and remain as mutually exclusive as they were before . You have provided no basis for explaining why the Buddhists false belief makes them immune to gods response; you have once again simply tried to avoid the question of common experience.

I say again: to take your proposition seriously (that it is possible to construct a game without an objective world but with mythologies which are really true) seriously requires that some model be presented as to how that might be done. So far, no model has explained to my satisfaction that it might. I am therefore at the point of not being willing to take this idea seriously and will give up on this well-whipped horse.

I am looking specifically at the proposition - "it is possible to construct a game without an objective world but with mythologies which are really true."  With some minor variation, I'm a firm believer that not only is such a thing possible, it's the best way to handle certain magic/mythological issues in a game world.

Minor variations - the game holds that an objective world may or may not exist, but that it's unlikely you'll ever figure that out for sure one way or the other.  And while the multiple mythologies all have actual, observable and rules-documentable effects, even when they conflict with other mythologies, I'm not sure they qualify as "really true,"  as used by Gareth and M.J..  But their effects are not based in some kind of subjectivity or relativism.  They are each functionally true, operationally true, and you can use any of them to make stuff happen in the game world.

A big key to such a game world - don't let things happen that would conclusively "prove" one mythology and disprove another.  This is, in my experience, not all that hard to do.  Myths and magic usually self-define themselves as non-scientific.  Players (including the GM) are already committed to imaginative engagement.  A set of particular mythology validating events like the Rapture would never happen - such events would always contain broader possibilities.  A Rapture-like event in such a world might validate certain aspects of the Rapture-believing mythology, but I'd make it a point to also have it INvalidate some other bit of that mythology, and also quite possibly validate aspects of a few others.  That would establish some more "truths" about the nature of things in the game world (and make all kinds of fascinating stuff happen in the imagined world as mythologies adapt the bits surrounding their basic, still-valid truths to the new information), but it doesn't get us all the way to an explained, objective world.  We will most likely never get to that place, and the group is clear about that fact.

I hope this isn't seen as "evading the issue" - that is not my intent.  I'm honestly surprised that something like this isn't a commonly held solution to the issue, as I've seen something like it in almost every post-high school fantasy game I've ever been in.  Except for folks who just don't like playing when they don't a have a true, objective reality to work with - who insist that it must be possible to have an absolutely, exactly true Rapture -  it rarely has any fatal flaws.  There are challenges - maintaining a satisfactory unfolding of events without providing conclusive explanations as to "why" doesn't just happen automatically.  But they are no worse than any other aspect of maintaining engagement in the imagined world.

(Please tell me this helps explain where I'm coming from, at least a little - there's been a lot of posting on this, and lot's of good stuff from many viewpoints, but I'm lost as to if there's any mutual understanding happening.)

Gordon

[clehrich]

I'd like to try a brief reduction here, and see if it helps.

On M.J. et al.'s side, the argument seems to be:
- - Regardless of the terminology used for a particular game world (mythic, magical, religious, etc.), the GM needs to be able to make a determinate resolution, i.e. when a PC goes and does something (anything possible in the world), the GM needs to be able to resolve this with a singular answer.

On the other side (Le Joueur et al.), the problem has been:
- - What is the question that M.J. (and others) are asking, exactly?

And then lots of argument, and some examples which don't seem to have been mutually understood (that is, A doesn't get what B means by C example, and so on).

If I have understood the sides at all accurately, I think the second side (Le Joueur et al.) has gone on to say:
- - It is not necessary to have a determinate solution to all questions.

This position, stated this way, does not in fact meet the claim raised by M.J.  As I read him, M.J. is saying that it's not necessary to have a determinate solution to all questions, only to any question raised by a player (through action).  And since you can't know in advance all the possible questions, you need a set of principles which ground your answers.

So I think the argument, or question, comes down to this:

Is it necessary for every game universe to have a few principles which are absolute and determinate, and upon the basis of which answers to potential questions raised by players can be decided?

