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 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
• 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
• 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.


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 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

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

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?

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

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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?

M. J. Young wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

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

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.

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

Greetings Jack,

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

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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 wrote:

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.

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

greyorm wrote: 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.

Le Joueur wrote:

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: 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.

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?

The first is distance

Just a moment to point the Rapture discussion in another direction.

If memory serves, there's a lot more to Rapture than Assumption. As I remember it, there has to be a war on this hill in the middle east, whose name is something like Gheddon (the anticedant to armageddon). There's something about the antichrist leading the world into war from a realm of seven hills.

Then the war ends.

Then the dead are resurrected and all are judged. (A neat idea seeing that there are more living today then have ever died.) Finally, all the remaining (including the recently resurrected) are made to forget everything. So you have a world of people who can't remember anything, riddled with empty graves.

A bit more than simply a bunch of unexplained disappearances (whether I have it right or not). The important point this undescores is, if you are going to make a religion literally true, you'd better do a bit more research. Yeah, I think consistency is important.

Now, why were we discussing making religions literally true again? Ask yourself what purpose it satisfies. Serve that end more directly (rather than simply turning myth directly into 'reality') and then tell me what the problem we're trying to solve here is.

'Cuz I'm not getting it.

Fang Langford

greyorm wrote: distance isn't a concern if the world is a mythic reality.

If we're discussing mythic reality, to check to see if the sun is Apollo or Ra, all you have to do is go to the mountains the sun rises from each day, or find the edge of the world -- or wherever your mythology says you find the sun before dawn and after sunset.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote:

greyorm wrote: distance isn't a concern if the world is a mythic reality.

I disagree, but we'll cover that a bit later.

Well, that wasn't the clearest way for me to put it. Distance can be a concern, if the edge-of-the-world is ten-thousand miles away it certainly is.

What I meant to say is that what a given modern individual knows about spatial relations between objects aren't necessarily true facts in a mythic reality: the sun doesn't necessarily exist millions of miles from the earth, floating in a void. It might only be the distance to the top of the tallest mountain -- where, of course, you can touch the sky, literally.

So for you to say, "How would we get up there to test it, anyways, because it is so far away?" is non-sequitur, because it isn't that far away in an imaginary universe/mythic reality.

As for "running around the corner to the chemist"...one, see my other post in the "Unified" thread in regards to the "why's" of doing it in the first place, and two, as an objective fact, most people in ancient times -- the times when mythic reality reigned as truth -- went no further than a few days travel from their homes during their entire lifetime, hence great journeys to mystical, far-off places were heroic in scope and never simple.

This ignores more mystical methods of getting up to the sky, such as climbing the air, or commanding the wind sprites to carry you to the clouds where the castle of the Sun's Rest is, or climbing the tallest mountain in the world and pulling yourself into the sky (or doing monkey-bars across it), or so forth.

Does my objection make more sense in that light?

I'll admit, I didn't really "get" your response in the other thread, either, because whether or not the group heading east to find the sun finds it or not is all dependent on how the gameworld is constructed.

Yes, the players or their characters could get there and not figure it out, they could spend lifetimes wandering, they could etc. But there isn't a "more practical" myth to prove/disprove...because the practicality is all ultimately based on the setting.

Le Joueur wrote: A neat idea seeing that there are more living today then have ever died

Now, why were we discussing making religions literally true again? Ask yourself what purpose it satisfies. Serve that end more directly (rather than simply turning myth directly into 'reality') and then tell me what the problem we're trying to solve here is.

'Cuz I'm not getting it.

greyorm wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Now, why were we discussing making religions literally true again? Ask yourself what purpose it satisfies. Serve that end more directly (rather than simply turning myth directly into 'reality') and then tell me what the problem we're trying to solve here is.

'Cuz I'm not getting it.

The original discussion was about making mythology literally true so that it would impact the campaign and play/role-playing in the same way the myths impacted the human figures in the ancient tales: that is, you could go steal Apollo's chariot and turn night to day, or would know that it was actually Zeus hurling thunderbolts down upon the earth during a storm rather than some "natural phenomenon."

