Philosophical Musings: A Forum Game

[m7600]

And where's the God-damn rules lawyer when you need him. @O_Bruce: Option 1 or Option 2?

 

[m7600]

Where's the smart one? @Alesia_BH, Option 1 or Option 2?

 

[m7600]

I have to wonder. Do I want to win Philosophical Musings? What do I win? How have you defined winning?

Feel free to quit this game any time you want to. I won't think any less of you. I'm actually impressed that you got this far, and I say that with honesty in my heart.

But now you're in deep, deep shit. I gave you the Hero's option: I told you to do some poetry and that would mean that you're the winner of Philosophical Musings. All you had to do is a little bit of poetry, but you lacked the patriotism to do it. Yes, I said it. And I'm not taking that back. I'm being serious. You deliberately decided to essentially tell me, -your GM-, that you didn't like that option and that you wanted to go deeper down the game's rabbit hole. How's your Game Theory holding up so far, Chief? Well, your wish is my command, I suppose I should say. Congratulations. You're deeper down the rabbit hole. But I'm not Morpheus, this isn't The Matrix, and you're not Neo. This isn't some Sci-Fi Loosey-Goosey TV series. We're playing a game here, we're active participants. So what's your choice? Option 1 or Option 2? Or would you instead like to "reload" to a previous save, and tell me that silly poem I told you to make?

 

[JustKneller]

You seem to be under the impression that Chaotic Neutral is a respectable philosophy to begin with. It isn't.

You really don't like poetry, don't you? You don't even want to give it a chance as a legitimate intellectual profession. You don't respect it. All that fuss about not really getting it is just you being morally lazy.

Nobody respects a Chaotic Neutral person, but fortunately that doesn't break a Chaotic Neutral person's stride. However, I have always seen myself as Lawful Neutral. I have a friend who tells me that I'm the most ethical/principled person she has ever met and she's not the type of person to throw around those kinds of labels lightly.

I don't believe I'm morally lazy. I think I'm just rather aware of the strengths and weaknesses of my intellect. I respect its existence as an intellectual profession, even though it generally doesn't speak to me. I'll take prose over poetry any day. But, to get back to the Jefferson quote, because I'm such a nice guy...I've always read that as liberty being something that doesn't, and perhaps can't, exist as a static entity. There will always be villains to threaten it and heroes to protect it. These are the ones that will die for their cause, while the rest get the bask in its benefits. So it goes. This isn't poetry, but maybe it will get there at some point.

Of course it is. It's a pseudo-acronym. I just made that term up. By that I mean that it's the first letter of my real name, and the zip code of the city I was born in. How is that not my real name, if I have just defined it as a pseudo-acronym of my real name?

The Iowa reference has me thinking you're in the U.S., but I've never heard of a four digit zip code. However, my intent is not to ruffle the feathers of your internet anonymity, so I can leave it at that.

I'm a White/Blue Tribal myself, I play a Soldier deck on Standard. Tried Alchemy a bit but it's just craziness all over the place. So, Arena only. Tabletop MtG is dead to me, and has been for a long time.

I only played the first edition, or however the editions are referenced. By the second iterations, everyone was obsessed with one thing. In how many turns could a deck win. That became the be-all-and-end-all of Magic and was the end of it for me. This is the thing that (very much unironically) bothers me about WotC D&D. You build a character like you build a Magic deck and actual play is an idle game. I bet I've said this already in this thread. It sounds recently familiar.

Well, enough with the antagonistic GMing. Back to collaborative storytelling mode.

Cool beans.

You want to know how to take the King in Sigil. But that doesn't make sense to me. I don't even know what you mean by that. It's an ambiguous expression. You're asking me what it means, and I'm literally telling you that it depends on what you're referring to. Hence, here's your list of options:

I'll be explicit. One of the best moments of gaming for me was before Planescape when I bought (AD&D 2e) Ravenloft. I still clearly remember opening the book for the first time and reading the section about how the class abilities change (i.e. were quite nerfed) while in the Demiplane of Dread. A powergamer would have lost their shit reading that. But, I found it to be refreshingly humbling. After all the dungeon-crawly murder-hobo-y swimming-in-piles-of-gold-and-magic-items that came with a more traditional setting, this was a game that was going to challenge me. More than that, it was a world that wasn't my personal playground, but one in which I had to be a citizen and tread carefully.