Note: this does not mean that all universes have to have the same principles, nor that every question must be pre-resolved.

----------------------
Assuming I have that at all correct, I think the question requires further refinement, or else slips into tautology.

1. Clearly game worlds do require some internal consistency, so of course there are some principles at work.  But I don't think M.J. means every kind of fixed principle, no matter how vague or abstract.  I think he has something pretty specific in mind, having to do with certain kinds of empirical questions.  But I would ask for clarification here.

2. Suppose we are playing a game in which there is a lot of directorial control handed to players, or in which there is no GM per se.  The way this argument has run, it sounds as though M.J. would think such a game unplayable, because there is no GM to decide things.  I don't think that's what he means, though.  I would ask for clarification here, too.

I hope that once the nature of the question is clarified sufficiently, we will eliminate a lot of the well-intentioned talking-past-one-another that's been going on here, which has furthermore been causing (apparently) some personal friction.

[Le Joueur]

If I have understood the sides at all accurately, I think the second side (Le Joueur et al.) has gone on to say:
- - It is not necessary to have a determinate solution to all questions.

Actually no, my personal beliefs are that it is necessary to have enough of a basis to 'be able' to solve appropriate questions, not to have all the solutions, simply 'enough' to go on.

The problem is that I am the Executive Regional Field Director of the Devil's Advocacy Department at Large, for the Midwestern United States; that means I am compelled to come down on 'the other side' no matter what.  While I have been requesting clarification from M. J., I have also been defending those whose needs for "determinate solutions" are not nearly so high as offered (or rather their right to an opinion).  That doesn't number me as one of them though.

I think [M. J. Young] has something pretty specific in mind, having to do with certain kinds of empirical questions.  But I would ask for clarification here.

...I would ask for clarification here, too.

Me too.

Fang Langford

[simon_hibbs]

Is it necessary for every game universe to have a few principles which are absolute and determinate, and upon the basis of which answers to potential questions raised by players can be decided?

Note: this does not mean that all universes have to have the same principles, nor that every question must be pre-resolved.

I don't think so. Every game world designer leaves gaps in their game world writeup - it's simple impossible to document every concievable facet of a game world that isn't trivialy simple. Therefore the designer has to decide what areas of the game world will be left up to individual GMs to determine. One such grey area might be the ultimate truth behind the religions of that world. In many cases this is not even discussed (many D&D settings), in others it's explicitly left for the GM to decide (Sorcerer), and in others the author has a clear idea of what he's trying to do and will even discuss the subject in detail with the gaming community on appropriate discussion forums (Glorantha).

Even given this, of course it's the prerogative of any GM to adapt the game world in whatever way they see fit for their game, and if that means re-engineering fundamental questions such as religious truth then that's up to them.

1. Clearly game worlds do require some internal consistency, so of course there are some principles at work.  But I don't think M.J. means every kind of fixed principle, no matter how vague or abstract.  I think he has something pretty specific in mind, having to do with certain kinds of empirical questions.  But I would ask for clarification here.

I think some examples of such situations have been given, and tastes obviously vary as to how such questions can be reasonably handled.

2. Suppose we are playing a game in which there is a lot of directorial control handed to players, or in which there is no GM per se.  The way this argument has run, it sounds as though M.J. would think such a game unplayable, because there is no GM to decide things.  I don't think that's what he means, though.  I would ask for clarification here, too.

I think this is a different case. Here the game world is not pre-defined in the same way, and instead game mechanics are presented to assist in the definiton of the game world on-the-fly.


Simon Hibbs

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Point taken, but I would defend myself on the basis that I am honestly looking for a demonstration.  It is/was not intended to be a provocative act, although I do feel real concern that the crux of the matter is being serially evaded.  I'm not asking for much, only to be shown something that it is claimed is easy to do.  So lets see it, say I.

Hiya, Gareth.

I'm going to make a couple points here and I'm handing you the salt saker first because I have a feeling you might need it.