Or more simply, getting into character in terms of the time-period and source literature by making mythology real and overturning the modern naturalistic view of the world in favor of the classical, mythological view; it was also posed as a method by which to help prevent Mr. Wizard-types dependent upon modernist thinking about the way the world exists and works, and break their view of the campaign world as an already known entity in the broad specifics to get them into the spirit of things.

greyorm wrote:
Does my objection make more sense in that light?

contracycle wrote:
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?

simon_hibbs wrote:
Essentialy it is the same, and it's a good question. I suppose it all comes down to expectations. 'The faithful' of a religion (say, the Hellfireians) expect that if they follow the precepts of their religion they will get the appropriate rewards, and if they don't they'll get their just deserts. If we accept that their religion is essentialy true, then when Judgement Day comes, off they go.

They may have their own Heaven or Nirvana which they look forward to reaching, but which Hellfireian theologists place in the tenth circle of the outer hells.

There's no reason to suppose that these matters are irreconcilable unless you choose to determine them to be irreconcilable as a preconception.

Gordon C. Landis wrote:
OK, let me interpret this one kinda like I did the chariot/beetle/eclipse in the other thread. First of all let's be clear about the effect - what are we stipulating has actually happened here?

12I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
15Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

contracycle wrote: [I therefore vigorously oppose the idea that we should move back to abstracts. If the advocates of a "mythic mindset" game believe that they are capable of playing and running such a game, it should be no problem whatsoever to demonstrate for our enlightenment exactly how they will do so.

I have heard objections raised on the basis of this mythic mindset, but frankly no purported model of this "mythic mindset" has yet been given; failing a serious challenge, I regard MJ's position to win by default. There has not, to my satisfaction, even been a demonstration which would allow me to comrpehend it as a simultaneously existing, parallel model. I know say to the advocates of the mythic mindset, please give an actual demonstration of the resolution of contradictory data in the game, from the perspective of the characters, to demonstrate what you mean.

There's a lot here, and I'm trying to get through it and consolidate a bit.

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.

Reverend Daegmorgan has put his finger on a substantial part of the question

when he wrote: 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?

what I wrote: 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.

Simon Hibbs wrote: 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)?

when he wrote: there must be an objective and universal truth in any game for the purposes of resolution (of all sorts of things)

simon_hibbs wrote:
I agree completely, a complete and fully explorable setting must provide such a framework. I have never disagreed with this and I have endeavoured to provide gameable examples of how to resolve apparent problem.

This is disingenuous in the extreme. I've consistently answered every example situation you've come up with, explaining how I'd run it in play

1. The dung beetle/Appolo's chariot example - Run a contest of faith between the two priests involved using the game rules.

Myth is inherently alegorical in nature, it explains through symbolism more than it describes physical reality. I've explained this several times, and find it hard to find any reasonable explanation for why you continuously ignore it.

You may not like these answers, and they may not fit your prefered way to design a game world, but they aren't going to go away just because they don't happen to suit you.

contracycle wrote:

1. The dung beetle/Appolo's chariot example - Run a contest of faith between the two priests involved using the game rules.

Fine. If it is determoined by their faith, then it is NOT a game in which the mythology is true; its a Subjective Reality game. This is NOT a response to the boiler scenario.

If magic happens based on mythic continuity, you must explain that continuity.

Please address the exploding boiler scenario;

please provide me with an understanding of how to run the Rapture when I have one Christian character and one Buddhist character in the same room.

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

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.

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

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)

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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).

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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."

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).

contracycle wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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.

contracycle wrote: 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.

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.

contracycle wrote:

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.

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

contracycle wrote: ...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)

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

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?

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.

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'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.

clehrich wrote: 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.

clehrich wrote: 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.

clehrich wrote:
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.

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.

contracycle wrote:
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.

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.

M. J. Young wrote: 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.

there must be an objective and universal truth in any game for the purposes of resolution (of all sorts of things)

Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford wrote: 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?

Clehrich wrote: 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.

Clehrich further wrote: 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.

But Jack wrote: I put forth that inconsistency is very much like feedback in this example. It is traditionally believed to be something to minimize if not completely remove from one's game. I say it is yet another tool at the roleplayer's disposal when playing and for their own enjoyment.

