The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think I see my problem: I don't assume that just because I can't see them that there aren't rules.  So instead of a break in internal logic not working for me I simply assume that a new rule has been invoked that I'm not privy to yet.

While a much that I would say on the topic in general has already been said, you bring up an interesting point here. This crops up, I think, more in actual campaign play than in setting creation and description and in that context especially this really is the best approach. After all, a lot of what drives campaign/story plot is encountering what doesn't, at least at first, entirely fit into what is known. Not just character knowledge, but to some degree I think to really make a story arc interesting, some things need to lie outside of player knowledge as well - imagine characters slogging through the effort of solving a murder mystery which the players already grasp inside and out. . . While I may be reading into your statement something you don't intend, I get the impression from it that you are in such cases at least harboring the assumption that when you become privy to the unknown rule which has been invoked, it will make internal sense - or at least hint/point to such in the process of exploring/investigating an unknown which spans multiple adventures. (For instance, encountering what is evidently some previously unknown form of magic and/or hard science which a secretive group has in fact developed quite deeply and extensively over centuries of research and experimentation.) You're expressing an inherent grasp of what I consider one of the fundamental axioms of roleplaying (which is surprisingly easy for many players to lose sight of it seems), i.e., the fact that the players don't know what the GM is doing doesn't mean that the GM doesn't know what s/he's doing. . .

Generally, in the setting creation I strive for consistency of internal logic/reasoning. However, in recent months, while going back over some partial write-ups and earlier work, I have noticed some errors/changes which I had missed previously - primarily the result of further edits and changes in related material. I've realized however that some of these actually increase verisimilitude, and consequently left them "uncorrected." This is primarily the result of the fact that, except where I specifically refer to Earth history, cultures, etc. for the sake of example and illustration, virtually of the material can be read as text by people (scholars, priests, political pundits, etc.) in the setting world itself. Consequently, variations, differences of opinion and outright contradictions realistically should appear! As a result, I expect to incorporate more in the body of work. Some are explicit - there are already deliberate comparisons of conflicting historical and more recent political theories, but some are less obvious, arising primarily from the recognition of the fact that in a "realistic" world some (really, many,) things are not certain, much less fully (or even well) understood, and probably never will be. Even when the existence of most of the gods can be taken as unequivocal fact, little else about them can. (For a good example, try tracing the origins of the goddess Thelema in my setting.) Ultimately, while in the complete (as in wiki) setting write up I strive for the greatest degree of internal "logic" and consistency, I've realized that at times I have to actually break that "rule" to really achieve believability and verisimilitude.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI keep hearing people say they don't like thing X because it isn't realistic or just in some way breaks some sort of logic.  And this is starting to confuse me:

What do people like so much about the realistic or the logical?  Why do people hate unrealistic and illogical things so much?

Take for instance common fantasy tropes (oh, say dragons in dungeons). If it's believable, then its logical and I can suspend disbelief.

Quote from: Crippled CrowI agree with the division Steerpike made between External and Internal Logic. Then again, i think most people agree with that. Anyway, i like stuff that is wildly original but it *has* to be consistent and credible and don't break the internal logic. I can't really take normal spellcasters anymore, for example, because they never provide a reason for why they use verbal and somatic components. Or, if they ascribe it to magical words, why are the words magical?

What if as a for instance the words are words in the language that angels speak in.

Or the somatic components and words together are what the daemon in charge of the thing you are asking for finds pleasing?

Or what if the words are necessary to attract the attention of the God you are asking a favor of?




On the more general topic:  To me, the thing that bugs me most isn't the illogic inherent to a particular genre.  I love fantasy, superheroes, kaiju, and other supremely illogical genres.

However, the thing that bugs me is characters lacking in internal consistency.  If it's established that Superman is brave and self-sacrificing, it makes no sense for him to back down from a problem when innocent lives are riding on his participation.

It's not that you couldn't come up with a reason for why the words where "magical", it's just that if you do that, then every speaker of those words would potentially create a magical effect, which ruins the entire concept of spellcasting being academic.
The best reason i've heard yet is that you don't really need the words but that they help mages focusing on the spell (having devised some kind of mnemonic keyed to whatever magic effect they are trying for).