You could argue that one could do the same thing in Faerun, and you certainly could if you built adventures that way, but nobody was really doing that in practice. If you want challenge, if you want grit, if you wanted to walk the line (whatever that line was), you went to Ravenloft, or Dark Sun, or (later) Planescape.

Taking the king in Faerun is pretty cut and dry. Kill the baddest beasts, get the best treasures, drown in your own wealth. It's just consumption to the point of irrelevance or burnout.

But, that's not Sigil. No player, in their right fucking mind, is going to Sigil to eventually take on the Lady of Pain. I mean, I'm sure there are some groups who have had that goal and some GMs that have made their wildest dreams come true, but that is certainly not the point of Planescape. Everybody with whom I've spoken about Planescape have all ended up there for various reasons, but most of them were more existential reasons than one might have for puttering around Faerun.

If as you say, RPGs are a skewed game of chess (and I would agree with you), that means there is a win condition, of sorts. The win condition of Faerun is wealth, power, and prestige. That much is obvious. But these are all petty things in a place like Sigil. What is the win condition for Sigil? Hell, why did you end up there? What are you there to do?

Feel free to quit this game any time you want to. I won't think any less of you. I'm actually impressed that you got this far, and I say that with honesty in my heart.

Quit? We're just getting started.

So what's your choice? Option 1 or Option 2? Or would you instead like to "reload" to a previous save, and tell me that silly poem I told you to make?

Well, you probably already know based on what I said above, neither option applies to me. As for that poem, I only ever played the bard once, but he was more of a demented gnome who thought he was a wizardly artificer and his performance style was more anecdotal non-fiction prose. Maybe inspiration will strike over the course of this game and I'll spew out some Walty Whitmany nuggets.

 

[m7600]

The Iowa reference has me thinking you're in the U.S.

How can you be so clueless? Right, you're a Prime, you've no idea what game we're playing. We're in Planescape, remember?

And by that I mean that I'm in South America. I can be more specific. No feathers ruffled here at least. There's also something that GMs do in tabletop settings: private letters. This Tavern has a PM function. For such a seasoned player, I find it odd that you miss the most obvious things. Right, you're from the Prime Material Plane. You've never actually played Planescape, have you? Not like this, at least.

A powergamer would have lost their shit reading that.

They play the Diablo franchise nowadays. It's a lost cause, if you ask me. Better to invest your time and energy in some other franchise.

But, that's not Sigil. No player, in their right fucking mind, is going to Sigil to eventually take on the Lady of Pain

Nobody takes on Lord Ao either. Most people don't know the reference. And the few that do, just don't give it much thought. Like, how would you even challenge him? He's not here, he doesn't care about you, or anyone. He has more important matters to attend to. Same as the Lady. Same as Thoon. We don't know what they're up to. That's the honest truth. But they haven't wiped out the Multiverse, so at least there's hope. At least there's that, corny as it sounds.

I mean, I'm sure there are some groups who have had that goal and some GMs that have made their wildest dreams

It can't happen. Unlike Realmspace, Greyspace, etc., Sigil has no crystal sphere. It's not located in the Multiverse. It's another Multiverse, a city-sized, "pocket-Multiverse", if you will. I understand that means nothing to you. It doesn't mean anything to me either. All I can say is, that's the best we got, so far, in terms of explanations. We can't really get too close. It's off-limits.

Everybody with whom I've spoken about Planescape have all ended up there for various reasons, but most of them were more existential reasons than one might have for puttering around Faerun.

Like you, with your game design dilemmas. All I can say is: you didn't get here, you accidentally stumbled upon this world. And while you're a responsible citizen and all that, I'm not sure that your sense of risk/reward is functioning all that well. I'd say something corny like "proceed at your own risk", or "this is what you signed up for, Chief", but that would be inaccurate. You don't really know what the risks are here, at this base level of the game. And you're not sure what the reward would be. We have some wild guesses, but they're just that: wild guesses. Are you sure you don't want to go back to the Clerk's Ward and call it a day?

But these are all petty things in a place like Sigil. What is the win condition for Sigil? Hell, why did you end up there? What are you there to do?

That's classified. Feel free to take that however you wish. It's just a game, remember? Don't take it seriously. At least, not too seriously.

Quit? We're just getting started.

If you say so. I'd tone down the enthusiasm, but I'm cautious by nature.

