Cerilian Apotheosis

[Trithemius]

Gary:
> 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.

Well I do not about that exactly. I never planned to claim anything near
that revolutionary. I would say that some elements of bloodlines (some
kind of extra culture-specific `thing` allowing a noble to wield
political and social influence whether it be descent from gods or
heroes, a mandate from heaven, or simply by mimicing the divine
social-structures on earth) might be present in RW, but I`d be more
inclined to say that bloodlines are a mechanic that the BR setting uses
to represent RW examples of rulership. I don`t think that means they
represent it accurately. I could say that this curiously shaped
potato-chip represents the current U.S. president, but I don`t think
that it is very accurate representation (unless GWB is `Ready Salted`).

I`m not sure if modelling is the word I`d use since all the modelling I
have had the misfortune to have anything to do with involved a lot more
math and data-collection than I imagine got used in the creation of BR.

> 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.

Who said that they did!?

We have to remember though that often the examples we take from history
do not tesselate exactly with our fantastic worlds. For example you
couldn`t take the Knights Templar entirely into Anuire without some
alterations since the Knights Templar of history had some things that
Anuire religious knightly orders lack and lacked some things that
Anuirean religious knightly orders possess. I personally find that
determining how these differences alter the general historical template
cause most of my arguments about this sort of thing.

--
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.

[Trithemius]

Gary:
> 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.)

Three large religions disagree with you on that last point though. That
alone indicates to me that thinking about these sorts of ideas from a
accepting-position might be useful and interesting.

--
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.

[geeman]

At 08:12 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > We can develop fantasy campaigns using
> > real world models, but the changes made to reflect "reality"
> > don`t actually reflect reality.
>
>Who said that they did!?

It`s what`s been suggested several times in this thread.... The examples
listed below were all suggested as being possible to accurately portray
using bloodlines.

At 08:12 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin also wrote:

[I`m including the whole exchange so we can see the context.]

>>>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.)
>
>Three large religions disagree with you on that last point though. That
>alone indicates to me that thinking about these sorts of ideas from a
>accepting-position might be useful and interesting.

I`m not saying that Abraham had NO divine connection but that he did not
have a "similar divine connection" as in similar to the previous listed
example, "pharaohs with a blood strength" which was cited as an example of
how the BR bloodline system would apply to real world rulers. Abraham,
Edward III, or any pharaoh would not be accurately portrayed by describing
him as having a BR bloodline (or by being expressing using D&D stats.)

Is that clear?

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.

[Trithemius]

Sorry Gary, I didn`t mention Edward III or the Pharoahs. I DID mention
Abraham though. I believe Kenneth brought up Edward III and the
Pharaohs.

> I`m not saying that Abraham had NO divine connection but that
> he did not have a "similar divine connection" as in similar
> to the previous listed example, "pharaohs with a blood
> strength" which was cited as an example of how the BR
> bloodline system would apply to real world rulers. Abraham,
> Edward III, or any pharaoh would not be accurately portrayed
> by describing him as having a BR bloodline (or by being
> expressing using D&D stats.)
> Is that clear?

This is such an unstartling conclusion that it would be hard for it not
to be clear.

I think you are looking at this backwards though. I don`t think that
giving a Pharoah a bloodline to explain the complex political
relationship would be accurate in an absolute-materialist historical
sense. I think however that you could use a character with a bloodline
to represent a Pharonic-style government in BR. I have never thought of
bloodlines as an alternative to good historical practices. However I was
under the distinct impression that this list was for discussing
game-phenomenon and not the particulars of modern history methods - a
subject which I feel under-qualified and not especially willing to wax
lyrical on.

I believe that Kenneth and I were trying to show that the concept of
divine (or divinely-inspired) kingship is quite broad and has a
historical basis. I also think Pharoahs were brought to to say: "Look we
can translate these guys into BR, and these guys, and these guys.". I
think they can be `reasonably accurately` portrayed for game purposes.
I`m not about to base my essays about Abraham on my BR version of him,
but I think as far as game-playing goes giving him a bloodline-like
feature works. Sure you might call it a "capacity for logos" and say it
is because he is nomos empsychos kai logikos instead of saying he
absorbs energy from the land because his ancestor was close to an
exploding god + mountain but the essential mechanic is functional.
Plainly our examples and counter-examples have only confused rather than
simplfied the whole matter. They are not essential to the discussion
however. Lets try and stop what has become an argument
for/against/who-knowswhat realism in roleplaying-games.

