Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52
  1. #21
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 05:23 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > > [...] What is the qualitative difference between the Gorgon [with 800
    > > points of blood power] and a lesser god? Any of the qualities of a
    > > lesser god could be acquired by additional blood abilities and more
    > > powerful ("epic") versions of blood abilities available to characters
    > > with a bloodline strength score well into the triple digits.
    >
    >No they couldn`t. Epic bloodstrength characters could present pale
    >immitations of more limited versions of divine powers. Gods are not x10
    >more powerful than humans. I couldn`t guess the proper order of
    >magnitude, but I`ll point out that all of the followers of the tribal gods
    >weren`t enough to topple Azrai, so 10,000 to 1 is probabaly too small.

    First, I don`t think I need to note that we`re talking about ascending into
    the lower ranks of divinity, not jumping right up to major god level, so
    the Azrai to mortal comparison is a bit misleading. (Azrai was probably a
    bit beyond the major god level, actually.) Azrai to Gorgon is probably
    100th level character to 1st-3rd level character.

    Second, I think if epic blood abilities were to exist they would probably
    have to be an exponential power system the same way epic feats are
    exponentially more powerful than standard ones. Would 10,000 to 1 be
    enough for whatever the first rung of the ladder might be? In the same way
    a 5th level character might be x10 (to use your example) more powerful than
    a 1st level one, and a 10th level one x10 more powerful than a 5th (as a
    rough guide) one could then reach 10,000 at 20th level. One needn`t really
    assign a x10/5 levels value to that kind of thing, of course, but since the
    Gorgon is 36th level shouldn`t he qualify as being 10,000 times more
    powerful than an average mortal? Wouldn`t that qualify him to be a low
    level divine being?

    > > Aside from that I don`t think I`m getting the relevance of the above to the
    > > point that bloodlines are created from the divine essence of the gods and
    > > are, therefore, more closely related to the process of ascension than real
    > > world theological figures.
    >
    >Says who? You just don`t want to accord historical figures the divine
    >element that you happly bestow upon Darien Avan, as though the founding of
    >a great nation is done by some guy off the street, and Avan is a
    >semi-divine figure. I`d put more Bloodstrength in a mediocre pharaoh than
    >I would in any BR character. You couldn`t run Egypt without it.

    No, I don`t want to accord them the same divine element for several
    reasons. Real world figures weren`t at Deismaar. There is no real world
    historical event that equates to exploding gods and infusing those present
    with divine energy that grants them magical powers. Real world historical
    figures are often described as having been chosen by God, descended from
    gods, or even as the corporeal embodiment of a god, but I`m afraid none of
    them actually had such a connection with the divine. They were just people
    who sometimes were talented at their jobs and often weren`t. Any
    historical figure you could describe as having some sort of actual
    connection to the divine would not only get an argument from me but I could
    also list dozens of historical figures who occupied the same position who
    exemplified that there is no actual relationship between rulers and the
    divine. Dozens of pharaohs were mundane, mediocre, even inbred mentally
    and physically challenged figures kept in their position of adoration by
    the cultural system and the theocracy of Egypt that preserved them like
    house plants. Where you see a divine strength in a mediocre pharaoh, I see
    the mundane mechanics of real world oligarchy.

    Now, I have to mention again that I`m not a particularly religious
    person. I have my own set of beliefs that I take seriously, but in general
    most organized religion isn`t really for me. I believe it`s important to
    respect other`s religious beliefs, but in the same way that stating
    something on a public forum opens up those statements to public critique, I
    don`t cut anyone slack when they express their views. Public disclosure
    equates to public debate. This is relevant for two reasons. First,
    because I hope not to offend anyone with these statements (any more than is
    necessary.) I want to make it clear that my statements don`t come from a
    position of derision, but of embracing free and open discussion. (I`ll
    certainly be derisive when engaging in a discussion when that makes a
    point, but free talk is the idea.) Second, to make the following point
    regarding religion and realism: If I were a religious person I would find
    it... I guess, "inaccurate" is the word I`ll use, to think that someone
    could portray the might and majesty of a divine connection with some sort
    of deity using something like the BR bloodline system. Let`s say that
    instead of just naming a few religious figures here and there we decided to
    go ahead and write them up using 3e character descriptions. It is
    "inaccurate" to think that any real life person, let alone a historical
    figure, let alone a religious historical figure could portrayed using D&D
    stats.