Quote from: Crippled CrowIt's not that you couldn't come up with a reason for why the words where "magical", it's just that if you do that, then every speaker of those words would potentially create a magical effect, which ruins the entire concept of spellcasting being academic.

I get what you're saying mostly, but I'm fine with everyone who knows the right words being able to do magic.  It's finding the right words (and whatever else) that's difficult.  I'm starting to start to learn a little bit about both Goetic and Enochian systems of magic and everything about either one looks like a complicated process.

Quote from: khyron1144However, the thing that bugs me is characters lacking in internal consistency.  If it's established that Superman is brave and self-sacrificing, it makes no sense for him to back down from a problem when innocent lives are riding on his participation.

To me it makes perfect sense: we've already established that the world doesn't work like the one we live in, so something unexpected happening makes sense in terms of the existence of new rules.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw

Quote from: khyron1144However, the thing that bugs me is characters lacking in internal consistency.  If it's established that Superman is brave and self-sacrificing, it makes no sense for him to back down from a problem when innocent lives are riding on his participation.

To me it makes perfect sense: we've already established that the world doesn't work like the one we live in, so something unexpected happening makes sense in terms of the existence of new rules.

SCMP,
I wonder if you understand how unusual this makes you, or what an interesting proposition you are positing?
Cognitive psychology virtually depends on the brain's unconsious and autonomic attempt to create systems of logic and expectation.  Every silly optical illusion you have ever looked at is a result of your mind trying to enforce the laws of context and internal consistency, even when your consious mind knows better.  Pattern recognition, context specificity, script theory, Catagory Induction/Aquisition, Language aquisition, and dozens more cognitive processes/theories depend on the brains attempt to create and enforce a system of internally consistent rules.

Hopefully, the above enhances all the other preceding posts about internal consistency, and the internal dynamic to demand said pattern recognition.  

Moreover, many deeper phobic theories tie the underlying phobic and obsessive conditions to the Fear of the Unknown related to a lack of control and a lack of knowability.
Your ability to say that it makes sense to you due to an already established unknowability is, to me, a blithe and perhaps powerful embracing of a fundamental psychological 'heresy'. Even the idea of being able to toss away the fundamental logic underpinnings is interesting.  

Quote from: Vreeg's BaroloYour ability to say that it makes sense to you due to an already established unknowability is, to me, a blithe and perhaps powerful embracing of a fundamental psychological 'heresy'. Even the idea of being able to toss away the fundamental logic underpinnings is interesting.

I think all it is is not jumping to conclusions as fast as other people.  Where others decide "internal logic has been broken" I decide "something's happened here which I do not have enough information to make judgments on".  It's something I've trained myself to do through years of making judgments which I later regretted (and watching way too many "don't judge a book by its cover" moralistic kids TV shows ;) ).

Personally, I like internal consistency, as many have noted. As for "realism," it's simply easier to start with a set of internally consistent rules with which I am familiar and only make the changes that I find are interesting. Or, rather, I start with reality's rules, slap on the rules of one or more preconstructed genres (so things can be weird and people will still know what I'm talking about) and *then* I'll make the changes that are really unique. Another approach (one I like much less but which can be pulled off if done very very carefully) is to change the rules as one goes. The first approach (familiar baseline with a few carefully made changes) works great for setting building. The second approach gets used alot out of necessity when actually running a campaign.

Another thing that someone brought up, and I thought was interesting, was the difference between a rule being broken and an unfamiliar rule (or a new application for an old rule). I remember seeing alot of this in Asimov's stuff. It feels like a mystery trope, but you see it in odd places. The show House, for example, uses this ALOT.

And the last is the inconsistency concerning something that seems irrelevant to the plot, like the orcs' food. Honestly, if I'm caught up in the central stuff I'll forget (or forgive if I see it) a peripheral discrepancy. In the example, possible explanations were given, including forced tribute from human "allies." This is why I like (nowadays, and in my campaigns) making the mundane world important... interesting ideas can pop up in the oddest places.

