Hey, all. I'm writing a new game hot on the heels of GenCon. It's called "Shadow of the Lamb" and is about the first three centuries of Christianity, and, hey, I bet that's not your bag. Cool.

Anyway, I'm mainly discussing it over at the Anvilwerks Community, but this was interesting enough to cross-post, I think.

--------------

In a game about the early Christian church, one of the most controversial subjects that's going to come up is the idea of miracles. Miracles present a real dilemna to me as a designer. I don't want *Shadow of the Lamb* to be thought of as "that fantasy-Christ game." If I push a no-miracles/no-magical stance, though, I alienate believers that think miracles really did happen: I take a stance on this issue, and the game is intended to take no stance at all, and let you decide what happened, at least in the context of your game world.

So, hrm. What to do?

My current plans are to steal a system I wrote for an unpublished game called *Believer.* This game was originally about modern magic and became a game about cult leaders. The central premise was this: magic is what you get others to believe. If you really can successfully convince a room of people that you're levitating, *you're levitating,* which is a cool idea. (As a side note, it really reinforced the idea of the solitary wizard. Drop some LSD - lower your skepticism to zero - and alone, you can fly to the moon.) The cult leader aspect is obvious: player characters immediately surrounded themselves with people who believed anything they said.

How might this work in *Shadow of the Lamb?*

Like in *The Shadow of Yesterday,* you have innate abilities, things that protect you from harm. (In *TSOY*, those are Endure, React, and Resist.) In *SotL*, you'll have a Skepticism ability. That'll probably be renamed.

Basically, you'll make an ability check using an appropriate ability. Let's say you want to make a blind man see. You've got two followers with you, who believe in what you preach. (Instead of Keys, *SotL* has Tenets. When you have an appropriate Tenet to what you're trying to believe in, you can take a penalty die to Skepticism.) You place your hands on the man's face, and make, in this case, a Counsel ability check. He resists with Skepticism, as do your followers, *as do you*. If everyone fails compared to you, they believe that the blind man can see. He can.

If others later question this, let them. They may believe the blind man's a liar or whatever. It's ok - he can see.

Making water spring from a rock in the midst of a group is much harder, obviously. You're rolling Orate versus a group's Skepticism ability. How would this work? There'd be a group Skeptic rating, which would get rolled once. If there's a named NPC among them, they roll, too. So let's say there's someone who disagrees with you among the crowd. You roll Orate. You might have penalty dice for the ostentatiousness of what you're trying to do. The crowd rolls Skepticism, and you do, and so does Timothy, your nemesis. Let's say you succeed versus yourself and the crowd, but Timothy wins. The crowd might proclaim, "A miracle," but Timothy might say, "A trick!" and point out that the spring is a geyser that always pours forth at this time. Or maybe nothing springs up at all. It'll be up to the group.

In all cases, the actual truth of "did a miracle happen?" is not ever quantified. The truth of who believes it happened is.

And so, I end up having to take a stance, which sucks, but it's a stance I personally believe in and I started to make explicit in *TSOY*.

**If enough people believe in something, that makes it real.** It doesn't make it true, or make it exist. It gives the concept power, though, and that's real.

So, I should end with a question. I don't know what. How about: what do you think about this? Think it'll work in a game, or will it cause major problems? Is it somehow offensive in a way I'm not seeing?

*Credit where credit is due:* "Believer" was inspired by an article called "The Observer Effect" from our friends at *Fudge Factor* magazine.

Hi Clinton,

For some reason your post reminded me of Par Lagerkvist's novel Barabbas. The way that that novel deals with the miraculous nature or otherwise of the crucifixion is interesting. Based on what I know of you through your posts & games I think you might like that book though.

I guess with respect to a game the point would be maybe that miracles are things that happen that are out of the ordinary and don't have a clear naturalistic explanation. The person who sees them as a miracle is happy not to have an explanation and takes the event 'at face value', as it were, as something running counter to de rerum natura; the person who doesn't assumes 'there must be an explanation somewhere' although they may well be unable to give it.

So there the miraculous events that happen are facts, but they aren't Exalted Solar type super anime ninja facts. You wouldn't get the Red Sea parting in this kind of setup for miracles. You might get a healer letting a blind man see by washing his face, though. "It's a miracle!" "No, he must have just had dirt in his eyes or something." "Dirt? He's been blind for ten years!" "Well, maybe the healer mixed something into the water.." Etc. Both sides demonstrating their faith.