    > > People pray to them, they (supposedly) grant benefices, they have
    > > a portfolio, etc. So I`d contend even the real life example of
    > > Christian doctrine since it has many features that coincide with the
    > > D&D paradigm. Most religions have some sort of ascension that
    > > turns mortals into divine beings.
    >
    >Immortals, yes. Gods, no.

    I`m trying to steer clear of the real world Christian stuff, but I`m
    curious what exactly you see as the difference here between a saint and
    some of the lesser gods of various pagan faiths. Isn`t it possible to see
    the Christian system of saints as a parallel to the pantheons of other faiths?

    > > You`ve suggested that a mortal couldn`t become immortal without some sort
    > > of divine assistance. I don`t really agree, but even using that standard
    > > doesn`t the bloodline system itself represents the kind of jump start
    > > needed to enter into the ranks of divinity?
    >
    >Not if I don`t want it to.

    No, of course not. You should do whatever makes you comfortable. But
    looking at the system objectively, without basing on some sort of other
    interpretations of real world religions, and using the game as a whole
    doesn`t bloodline represent such a jump start? Using a system in which a
    character can reach 36th level and have a bloodline of 500+ it just seems
    strange to me that such a character would run into a "glass ceiling" when
    it comes to the divinity aspect of the game.

    > > The BR domain rules need substantial alteration (or a whole lot of
    > > rationalization) in order to play them under the supposition that they in
    > > any way represent "real life."
    >
    >Then it only goes to figure that some of us are doing that rationalism, and
    >like it.

    Rationalization not rationalism. :-) I actually misspelled beatification
    as beautification in a previous post which got me some ribbing off-list
    (though IMO much Christian iconagraphy could do with being prettied up a
    bit) but my point here is that rationalizing the domain rules is
    fine. It`s fair to point out that it`s a rationalization, and as such not
    real any more than any other rationalization makes the rationalized
    situation the reality.

    > > I don`t much care for realism in RPGs. If one came up with the
    > > most realistic game conceivable I`d probably not play it. I get
    > > enough realism in my real life.
    >
    >No, that`s banality. Realism is what Jackson set about to creat in his
    >movie of LoTR. Having objects hand crafted with a certain level of
    >technology, giving thought to how elven tablewhere would differ from
    >hobbit tablewear. Banality is where I worry about standing in line at the
    >fishmonger.

    That`s not quite what I meant. I don`t mean that a realistic RPG would
    have to be banal. You could still have fantastic plotlines and events, and
    realistic games can still be a lot of fun. Alternity`s Dark*Matter setting
    is more realistic than D&D and IMO even more fantastic. What I mean is
    that a truly realistic RPG would be so complex as to be unplayable, and the
    limitations of real life don`t lend themselves to an epic fantasy
    game. Describing a sword strike as doing 1-8 hit points damage, for
    example, is so simplistic as to be unreal. Real swords don`t do "points"
    of damage, and describing lacerations, contusions, blood loss, internal
    injuries, shock, infection, not to mention the effects of pain as hit
    points or even vitality/wound points isn`t realistic. There are many more
    realistic game systems out there than D&D that use complex systems of
    combat and damage. Even those systems fall short of "realism" IMO, but I
    don`t play them because "realism" isn`t what I`m after. D&D is a level
    based system that ranks just below most super hero games in its "realism"
    when lined up with other RPGs, and in several ways surpasses them in being
    unrealistic. I don`t mean that as a slam. It`s part of the appeal of the
    system. I rarely play more realistic systems just because I don`t want
    such realism most of the time. Occasionally it might be entertaining to
    play using a system in which a character could suffer a sucking chest
    wound, but most often I`m happy to abstract that kind of thing into
    unrealistic hit points.