I think that so far people have been focussing on different parts of the
argument. Perhaps we should get back to the original matter. That is to
say: Should (N)PCs in Birthright campaigns be able to become gods under
their own steam.
Kenneth and I say: No.
Other people say: Yes.

I say no because I think that the game doesn`t need it and because I
don`t see that Big Levels + Divine Goo gained through Luck (essentially)
= Ability and Right to Ascend to Godhood. Ascension is a privilege at
best and an impossible dream at worst - in BR at least.

--
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.

[kgauck]

Modeling is done for a purpose. If you model history to advance the
discipline, it will be complex, and probabaly, as John mentioned, involve a
lot of math. If the purpose is to improve your game, forget accurate
representations. Simplicity and harmony with the game become important.
This was the point of the difference between a picture of Joe Stalin and the
person of Joe Stalin. In gaming, a few stats gives us a rough
representation.

When I say that BR can model history, I mean that "sufficient for the
purposes of an enjoyable evening or a campaign of role playing, in which the
root inspiration is historical."

There was a reason that D&D has historical campaign supplements, and that
Dieties and Demigods has historical mythos. Sometimes people want to play
in historical environs. Who ever wrote these books explored a specific
historical culture, adapted it to D&D conventions, and threw in a few new
rules. I wouldn`t cite these books on your dissertation, but they can
provide fun gaming. This list is not a list for verifying that we`re all
using the most sophisticated academic analysis, but identifying ways we play
our game in hopes that someone else has more fun with their game.

No one thinks that a stat block for Edward III is the person of Edward. But
we can play games with the stat block. You can complain that the D&D
version is not the real thing (discovery!) or its too simplified (why too
simplified for gaming purposes?), but you must know that people do that sort
of thing and that they have fun doing it.

Certainly if I`m attempting to describe history for a serious purpose
(academics, politics, social policy) the standard of reality is much higher
than if I`m attempting to describe history for use in a game. I think we
can achieve a sufficient realism for game purposes with the BR rules set.
That is, its a workable rules set for gaming with an Earth history. Pass
the pretzels.

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.

[Birthright-L]

John Machin <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ> wrote at 02-09-04 00.19:

> I don`t think that the BR setting benefits from having this [ascension] as a
> feature. The game is foccussed largely on the terrestrial world and
> mortal rulership, I don`t want apotheosis there to distract people and
> give them goals that I have no desire to allow them to fulfill.

I think this subjective "this is not what I want in my game" point of view
is the best argument in this discussion so far. I think there are few really
convincing arguments either way on the question of ascension in Birthright -
that is why I have kept mostly quiet in this debate. IMC, I use ascension as
a motif (not that my players know), but that is strictly in my game.

Not that I`m complaining - the argument has beeen entertaining so far.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 10:22 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>Sorry Gary, I didn`t mention Edward III or the Pharoahs. I DID mention
>Abraham though. I believe Kenneth brought up Edward III and the Pharaohs.

I remember which person mentioned which figure. I listed them as examples
that had been noted in the thread, not trying to attribute them to
particular contributors. (You actually first mentioned Abraham in "The
Nature of Divinity in BR" thread, and I brought up Jesus once....)

> > I`m not saying that Abraham had NO divine connection but that
> > he did not have a "similar divine connection" as in similar
> > to the previous listed example, "pharaohs with a blood
> > strength" which was cited as an example of how the BR
> > bloodline system would apply to real world rulers. Abraham,
> > Edward III, or any pharaoh would not be accurately portrayed
> > by describing him as having a BR bloodline (or by being
> > expressing using D&D stats.)
> > Is that clear?
>
>This is such an unstartling conclusion that it would be hard for it not to
>be clear.

OK, cool, because this relates to the larger issue that I`ll cover below.