So the appeal of realism, for me, is firstly convenience, secondly mystery (funny how that works), and lastly for inspiration.

I can deal with things that don't even have a lot of internal logic, if the game is really about something else. Fun can excuse anything, even ridiculous contradictions.

It's sort of like that theory people always talk about on The Forge. Some games are all about simulating something, but some games are just about creating a cool story or providing an interesting play experience.

Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI have problems with any ideas that propose that ... sentient minds ... have special parts that the rest of the universe doesn't have.

Does sentience count as a "special part"? If so, then yes, sentient minds do have a "special part" that the rest of the universe doesn't have.

I agree with what I think you were intending to say, which is probably a bit closer to

QuoteI have problems with any ideas that propose that humans ... are more than the sum of their parts.

collection[/i] of features that defines us as something other (not more or less) then chimps. Regardless of whether or not humans are part of the Animal Kingdom, humans are humans, and not chimps, or ducks, or aardvarks.

On another note...

QuoteI think I see my problem: I don't assume that just because I can't see them that there aren't rules.

seeing[/i] the rules, and not knowing the rules. Before Newton, people could still see that there were rules to gravity. People could still see that things fell. They didn't know what the rules, exactly, were (and from what I understand, we still[i/] haven't worked out every exact) of gravity, but they could still see that rules were there.

Quote from: Halfling FritosDoes sentience count as a "special part"? If so, then yes, sentient minds do have a "special part" that the rest of the universe doesn't have.

'¦'¦'¦'¦I do think that humans do have defining features. This could just as easily be one collection of features that defines us as something other (not more or less) then chimps.

I'm not sure whether to agree with you or not.  I disagree with the first sentence quoted, but then the second part makes me more likely to agree.

As I see it the "sentient mind" doesn't exist.  Instead a collection of brain parts does the same job as it did for our primate ancestors, but with more efficiency and cutting out some background noise.  That doesn't make us very different in my value system.

[blockquote=Silvercat Moonpaw]As I see it the "sentient mind" doesn't exist. Instead a collection of brain parts does the same job as it did for our primate ancestors, but with more efficiency and cutting out some background noise. That doesn't make us very different in my value system.[/blockquote]I agree.  The difference between a "sentient" and "non-sentient" mind is in degree of complexity, rather than some magic ontological distinguishing factor.

For those interested, I might recommend Daniel Dennett's Kinds of Minds for more elaborate musing on the distinctions (or lack thereof) between human and animal minds.

Not that I necessarily endorse all his conclusions, but there's lots of interesting thoughts there.

As for the original topic:

If I am going to roleplay a person who exists in the game setting, the setting has to make at least as much sense to me as it would for that character. E.g., if magic is going to be a largely mysterious and uncontrollable force, then it is okay for it to be largely inconsistent. But if magic is supposed to be the kind of thing that learned wizards can understand and control, it needs to be reasonably internally consistent.

[blockquote=SD1984][blockquote=SCMP]'¦I think I see my problem: I don't assume that just because I can't see them that there aren't rules.[/blockquote]


Agreed, but I'd like to make a fine distinction, here. There's a difference between not seeing the rules, and not knowing the rules. Before Newton, people could still see that there were rules to gravity. People could still see that things fell. They didn't know what the rules, exactly, were (and from what I understand, we still[i/] haven't worked out every exact) of gravity, but they could still see that rules were there. [/blockquote]

as I said before.

QuoteI wonder if you understand how unusual this makes you, or what an interesting proposition you are positing?
Cognitive psychology virtually depends on the brain's unconsious and autonomic attempt to create systems of logic and expectation. Every silly optical illusion you have ever looked at is a result of your mind trying to enforce the laws of context and internal consistency, even when your consious mind knows better. Pattern recognition, context specificity, script theory, Catagory Induction/Aquisition, Language aquisition, and dozens more cognitive processes/theories depend on the brains attempt to create and enforce a system of internally consistent rules.