    If one looks at the BR domain system, bloodlines, spellcasting, etc. they
    are similarly unrealistic, but again that`s not a bad thing. Distilling
    the complexities of a trade agreement down to a diplomacy action or trade
    route works fine as a game mechanic, but it doesn`t very accurately reflect
    the complexities of commerce. The broad point I`m trying to make here is
    that D&D (and BR) is a poor fit when trying on the "realism"
    jacket. "Realism" arguments are fine, and one can absolutely base one`s
    game on what one finds realistic, but in general "realism" doesn`t apply
    very well to D&D/BR. To me a realistic 36th level BR character is
    oxymoronic, so not allowing the transcendence into divinity for such a
    character (or any character) based on "realistic" reasons doesn`t really
    add up.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  2. #22
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:31 AM


    > You should do whatever makes you comfortable. But looking at
    > the system objectively and using the game as a whole doesn`t
    > bloodline represent such a jump start?

    It could, but it doesn`t have to. Its not an essential part of
    understanding what a bloodline is. I can, and do construct a perfectly
    workable game setting where ascension isn`t possible, and hence bloodline
    isn`t the first step on that journey. That`s all I`m saying. I think there
    are several ways to interpret this stuff. I mean no more than that.

    > My point here is that rationalizing the domain rules is fine.
    > It`s fair to point out that it`s a rationalization, and as such not
    > real any more than any other rationalization makes the
    > rationalized situation the reality.

    BR, like any model, is just a model. I contend that I can reduce historical
    figures to D&D stats. Doing so eliminates hordes of useful data. Some of
    it is not gameworthy. Some of it should be role playing description, rather
    than stats. All of it is a model, some can be simple, others can be
    terribly complex. All are models, none are reality. But, let`s just agree
    that a photo of Joseph Stalin is just a representation and not Stalin
    himself, and then go on to discuss the representation as a representation
    without constantly stumbling over the fact that its really not Joe Stalin.

    > What I mean is that a truly realistic RPG would be so complex
    > as to be unplayable

    No it wouldn`t. Truth and realism can be very simple. Reality itself is
    complex, but truth and reality can be expressed in simple five line poems,
    or line drawings. What we have to understand, again, is that this is a
    repesentation, not the object itself.

    Let`s say I make a Vedic CCG. I could reduce all the themes of Hinduism to
    five scores. Its a game. Its simple. If you walk away from it thinking,
    yeah, that felt like reading Vedic literature. Its true and real. Its true
    and real the same way parables are true, or fables. Truth is expressed by
    metaphore. The fable of the tortise and hare is not a talisman of all
    knowledge, but it does express a does of reality. Over confidence can lead
    you to make mistakes. Persistance pays off. The fable is not reality, but
    it is real. Its a realistic statement of persistance and overconfidence.
    Its extraordinarily simple.

    It should be obvious that expressing human action as numerical scores is a
    translation. If you have two entities fight, and the end result is that
    they are worn down like you feal is realistic, and the one who probabaly
    ought to win wins most of the time, then the system is realistic. It
    produces results like reality would. Back in the days of DOS, I had a
    computer football game that reduced every player to some eight stats. It
    played football like real football. The plays that worked for the teams in
    question worked for the game. The teams that performed well in reality,
    performed well in the game. That`s all that realism asks for. Complexity
    is something else. A game can be complex and realistic, or it can be simple
    and realistic. Things that are simple tend to have less broad utility. In
    role playing, imagination and description can make up for whatever is
    lacking in the stats themseleves. I can write up a character for Edward
    III, read books on Edward, and then play a game with my Edward PC that will
    strike other knowledgable people as Edwardian. Actors do this all the time.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  3. #23
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:31 AM


    > Where you see a divine strength in a mediocre pharaoh, I see
    > the mundane mechanics of real world oligarchy.

    This last line of the whole paragraph sums things up nicely. If I play a
    real world Egyptian campaign I take the assumptions of the Egyptians as
    founding principles. I don`t stand off and laught at how stupid the
    Egyptians were to invent such a stupid society. I start off by assuming
    that the Egyptian pantheon is real. If its real, the cosmology of the
    Egyptians is real. Their science and magic operate the way they think it
    does. The social order operates they way they thought it did. Its a game
    of mentalities and perceptions. Its a role playing game, we get into
    character, not rigorously avoid embracing the world view of ancient
    Egyptians. What fun is that?