>I don`t think that giving a Pharoah a bloodline to explain the complex
>political relationship would be accurate in an absolute-materialist
>historical sense. I think however that you could use a character with a
>bloodline to represent a Pharonic-style government in BR.

There are two major points here that I think are getting mixed, so let me
try to differentiate them.

1. Modeling the real world can influence how you play BR. (I agree
wholeheartedly with this one.)

2. BR can be used to model the real world. (This one is where I disagree.)

A couple of times in this thread I`ve argued against #2 and gotten
responses that related to #1, sometimes mixing them together in such a way
as to make me think the logic is that if one can use the real world to
model BR then it follows that BR can model the real world. That doesn`t
actually follow.

>However I was under the distinct impression that this list was for
>discussing game-phenomenon and not the particulars of modern history
>methods - a subject which I feel under-qualified and not especially
>willing to wax lyrical on.

This list is actually for discussing anything and everything BR
related. Whenever anyone cites historical figures (or literary ones) to
support an argument about the game we run the danger of heading
off-topic. For all its meandering this particular discussion has remained
on-topic, though. We haven`t actually touched on historiography... at
least not recently.

>I believe that Kenneth and I were trying to show that the concept of
>divine (or divinely-inspired) kingship is quite broad and has a
>historical basis. I also think Pharoahs were brought to to say: "Look we
>can translate these guys into BR, and these guys, and these guys.". I
>think they can be `reasonably accurately` portrayed for game purposes.

This is issue #2. I don`t think BR`s system of bloodline strength and its
domain rules would make for a very good or even reasonably accurate
portrayal of those figures. If I were trying to be reasonably accurate in
translating historical figures into a system of non-BR domain rules that
system would probably look a little like BR but not much. BR`s system of
bloodline and its domain rules are too campaign specific to port straight
into a non-BR system.

When I wrote up my Oriental Adventures BR campaign, for example, I soon
came to the conclusion that I needed to recreate Deismaar on Shanjari (my
BR-OA region.) Why? Because without a similar event you don`t have
bloodlines, and bloodlines are a much more direct and powerful link to the
gods than the concept of divinely inspired kingship of real world myth that
one would use as the basis for most campaign settings. Without bloodlines
it becomes much more difficult to rationalize the domain system. If a
ruler is spending magical energies (RP) garnered from the adoration of the
populace through a direct link to the gods handed down over the millennia
(bloodline) then it`s easier to rationalize domain actions like Rule,
Diplomacy and Contest taking around one month of game time, costing as
little as a few thousand gp, and having the option of the ruler
automatically ensure the success of his action by spending additional
RP. If I wanted BR-OA regents then I had to have a parallel event to
explain bloodlines. Otherwise I felt I would need an entirely different
system of rulership and domain rules.

So from my POV you can`t translate historical or even mythological rulers
into the BR system. At least, you can`t do it with much accuracy. D&D is
a blunt tool when trying to represent "reality" in the first place, but
even using such a blunt tool the BR domain rules are far too campaign
specific and just downright different from how a system of divinely
inspired kingship and the kind of domain rules that would accompany it
would work to be used with reasonable accuracy. If you have the BR rules
in hand then it might seem logical to use them for non-BR characters, but
if you think about how to model divinely inspired kingship without looking
at it from the BR perspective first then it starts making more sense to
come up with an entirely different system. The Hundred Years War was also
cited as an example of how one could use the BR system to reflect real
world history. Using BR it`s hard for me to picture the Hundred Years War
lasting more than about 10-12 years.

The saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer all your problems
begin to look like nails." Similarly, when the only system you have is BR
all rulers begin to look like they have a bloodline strength score. In
fact, to portray non-BR rulers in D&D I think you need an entirely
different system.

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.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Gary wrote:

> There are two major points here that I think are getting mixed, so let me
> try to differentiate them.
>
> 1. Modeling the real world can influence how you play BR. (I agree
> wholeheartedly with this one.)
>
> 2. BR can be used to model the real world. (This one is where I disagree.)

BR can indeed be used to model the real world. It may not do it *well
enough to satisfy you*, but in principle it models politics sufficiently
generically to function to some degree throughout most of history. The
question is how much of what kinds of biases and distortions each
individual user prefers to tolerate in the model`s behavior.