M. J. Young wrote:
There's a part of me that wants to say that Fang has nailed the problem quite effectively, and a part of me that draws back from the notion that all I've done is state a tautology. I hope I can show that there's more than just "incomplete games are incomplete" in what I've said--but let me touch a few other things on the way.

Kester Pelagius wrote: Greetings M J,

<snip>


What's KFC's secret recipe?

What is in that can of WD40?

<snip>
Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

M. J. Young wrote: I could be quite happy with a game that said that actually the sun is a ball of fire blazing millions of miles away and the earth turns on its axis so that it appears to move across the sky; but the spiritual realities are that these gods are involved in the process, so that it is spiritually true that Apollo moves it in a chariot and also spiritually true that a dung beetle rolls it across the sky, and which you find depends on how you get there. What I want is for the game to explain that to me, and not try to tell me that all of these beliefs are literally true despite their contradictions, and leave me to figure out how that can be without any help.

M. J. Young wrote: Yet even if you allow for the game world to be inconsistent, I think you still need to establish enough about the world that the players can extrapolate the answers to the questions they don't have.

What is unacceptable is for a game to create something that is clearly a significant aspect of what the game is about, and then fail to provide some guidance for answering questions that clearly and obviously will arise during play. I've had people in my games attempt to use ultraviolet lights to destroy vampires; I had to know whether that was a correct understanding of the reason sunlight killed them or not.

Thank you for your detailed response M. J.

M. J. Young wrote:

Fang 'Le Joueur' Langford wrote: 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?

There's a part of me that wants to say that Fang has nailed the problem quite effectively, and a part of me that draws back from the notion that all I've done is state a tautology.

M. J. Young wrote: What I want is for the game to explain that to me, and not...leave me to figure out how...without any help.

...The question at that moment comes down to, do we understand how this game works well enough that we can answer the question consistently with the game, or not? If we don't, there's a flaw in the game. If it's a situation that's likely to come up as frequently as every few times you play, that's a major flaw.

I have the impression that some RPG creators think it's all right to have such a major flaw in a role playing game. I say it's not all right to have such a flaw.

... I think you still need to establish enough about the world that the players can extrapolate the answers to the questions they don't have.

What is unacceptable is for a game to create something that is clearly a significant aspect of what the game is about, and then fail to provide some guidance for answering questions that clearly and obviously will arise during play.

Have I clarified things?

contracycle wrote: The proposal that MJ and I are challenging is this "I as the game designer can design a mythic world, assert that its mythology is all true, and then elect not to discuss either specific implementations or general principles governing this mythology. Furthermore, I do not need to explicitly discuss this issue with the purchasers of my product."

contracycle wrote: Thus, the claim is being advanced that what Fang describes as incomplete games are NOT incomplete, and that the perception that they are incomplete is itself false, resting as it does on the assumptions of the "sophisticated mindset".

contracycle wrote: The issue is not whether incomplete games are incomplete; the issue is whether or not omission of the fundamental principles governing a clear and explicit in-game function makes a game incomplete.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: What we seem to be dealing with here is the difference in the Sophisticated and Naive mindsets here. The Sophisticate will think of things like can we use a spray bottle to mist the blood onto the artifact or want to know if the vampire-killing component in sunlight is UV rays so they could use UV lights to kill some vampires. The Naive mindset simply doesn't do that. "The magic just doesn't work that way," it says.

I think these are completely different situations. I agree that if we know that dragon's blood has a certain effect, then surely sprayed dragon's blood should also have the same effect unless there's an actual reason why not.

The vampire/sunlight situation is different for several reasons. Firstly, why Ultraviolet light? While the UK TV seriesof the same name was excelent, I don't realy understand why UV specificaly (as against any other frequency) was chose. Secondly, vampire mythology has accumulated a lot of mythological connotations from various sources through history. Vampires are damned, and sunlight is associated in christian mythology with presence before the sight of god. Vampires are also associated with Cain, the first murderer, who was banished to 'the dark places of the world' and consorted with demons. None of this has anything to do with spectral analysis, or skin allergies. In this case the 'sophisticated mindset' is displaying a very naive understanding of myth.


Simon Hibbs