    Sure I could send PC`s off into what is supposedly an Egyptian campaign only
    to have the players rigorously wedded to a 21st century archeaologists view
    of Egypt, their gods a manifestation of animistic and naturalistic forces,
    not divine entities. I could punish them for doing things the Egyptian way
    by responding with consequences that would satisfy the expectations of our
    everyday life. I have a hard time believing that people would have much fun
    actually acting Egyptain. They`d be sorely tempted to act like themselves
    in archaic dress.

    Why impose modern sociology, science, modern view points of every stripe
    onto a game whose central premice is to inhabit a different point of view
    than your own. Your reality suits you. But that was not the reality of a
    12th dynasty Egyptian. Realism for me, means real for that 12th dynasty
    Egyptian. If he thinks the earth is a dish sitting on a turtle, the earth
    is a dish floating on a giant turtle. Cosmologies change. Star Trek often
    makes fun of the 20th century for its backwardness. Why should I privilege
    what I think is probably true over what the Egyptians themselves thought was
    true, if I`m playing a role playing game based on becoming an Egyptian?

    People once belived their rulers had the mandate of heaven. That`s real. I
    can use those ideas as a fertile source of ideas for my BR game, vastly
    enlarging my pool of ideas, or I can re-invent the wheel because I chose to
    think of people who thought in a BR-like fashion to be idiots.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  4. #24
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 09:19 PM 9/4/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    >People once belived their rulers had the mandate of heaven. That`s
    >real. I can use those ideas as a fertile source of ideas for my BR game,
    >vastly enlarging my pool of ideas, or I can re-invent the wheel because I
    >chose to think of people who thought in a BR-like fashion to be idiots.

    Just to clarify my position here... I didn`t say they were idiots, nor do I
    think they were idiots. (I don`t really think people ever thought in a
    BR-like fashion either, but that`s besides the point.) From what I can
    tell the intellectual capacity of humanity hasn`t changed much in 25,000
    years or so. Many historical beliefs have a humorous aspect when viewed
    from the modern perspective, but I don`t disdain (in the Star Trek fashion)
    historical peoples for the thinking of their period.

    The belief of historical peoples that their rulers had a mandate from
    heaven was real. That belief should be recognized, documented and
    analyzed. We should examine its effects on history and how it shaped
    subsequent perspectives. It`s the actual mandate from heaven that wasn`t
    real. Alexander the Great wasn`t the son of Ra any more than anyone
    reading this list is. ("Falcon" might actually be a bit closer than most
    since his name relates to the hawk-headed Horus thing.) Nor has any king,
    queen, pope or other ruler been "chosen" by anything other than
    circumstance and the artifice of man. It`s well and good (not to mention
    fun) to base game material on the speculation that such divine conditions
    really did exist. It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to
    postulate such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying the
    reality is... well, not valid.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Trithemius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Canberra, Australia.
    Posts
    408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    > It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate
    > such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying
    > the reality is... well, not valid.

    But to people of those particular times and societies (dare I say it: of
    those settings) it was the reality. Surely we are being invalid when we
    try and base our games on how we in the Twenty-First Century see these
    sorts of concepts, as opposed to basing it on how the persons who held
    them saw them.

    I think it is pointless to have a game set in the Middle Ages that is
    subject to the natural laws as we understand them. Ars Magica assures us
    that the physical laws that prevail are those of the Greeks and not
    those of the Einstein, Rutherford and so on. To the people of the time -
    it was reality - we cannot pretend that we are them, and do it well,
    without assuming the things that they assume.

    --
    John Machin
    (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
    -----------------------------------
    "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
    Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    John 'Trithemius' Machin
    The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
    "Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius

  6. #26
    Senior Member Trithemius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Canberra, Australia.
    Posts
    408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I seem to have dropped behind a little, my apologies to those involved
    in this discussion.

    I wrote a lengthy reply to many of the points that Gary raises, but upon
    re-reading it I realised that it was pretty much what Kenneth has said
    in his most recent posts, but flitered through my over-tired brain and
    fingers. So I deleted it.

    I`d just thought that I should let you know that I am still reading and
    enjoying this discussion. I`ll refrain from adding to any clutter for a
    bit though.