Everything is a model. Which models are "better" than others depends upon
your purposes and preferences. Everyone`s utility function is a bit
different.

To take just one aspect, "realism" is not a binary variable, but a
continuous one. BR is somewhat realistic. Minor rules changes can slide
its realism up or down the spectrum; and, perhaps unfortunately, it is a
general principle of game design that realism usually varies inversely
with playability. Each gamer has a different comfort point.

Also, different parts of the system are more or less realistic than others:
for example, the Contest action bothers me much less than the Rule action.

> John Machin wrote:
> >I believe that Kenneth and I were trying to show that the concept of
> >divine (or divinely-inspired) kingship is quite broad and has a
> >historical basis. I also think Pharoahs were brought to to say: "Look we
> >can translate these guys into BR, and these guys, and these guys.". I
> >think they can be `reasonably accurately` portrayed for game purposes.
>
> This is issue #2. I don`t think BR`s system of bloodline strength and its
> domain rules would make for a very good or even reasonably accurate
> portrayal of those figures. If I were trying to be reasonably accurate in
> translating historical figures into a system of non-BR domain rules that
> system would probably look a little like BR but not much. BR`s system of
> bloodline and its domain rules are too campaign specific to port straight
> into a non-BR system.

What you have pointed out here is simply a disagreement over the
definition of the phrase "reasonably accurate", and not one I think you
are going to be able to resolve. Each of you is right according to his
own idiosyncratic preferences of what constitutes "good enough" to use.

> Why? Because without a similar event you don`t have bloodlines,

I don`t think that`s actually necessary; but again, just a personal
feeling. See below for some other ideas.

> Without bloodlines it becomes much more difficult to rationalize the
> domain system.

With this I concur.

> If a ruler is spending magical energies (RP) garnered from the
> adoration of the populace through a direct link to the gods handed
> down over the millennia (bloodline) then it`s easier to rationalize
> domain actions like Rule, Diplomacy and Contest taking around one
> month of game time, costing as little as a few thousand gp, and having
> the option of the ruler automatically ensure the success of his action
> by spending additional RP.

True. However, it`s also not that hard to muck with the game rules to
change all these behaviors into ones somewhat less difficult to
rationalize into other world-systems.

> If I wanted BR-OA regents then I had to have a parallel event to
> explain bloodlines.

Parallel something, yes, but why need it necessarily be a violent
explosion of the gods? I actually find it easier to see as some sort of
contest/game/experiment of the gods/dragons/whatever, with "teams" or
"families" designed and created with different sets of
animal/elemental/personality characteristics bred into them in the ancient
past and then left to compete to see what happens; Steven Brust`s Jhereg
books have a backstory like this.

Also, why could it not have been a purely human ritual? Some ancient king
wanted a way to rule his holdings up above level 1 (which you can make and
profit from in a GB-only system), and his chief priest / court wizard
found a way to bind some mebhaighl to him in a way that could be passed
down through the years. Perhaps this was done seven times by seven
different leaders of the ancient past, and their personalities live on to
a certain extent in the magical power bound into them and passed along to
their modern successors.

Then there are the elves. They claim to have descended from the pure
elements, and the bloodlines have very strong elemental associations.
Also, one must have either a bloodline or elven blood to cast wizard
magic: why not assume that they are really the same thing? Make it so all
elves have bloodlines, and all humans with them are descended either from
an elf or an unblooded human who somehow succeeded at bloodtheft against one.

There are also less mystical methods. People (including you, IIRC) have
talked about letting unblooded leaders collect RP with their charisma
scores or modifiers. You could then allow them to spend collected RP on
building up a bloodline score. You could bootstrap from zero if you
make it so that the Create Holding action grants the successful regent a
bloodline point; this could even be extended to say that the first time
you would collect an RP if you had a bloodline, but can`t because you`re a
commoner, that RP simply spends itself to raise your bloodline from 0 to 1.

In fact, IMC, I use a combination of all of the above. In my personal
rewrite of the campaign backstory, there was a Deismaar, but it was not
the source of bloodlines.