So in that case the constraint on introducing miraculous acts is that they're ones which could be 'read' either way. The guy gets his sight back or comes back from the dead, oh yes, but always in a way that makes it possible to believe it's just some sort of coincidence. Then the struggle between faith and skepticism is a struggle over interpretations of the same event.

As bizarre as it is, I have seen people try to rationalize the Red Sea parting not as a false story that didn't actually happen, but as a seasonal tide thing that happened stronger than normal.  To someone who doesn't believe the miracle, any excuse will suffice, and to someone who does believe in a miracle, the smallest coincidences will become them.

I wanted to quote from _Ante-Nice Fathers, Vol. X_:

      Chapter XXV.-The Phoenix an Emblem of Our Resurrection.

Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

I'm confused.  You said this was a game about the early believers spreading the word.  Why would they be performing miracles?

quozl wrote:
I'm confused.  You said this was a game about the early believers spreading the word.  Why would they be performing miracles?

Clinton wrote:
Please continue to have this conversation. If you've a compelling reason they wouldn't be performing miracles, I'd love to hear it.

Hey, all. I'm writing a new game hot on the heels of GenCon. It's called "Shadow of the Lamb" and is about the first three centuries of Christianity, and, hey, I bet that's not your bag. Cool.

Mark 9:23-24 (NIV) wrote: "'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."

Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

Clinton: based on what you write here, it seems to me you're fumbling a bit. Your solution to the problem of miracles/no miracles is not a solution at all; instead of leaving it up to the players you're just claiming that the game happens in a consensus reality, like WW's Mage. That's not allowing of Christian miracles, it's very much a denial of them. Because if the miracle happening or not happening depends on the belief of the witnesses... what if the sole witness is not Christian at all, but a pagan? Or the miracle leaves permanent results others can perceive? That makes no sense at all. Worse than that, it means that anybody who believes in Christ's miracles in that setting is by definition horribly wrong. God doesn't do miracles, human perception does. Which is not a Christian concept.

A better solution for your needs could perhaps be the one utilized in Dogs in the Vineyard: make the rules neutral as to whether unnatural things happen or not, and let the players interpret them as they will. A man is set on fire but lives? Could be a miracle. Lions refuse to eat this man? Could be a miracle. No need for the rules to say whether it is or not.

Eero wrote:
Clinton: based on what you write here, it seems to me you're fumbling a bit. Your solution to the problem of miracles/no miracles is not a solution at all; instead of leaving it up to the players you're just claiming that the game happens in a consensus reality, like WW's Mage. That's not allowing of Christian miracles, it's very much a denial of them. Because if the miracle happening or not happening depends on the belief of the witnesses... what if the sole witness is not Christian at all, but a pagan? Or the miracle leaves permanent results others can perceive? That makes no sense at all. Worse than that, it means that anybody who believes in Christ's miracles in that setting is by definition horribly wrong. God doesn't do miracles, human perception does. Which is not a Christian concept.

I don't see it Chris, but that might be what Clinton means. But don't you need two conflicts then? One to resolve whether you get what you want, one to see if you believe the outcome is because of a miracle? Complicated. (Because you have to still find out whether the blind man can see, right? Or are you thinking that the actual outcome doesn't matter?)

Considering the limitations that the DiV approach causes, I'd be tempted to just make the "magic rules" optional. Let the play group hash out whether they want magic or not. Although one should remember that magic is hardly the only effect of miracles. That's pretty much the loophole the DiV rules use: your objectively useful "Faith" trait can be interpreted as miracle-working or just additional zeal, or you can just all agree it's part of the theme of the story that faithful succeed better, and not worry about it.

One thing...I believe that a lot of Christians would have problems with "playing God" in granting miracles.  The GM would effectively be deciding on granting miracles.  A system somewhere along the lines of D20's divine magic fixes this.

A slight departure from the discussion above, but the game I have played that featured miracles that felt to me most like a miracle should, and not like "another kind of spellcaster", was Miles Christi, a French roleplaying game in which the characters are all very historically accurate Templars.  Miles Christi uses playing cards for resolution, and during regular play, you may, at your option set aside high cards, accepting failure.  Later, once you've built up a pool of these set aside cards, you can bring them out in your moment of need to call for a miracle.  It sets up this really nice cycle of virtuous suffering, and then in extremis, the miracle that sets things aright.

From what I've read so far, I don't think that that view of miracles is what Clinton is intending to explore in this game, but I bring it up to point out that whatever the premise, miracles *must* be more than "okay, I cast heal, spending 5 faith points".

So, Clinton, is this your own Dogs?  Perhaps a personal question.