    P.S. Kenneth, when I can prove that you are moving forwards in time and
    stealing my posts via telepathy you will be in so much trouble ;)

    --
    John Machin
    (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
    -----------------------------------
    "Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
    Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
    John 'Trithemius' Machin
    The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
    "Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius

  7. #27
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
    Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:34 AM

    > I don`t really think people ever thought in a
    > BR-like fashion either, but that`s besides the point.

    No, its the central point, You are denying that someone can profitably look
    to realistic models for the development of BR. That the use of the real
    world ideologies cannot be framed in a BR system, no matter how simplified
    for the purposes of play. There was no Cerilia in the human past, its
    imaginary. So any comparison to the real world will be a glass less than
    completly full. We can either see the glass as half empty, and declare that
    noting profitable can be done, or we can see that there is, indeed water in
    the glass, and make some use of it, understanding that the glass was not,
    indeed, actually full. In fact, I think its better that its not. If there
    were pefect correlation between Cerilian and some historical place, if the
    Brecht really are the Hanse, then using some influence that`s non-Hanseatic
    would raise cries of foul. Instead, I can happily use Rennaisance Italian,
    Phonecian, or whatever source material I want. But its worth while to note
    that I can use them.

    When I said (Friday, June 14, 2002 12:40 PM) that Nature Sense will be
    available IMC as a feat to nomadic Rjurik of 4th level, I was directly using
    a real world sources to inform my campaign. I was observing that nomadic
    Rjurik think like food collecting people in the real world, specifically in
    New Guinea.

    > I don`t really think people ever thought in a
    > BR-like fashion either

    Perhaps people never thought in a perfectly Cerialian mode, but I contend
    that you cannot tell me that French chivalry doesn`t inform Anuirean
    culture. I can go to French chivalry, identify its parts, decide what fits
    into Anuirean culture and probabaly has roots in Haelyn`s teachings and then
    invent an Anuirean chivalry based on real world models of knighthood.
    Historical knights valued courage and duty. Certainly you`re not saying
    that Anurian mounted warriors don`t value courage and duty? But that would
    mean that they thought alike.

    > That belief should be recognized, documented and analyzed.
    > We should examine its effects on history and how it shaped
    > subsequent perspectives.

    That fine, for an academic list, This isn`t one. Its a game list, Those
    beliefs should be examined for the purpose of informing our games. Some
    will take a cursory look, and reject a real world source. Others will make
    the same examination and begin building Cerilian cognates.

    > It`s the actual mandate from heaven that wasn`t real.

    Who cares? What I am adapting is the attitude, how it works, where the
    limits of such regard takes real people. For example, if I think my ruler
    is decended from gods and his priests wield magical power, does that mean
    that people won`t rebel? History says no. So, in Cerilia, where people
    regard their rulers as having bloodline derivations from the old gods, and
    their priests cast spells, people will rebel. Living in a materialist age
    in which we commonly don`t believe in divine governance, I can either just
    sit around and specualte, or I can see how real people dealt with the idea
    of divine governance. That`s the pursuit of realism. I don`t just make up
    how people react to bloodlines. I look at how people have reacted, and then
    think about how that fits into Cerilia. I don`t care that "Alexander the
    Great wasn`t the son of Ra any more than anyone reading this list is." My
    purpose is not to prove to anyone that he was. Only to examine how the
    belief that he (or anyone else) was, and how that effected the governance of
    the realm.

    > It`s well and good (not to mention fun) to base game material on
    > the speculation that such divine conditions really did exist. It can
    > be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate such
    > conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying the
    > reality is... well, not valid.

    My goal is not accuracy to any specific reality. Its to make use of
    similarities as they exist. Similarities to the real world. Further, I
    search out real world evidence. Accuratly portraying reality is a goal for
    documentarians. I want a believable sense that this could be real, given
    the game setting. I don`t confuse myself into thinking that it is real.
    That`s your mistake. Not mine.

    Role playing should be about authentic people responding to their
    enviroments. Characters should be multidimentional, internally motivated,
    and believably portrayed. This includes NPC`s whose role is so important in
    establishing whether players disbelieve certain Cerilian entities with which
    players have no first hand experience. Since more than other settings, BR
    deals with politics, economics, and large scale socities, there is vastly
    more to develope that will either be viewed as an unsustainable world set
    here for the amusement of the characters (the theme park) or as a
    sustainable world that real people could inhabit if only it existed.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
    Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:46 AM


    > We cannot pretend that we are them, and do it well,
    > without assuming the things that they assume.