> Otherwise I felt I would need an entirely different
> system of rulership and domain rules.

Yes, BR as a game system cannot function without a way to collect RP.
But there is great latitude in deciding what RP "really are", and what (if
anything) limits how many you can collect per turn.

> So from my POV you can`t translate historical or even mythological rulers
> into the BR system. At least, you can`t do it with much accuracy.

These are very different statements. If you can do it without much
accuracy, then you can do it, period. Whether it`s worthwhile is a
separate question, but pedantically the pure possibility exists.

> D&D is a blunt tool when trying to represent "reality" in the first place

Granted. But given those limitations, how much worse does the BR domain
system really make things?

> even using such a blunt tool the BR domain rules are far too campaign
> specific and just downright different from how a system of divinely
> inspired kingship and the kind of domain rules that would accompany it
> would work to be used with reasonable accuracy.

I claim this is purely a matter of taste.

> If you have the BR rules in hand then it might seem logical to use
> them for non-BR characters,

As indeed we do, so it`s off the the races.

> but if you think about how to model divinely inspired kingship without
> looking at it from the BR perspective first then it starts making more
> sense to come up with an entirely different system.

Which several people reading this are no doubt also working on. =)

> The Hundred Years War was also cited as an example of how one could
> use the BR system to reflect real world history. Using BR it`s hard
> for me to picture the Hundred Years War lasting more than about 10-12
> years.

It is the case that optimal strategies depend crucially on the specific
properties of the model, so there will always be differences of this
sort. Some of it may be psychological as well -- the BR wars I`ve seen
tend more to resemble World War II, which I think has a lot to do with
what the players have grown up assuming about what wars are.

> The saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer all your
> problems begin to look like nails." Similarly, when the only system
> you have is BR all rulers begin to look like they have a bloodline
> strength score.

Quite. If you are to use BR as written, you must assign all regents
bloodline scores. That`s just how the system works. But it can be done
in different ways.

> In fact, to portray non-BR rulers in D&D I think you need an entirely
> different system.

Entirely different in in-game justification perhaps, but not I think all
that different in player-visible mechanics.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, 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 think "validity" is the wrong concept to be focusing on.

To say "the world really was the way they thought it was, but then
the laws of physics changed when popular opinion about them changed" is
surely incorrect. But to say "it is more fun to play a game in which the
world really is the way they thought it was" is surely true for many people.

We can base our games on any concepts we want. As I`ve said before,
personally I prefer to play in a fantasy game world where quantum
mechanics and general relativity are indeed true, but no one (except the
DM, and maybe some really high-level wizards) knows about them. It`s a
matter only of individual taste.

> 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.

Not pointless -- less fun for you. Other people have fun in other ways.
The SCA is in some sense a live-action RPG set in the Middle Ages and
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.

This is an argument about what constitutes "good roleplaying", and as such
simply a declaration of your preferred style. This is not an argument
that can have a final or factual resolution.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:

> I`m not sure if modelling is the word I`d use since all the modelling I
> have had the misfortune to have anything to do with involved a lot more
> math and data-collection than I imagine got used in the creation of BR.

Modeling is precisely the word I`d use, and it`s my job. I used to make
combat models for the US Navy, and now I make climate models for NASA. A
model in this sense is anything that allows you to predict behavior. Two
people have a swordfight -- who wins? I try to pick a lock -- can I do
it? A king and a priest contend against each other for the hearts and
minds of the people -- whom do the people support?

D&D is a model, just like Newtonian mechanics is a model and the way you
try to guess how people will react to the things you say is a model. Very
different kinds of data went into the creation of these models, and some
have their level of agreement with reality much more closely and
rigorously scrutinized than others, but they`re all models.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition closest to what I mean is "a
schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for
its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its
characteristics." The best definition of model in this sense that
dictionary.com has to offer is from "The Free On-line Dictionary of
Computing", which states that a model is "A description of observed
behaviour, simplified by ignoring certain details. Models allow complex
systems to be understood and their behaviour predicted within the scope of
the model, but may give incorrect descriptions and predictions for
situations outside the realm of their intended use. A model may be used
as the basis for simulation."


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.