My reaction to all of this is that a proper early Christian miracle must always be a *sign* of something, and what it is a sign of (at least in the interpretations of those present) must be essential to the rules for it in a game like this.

I wouldn't worry so much about the "supernatural vs trick" distinction, personally. There's *some* of that in the ancient world -- there *were* skeptics -- but both Christians and Pagans, of all flavors, on the whole, believed in supernatural events, signs, wonders, and the like, and interpreted their lives in terms of them.

If what is at issue to everyone present is not "did or didn't something supernatural happen?" but "was that sign, that wonder, a sign of or from Christ, or was it because these people are not, as they claim, Jews named Paul and Silas, but Zeus and Hermes in disguise?" then the rules don't have to concern themselves with it either, or with who believed it was or wasn't supernatural.

Acts 14 wrote:
8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:
9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.
11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.
12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.
13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.
14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,
15 And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
16 Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

quozl wrote:

Clinton wrote:
Please continue to have this conversation. If you've a compelling reason they wouldn't be performing miracles, I'd love to hear it.

I'm just wondering what your game is really about?  What's your premise?  Is it "men with power can get people to do what they want so how far will they go"?  If so, you'll want to include miracles.  If not, why would you want to include them? (Note: that's not a rhetorical question; I really want an answer.)

WhiteRat wrote:

Hey, all. I'm writing a new game hot on the heels of GenCon. It's called "Shadow of the Lamb" and is about the first three centuries of Christianity, and, hey, I bet that's not your bag. Cool.

You've got my attention. I just picked up TSoY at GenCon, the morning after attending the Christian Gamers Guild worship service.

Regarding "Skepticism" -- I recommend either calling it "Unbelief" or "Doubt." Both words have long been featured in modern English translations of the New Testament. I'm particularly fond of this verse:

Mark 9:23-24 (NIV) wrote: "'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."

Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"

Clinton --

That's kinda what I suspected.  I hope this game comes together; it sounds like it could be pretty amazingly cool.  I've always enjoyed Credo (wish I still had a copy) and The Last Supper fascinated me.  This sounds like a cross between Credo and the Last Supper, if you will.

What do you think of my suggestion to turn attention from "do I or don't I believe a miracle happened" to "what does this event mean?"  If you're willing to give me your reaction to that I'm curious to know whether it seems helpful to you.

ejh wrote:
My reaction to all of this is that a proper early Christian miracle must always be a *sign* of something, and what it is a sign of (at least in the interpretations of those present) must be essential to the rules for it in a game like this.

So I'm trying to envision in my head the breaking point.  The point at which you have to say "is it real?"  So let's say you are in a strange city, preaching to the faithful, and then a bunch of Roman soldiers bust down the door and shout "by order of governer, all here are to be put to death by sword".  But you say "Have no fear in you my brothers and sisters, for them that believe on the word, there is no harm in the steel of the world."  And the people, they believe, they really do, and the soliders, they believe too.  And the people get up and start walking among the soldiers and embracing them, and the soldiers are filled with wonder.

And then the captain, who was outside, talking to the governer, comes in and says "What are you men doing, did you not hear my order?" and puts his sword though the woman standing nearest him.

What happens then?

Dammit, I just wrote a bunch of text only to realize your new rule makes my comments obsolete. Oh well, I like your new rule. Here's some of what I wrote, just for you to think about.
_________________________________________

The whole "believe in miracles" is a tricky subject. There are certain passages where the success of a miracle is directly linked to an individual's belief ...

Mark ch. 5 wrote: (25) And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years... (27) When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, (28) because she thought, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be healed." (29) Immediately her bleeding stopped...

(30) At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, "Who touched my clothes?" ...

(33) Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet... (34) He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you...

Mark ch. 4 wrote: (37) A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. (38) Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"

(39) He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

(40) He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"

timfire wrote:
Historically, the fact was that people back then believed in miracles. Christians weren't the only ones performing miracles. There are accounts of numerous religious leaders from that time period performing miracles. So in the historical sense, simply saying that miracles are "real" would be perfectly acceptable.

Clinton,

Since you posted some personal info, I will too.

I do believe that the Bible is literal and I do believe in miracles.  However, I also believe that much of modern Christianity has lost what was originally there in Jesus' time.  Interestingly, my father is starting a study at his church about understanding Jesus' parables from the Jewish perspective (since Jesus was Jewish and his listeners were Jewish).  I've got his notes and am starting to read through them.