First of all you should not feel the need to nor do defend yourself. Not here on the Forge, anyway. And by you you I do mean you personally not your views, points or opinions. Those are what we're supposed to be discussing and debating here and hopefully with a hell of a lot more signal-to-noise ratio than most places on the internet. I am suggesting this purely as a fellow member of the Forge and not an administator or anything like that. Instead, when you feel the debate has gotten personal, take it to private message first and then to the administators via PM second if the first does not resolve it.

I am only mentioning this because you had mentioned defending yourself, and this whole thing may not apply to you directly outside of how it applies to everyone here at the Forge. Now back to the topic.

I think I had posted my position about specific hypethtical situations in one of these threads, it's gotten bloody confusing having the same topic essentially in three or four threads, but I shall restate.

I have found over the years that hypethetical situations are not very helpful in debate at all. What happens is that minute details get in the way of the real point being made, which makes it even worse than discussing in pure theory or abstracts.

Example, the whole abortion debate:
A pro-lifer could say: "A fetus is living human tissue and therefore abortion kills a living human being, that is, is murder."

And then a smart-ass pro-choicer comes along and says: "But what if you have a daughter and one day she gets raped and becomes pregant by the rapist. What then?"

The real debate usually comes to a screeching halt here as the discussion tries the tackle this hypethetical situation which, first of all is not real so the emotional response the pro-choicer was aiming for is likely to not be as strong as they may hope and because there are many variables not nailed down in this situation and it will be these variables that will be discussed and not the actual point that they were supposed to be.

(My personal opinion is that either choice is a hard decision to make. Even the most virilent pro-choicer can appreciate the just plain waste involved in an abortion and that's something the woman will have to live with and having the baby means nine months of physical hardship and then it's either to give the baby up for adoption, which is hard in it's own right, or raising the child which is difficult beyond words, especially for someone just plain unprepared for it. A child changes everything. So I'm of a mind that people should not push their religion or political aggendas by trying to discredit how a person who's had to make a painfully difficult decision soothes their own conscience, tells themself they've made the right decision so they can sleep at night)

This same thing can happen here with the hypetheticals seen here.

I'm not asking for much, only to be shown something that it is claimed is easy to do.  So lets see it, say I.

Well, it is easy for those with the mindset, but I have a feeling it's not quite so easy to explain or demonstate to someone, such as yourself, who does not "get" this mindset. This does not mean you are stupid or anything. Just that you are not in a place right now to appreciate the "mythic mindset." You may be at some time in the future, but I digress. Personally this whole mythic thing is all new to me. (I can't speak for the others) So I can't show you something I've only just learned, barely gotten my head around, and haven't really done yet. Hero Wars/Quest has been cited as a mythic game, so I guess there's at least one such game out there.

Part of the problem is that most people these days has been raised and trained in a Sophisticated mindset, to use Christopher's terms here, and the Naive mindset is difficult to achieve and maintain, like those damn Magic Eye things. I can never do that and it pisses me right off.

Take the little disagreement Raven & I had on the previous page. I think that part of the problem is that we both were taking on the mythic mindset and then at some point would drift back to our trained Sophisticated mindset because that's how we'd been brought up.

That is, I conceid that I had the whole distance thing all skewed as far as mythic goes. Maybe you can simply climb a mountain and check to see who moves the sun across the sky. But I believe that if a group was playing in the mythic mindset, they would never ever get into a situation where they're trying to prove once and for all anything, much less who moves the sun across the sky.

The mythic mindset is a fragile thing, like getting your eyes just right to see the stupid 3D picture, and we tend to drift back to what we've always known and feel comfortable with. So therefore the players attempting to play in the mythic mindset must take certain pains to remain within this mindset to keep it going. That is, while it may be possible for such a thing as proving who moves the sun across the sky to be done in the mythic mindset, I think it harkens much to closely to the Sophisticated mindset to help the players maintain the mindset and should probably be avoided or else it is likely they will lose that mindset and might as well be playing something else.

Just my view.