    There is someone on the list, who shall remain nameless, who has a problem
    understanding the value that this principle has for some of us.

    Kenneth Gauck
    kgauck@mchsi.com

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  9. #29
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 12:23 PM 9/5/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > > I don`t really think people ever thought in a
    > > BR-like fashion either, but that`s besides the point.
    >
    >No, its the central point, You are denying that someone can profitably
    >look to realistic models for the development of BR. That the use of the
    >real world ideologies cannot be framed in a BR system, no matter how
    >simplified for the purposes of play.

    No, no, no. That`s not what I`m saying. Any number of real world
    situations could be used to develop BR campaigns and rules. Doing so adds
    flavor, fun and depth to a campaign. (I think I`ve said that a couple of
    times in this thread, haven`t I?) What I`m denying is that BR--or any
    system of rulership based on BR--accurately portrays those real world
    models. An example of your position was, "You just don`t want to accord
    historical figures the divine element that you happly bestow upon Darien
    Avan, as though the founding of a great nation is done by some guy off the
    street, and Avan is a semi-divine figure. I`d put more Bloodstrength in a
    mediocre pharaoh than I would in any BR character. You couldn`t run Egypt
    without it."

    Those statements read to me (unless I`m misreading) as if you were saying
    that the BR bloodline system accurately models real world historical
    figures, which I find unsupportable. Aside from there being no equivalent
    event in real world history of the kind fundamental to the background of
    the BR setting (Deismaar) real world nations, politics and rulership are
    much more complex than is represented by the 96 page Rulebook no matter how
    much you add to it. Not only could a mediocre pharaoh run Egypt without a
    bloodline, but all of them ran Egypt without a bloodline because _there is
    no such thing as a bloodline._

    It IS important to put yourself into the mindset of the people of a
    medieval period when playing an RPG. It IS important to assume the things
    they assumed, because it makes playing the game more enjoyable. However,
    to restate the point at the top of this post "I don`t really think people
    ever thought in a BR-like fashion." Birthright characters can be modeled
    on real world people. Real world people, however, are not constrained by
    the limitations inherent to a D&D/BR campaign.

    >I don`t confuse myself into thinking that it is real. That`s your
    >mistake. Not mine.

    OK. I don`t think I`ve ever actually made that mistake, which is the point
    in my arguing the issue. You`ve made several statements that appeared to
    make that error. (Edward III, mediocre pharaohs had a blood strength,
    Abraham has a similar divine connection, etc.)

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

  10. #30
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 04:46 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

    > > It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate
    > > such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying
    > > the reality is... well, not valid.
    >
    >But to people of those particular times and societies (dare I say it: of
    >those settings) it was the reality. Surely we are being invalid when we
    >try and base our games on how we in the Twenty-First Century see these
    >sorts of concepts, as opposed to basing it on how the persons who held
    >them saw them.

    I don`t think we should base our games on how we in the 21st century
    conceive these sorts of things either. The point here was not how to run a
    particular game, but whether the BR system of bloodlines modeled how real
    life rulership worked.

    >I think it is pointless to have a game set in the Middle Ages that is
    >subject to the natural laws as we understand them. Ars Magica assures us
    >that the physical laws that prevail are those of the Greeks and not
    >those of the Einstein, Rutherford and so on. To the people of the time -
    >it was reality - we cannot pretend that we are them, and do it well,
    >without assuming the things that they assume.

    I guess I`m just not making my point very well here since there`s been
    several responses that are a variation of the above.... All I can tell you
    is that I prefer the sort of gaming environment you`re describing. My
    point though, is that Daedalus never actually flew, despite the prevailing
    physical laws supposed by the Greeks. Oh, he`d fly in a fantasy RPG
    version of Greek mythology, but if you tried to build a pair of wings with
    discarded feathers and wax you`d have less luck than the gentleman who
    wants to make a 15th century hovercraft. We can develop fantasy campaigns
    using real world models, but the changes made to reflect "reality" don`t
    actually reflect reality.

    Gary

    ************************************************** **************************
    The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
    Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.