Now, as for your game:

I think, if I'm reading you right, that your premise for this is "What could have Christianity been?".  I think you may want to focus that so the question is a little more personal.  And while I think miracles are historically important and believed by many today, if you're not making miracles part of the foundation for your premise, it's just color and pretty distracting color at that.  You were kind of vague when saying if you believe in miracles.  I think that may be important.  What have you seen?  How did it affect you?  How did it change or form your beliefs?  I don't know what you've seen in the disaster there in New Orleans (and know my heart goes out to you), but I'm guessing the things you've seen and heard have affected you deeply.  Figure out how to write that down and codify it and you'll have something amazing.

I wish you the best and I hope I'm helping.

Clinton, something just hit me about this --

What if all the stakeholders in a given "miracle" got a Polaris-style negotiation power over miracles?

The example that leaps to mind, unfortunately a bit impious, and anachronistic since the game is supposed to take place *after* Jesus's time, would be...

Player 1: "Jesus rises from the dead!"
Player 2: "_but only if_ he disappears again after a period of time."
Player 1: "_but only if_ he appears to many during that time."
Player 2: "_but only if_ he doesn't write down any doctrine or leave any incontrovertible physical evidence, or make any appearances that go down in secular history books."
Player 1: "And so it was."

Just a half-formed idea, but it seems like it would allow for things that seem like miracles but do not nail down an particular side of an issue as authoritative.

rafial wrote:
So I'm trying to envision in my head the breaking point.  The point at which you have to say "is it real?"  So let's say you are in a strange city, preaching to the faithful, and then a bunch of Roman soldiers bust down the door and shout "by order of governer, all here are to be put to death by sword".  But you say "Have no fear in you my brothers and sisters, for them that believe on the word, there is no harm in the steel of the world."  And the people, they believe, they really do, and the soliders, they believe too.  And the people get up and start walking among the soldiers and embracing them, and the soldiers are filled with wonder.

And then the captain, who was outside, talking to the governer, comes in and says "What are you men doing, did you not hear my order?" and puts his sword though the woman standing nearest him.

What happens then?

Hi Clinton, here's a great one for you:

John 12:27-36
"Now My soul is troubled. What should I say--'Father, save Me from this hour'? But that is why I came to this hour. Father, glorify Your name!" Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again!" The crowd standing there heard it and said it was thunder. Others said, "An angel has spoken to Him!" Jesus responded, "This voice came, not for Me, but for you..."

Do you feel your miracle system is going to help players create and explore these situations? Or do you feel it might be giving right answers for these situations to the players (where the right answer is your personal take on miracles). It's a genuine question - I don't know which. I also wanted to ask who you're designing it for. Is this a game that miracle believing christians would enjoy playing?

Thanks, I'm looking forward to finding out more.

Tony

Hi everybody! I'm on my first steps posting in The Forge. I hope you will forgive me for any inconvenience.

I really like the idea, but I still see some problems.

1) Conceptually:
As timfire remarked previously Faith vs. Unbelief does not seem to be related to certain miracles.
In fact there are many situations where the signs of God are issued to "make people belief". Miracles are a divine intervention, and sometimes they are not driven by the belief or disbelief of people around or even affected by them. The protection miracles, like the lions tamming, could be a good example.

(Another interesting question that, given the premise, goes off topic is the different flavor of the miracles in the New and Old Testaments).

2) Mechanics:
Miracles work better with only believers near. That makes sense. But the effects, once the miracle is working affect everyone. Wouldn't this promote people praying for miracles in the intimacy of their believers community to affect outsiders? I can imagine weird extreme examples: A community praying on their shrine/sacred-place for the dissapearance of the whole Roman Empire.

BTW, was you planning to include any kind of control for the potential effects of the miracles in the mechanics? I mean to make praying for the collapse of the circus where believers are killed easier than praying for the disappearance of the Roman Empire?
Just playing with what is at the stake? A bidding method for credibility?

Cheers,
Arturo

I have great difficulty in believing that an arbitrary mechanic can handle miracles for a game. Perhaps we have different notions of what a miracle is.

I don't believe that the Bible depicts prayer as a miracle-vending mechanism. Rather, a miracle occurs because God is using it to accomplish His ends. He may indeed grant a miracle in response to a devout request. He may perform a miracle without anyone asking for it. He may receive a devout request for a miracle and refuse, because He has other plans.

If I was running such a game, I would have to run God is an NPC with His own divine agenda. He directs the faithful to fulfill that agenda, and sometimes sends miracles to assist them. Sometimes He lets their prayers influence how He does this. Other times He does not. So it seems to me that any mechanic that would arbitrate the effects of miracles would have to be very similar to any mechanic that might be used to influence any other NPC into doing what the character wishes: it would have to take into account the NPC's agenda, and the character's relationship with the NPC (perhaps some sort of Faith attribute is in order).

If your game is based on the premise that miracles are a direct response to faith, rather than being granted by a divine persona, then none of this is necessary. However, I would assert that your game then drifts considerably from its source material.

- Carl Klutzke

Clinton,

Don't know if this is useful to you or not, but:

- What a person believes directly affects the way they perceive the world. This isn't just about religion: for example, when I see an object fall, I think about gravity. 2000 years ago, a 'scientifically' minded observer would have thought about the extra element of earth in the object making it sink to the ground.

- Putting this back into the context of your game, the fact that any miracles are open to interpretation means that whether or not they actually are miracles is unknowable.

- The interesting bit (for me, anyway) is how the miracle is 'invoked' in the first place. I think it's all about challenging the beliefs that are already there. Let's say that I believe the old guy is blind; that I cannot walk on water; that a dead man stays dead. To produce a miracle, you've got to challenge those beliefs. There's something provocative about early Christianity, something challenging and dangerous to the status quo. Which changed when Christianity became the status quo.

Is this the sort of thing you're trying to capture?

Doug wrote:
- The interesting bit (for me, anyway) is how the miracle is 'invoked' in the first place. I think it's all about challenging the beliefs that are already there. Let's say that I believe the old guy is blind; that I cannot walk on water; that a dead man stays dead. To produce a miracle, you've got to challenge those beliefs. There's something provocative about early Christianity, something challenging and dangerous to the status quo. Which changed when Christianity became the status quo.

Is this the sort of thing you're trying to capture?

I've thought about this and thought about it some more and I still don't get what the players are doing and why they're invoking miracles.  So, if you could, please lay it out for me.

What do the players do?
What do the characters do?

Clinton wrote: Rule 1: The actual effect of a miracle is not governed by fortune.

That is, you don't roll to have the voice of God speak or heal a blind man. That stuff just happens - or doesn't happen, depending on perception. In other words, no "miracle" in the game is certain. You can't have something happen that someone couldn't explain away, no matter how farfetched.

I need to work harder on how this is arbitrated. While the Polaris-style arbitration is good, I don't want to steal that mechanic for part of the game, and not for anything else.

Hey Clinton,

Rule 1: The actual effect of a miracle is not governed by fortune.
.
.
.
Rule 2: The belief of characters is governed by drama, karma and fortune.

I think there are actually two kinds of old testament things we think of as miracles:

1. There's the active shit. Prophesying. Healing the blind. Turning water to wine. Raising the dead.
2. And there's the interpretive shit. "My brother, the tree in front of your house is dead..."

Early Christianity is all about the interpretive shit. It's about having a vision of cause and effect, truth, reality, and morality, and getting others to believe. Galilee was a hotbed of religious activism. The disciples were all gurus, strong and charismatic advocates of their own personal ideas of how the Jews ought to living and what they ought to be doing about the Romans. And they didn't do type 1 miracles.

If I were designing Shadow of the Lamb, it would all be about interpretive competition. It would be about belief. The resolution mechanics would allow a player to tell another PC or NPC what they believe.

Is that the game you're designing?

Paul

Paul, I think you might want to read the New Testament again.  It's almost all Type 1. 

quozl wrote:
What do the players do?
What do the characters do?

I'm struggling to recall a passage in which a disciple performs a type 1 miracle independent of the agency of Christ? Give me an example?

Paul

Paul wrote:
I'm struggling to recall a passage in which a disciple performs a type 1 miracle independent of the agency of Christ? Give me an example?

Paul

Acts 3:6-10 wrote: (6) Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk." (7) Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man's feet and ankles became strong. (8) He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God. (9) When all the people saw him walking and praising God, (10) they recognized him as the same man who used to sit begging at the temple gate called Beautiful, and they were filled with wonder and amazement at what had happened to him.

Adam,

Excellent. Thanks.

Paul

Clinton wrote:
Why miracles? I can't figure out why you keep asking why, actually. Early Christian teachers performed miracles, or at least there are stories that they did.

Re: the whole miracle thing. I get the impression that most of the New Testament miracles are, for want of a better phrase, about getting people's attention. Basically, they are advertisments. They are a set up for the most important miracle of the whole story, which is the Resurrection of Christ.

To put it another way: the ethical lessons of Christianity are about love, forgiveness and generally being a good person. They're in the parables. The recruitment pitch is 'life eternal'. That's what the miracles are for: to help people believe in the possibility of 'life eternal', and to get their attention for the parables.