Well, you probably already know based on what I said above, neither option applies to me. As for that poem, I only ever played the bard once, but he was more of a demented gnome who thought he was a wizardly artificer and his performance style was more anecdotal non-fiction prose. Maybe inspiration will strike over the course of this game and I'll spew out some Walty Whitmany nuggets

If that's your choice, then I'm afraid that this will be a Game Over for you. You did well though, better than most. You can always replay the game if you feel like it. But you won't get past this point in the future. Sorry, it is what it is. Thanks for playing!

 

[Black Elk]

Forsooth! Methinks you are no ordinary talking chicken!

hehe my skin is probably way too thin for this fortune cookie, especially without the draconic scales to protect me! Although I was checking out the demo yesterday, while recovering from a root canal. They said 'but G1, it looks like it may have crept beneath the crown...' oh fuck! All I want for Xmas is my two back teeth, so it was Kris Kringle with the last minute endodontics, and not much energy to type afterwards. I guess I'm caught up now though, so why not.

Don't be surprised if the humbug is coming in hot and totally false lol.

1) "There is a first-person point of view behind your own eyes, and there is a first-person point of view behind my own eyes."

False

My whole frame and POV is decidedly 3rd person and pretty scattershot honestly, like even in dreams. My noontide daemon hovers above the shoulder, but a bit behind and little off to the right I think, with backwards pitch control to boot! It also changes from scene to scene quite often, again mostly in dreams, but during the day as well, when just casually imagining stuff. As to the other set of eyes, who could say? It could all just be a solipsistic nightmare flying solo. "Is it unethical to look away?" asks Emmanuel to Immanuel. "Of course, of course! But I'm hoarse" Legit though, for all I know it could just be one big red eye over there, like Sauron or HAL 9000. I mean I wouldn't bet on it, but still hard to be sure hehe

2) "Legal pragmatism (however it may be defined) is a coherent system of beliefs, or at least one in which the contradictions are minimal when compared to other systems of beliefs."

False

I'll take my tips from JustKneller there, since "however it may be defined" is entirely too pragmatic to be practical for the law. Although, that said, if it was a Planet of the Apes tribunal... hehe

3) "It is physically possible for a person to imagine that there is no difference between reality and philosophy."

False

I think I may be living this physical reality right now but it's hard to trust and I'm still a bit numb, but like where the beating heart and animating spirit has somehow drifted from the center and found it's way over to my left lockjaw. Like a Trismas wish come early, and so no matter how hard I imagine it, it's impossibly hard to separate the real deal from the love of the wisdom teeth on this one. Is it wise to suppose from this one example a universal physical impossibility that extends forever? Maybe not, but that's where I'm at right currently. At the same time, and in the same respect, I imagine it wouldn't make much difference if I thought otherwise lol

4) "Human laws and natural laws are both objective, even though the former are artificial while the latter are not."

False

I object! The error was all my own! Should have known. Sustained and stricken from the permanent record!

I'm just here to play and muse, not really to win, but if just showing up is an achievement, I'll take it! hehe

Io Saturnalia and have a great holiday!!!

 

[m7600]

I was checking out the demo yesterday, while recovering from a root canal. They said 'but G1, it looks like it may have crept beneath the crown...' oh fuck! All I want for Xmas is my two back teeth, so it was Kris Kringle with the last minute endodontics, and not much energy to type afterwards. I guess I'm caught up now though, so why not.

Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I had a few cavities removed some months ago. Going to the dentist sucks.

Don't be surprised if the humbug is coming in hot and totally false lol.

You wisdom is always appreciated, even though it generally doesn't seem like it, ha. Hey, but I'm always encouraging you, and your crazy ideas! I generally disagree with you, but I do it respectfully, and you just steamroll with your explanations anyways. It goes over a lot people's heads, I'm quite sure of that, but I think that most (all?) of the Tavern people here understand what you're saying. Just maybe not entirely, ha.

1) "There is a first-person point of view behind your own eyes, and there is a first-person point of view behind my own eyes."

False

Intriguing. You're the first to choose that option, so far.

My whole frame and POV is decidedly 3rd person and pretty scattershot honestly, like even in dreams.

Hmmm...

My noontide daemon hovers above the shoulder, but a bit behind and little off to the right I think, with backwards pitch control to boot!

See, here's where I was getting at. When you say stuff like this, @Black Elk , I'm quite sure you've lost 90% of your readership or more. I'm still with you, though, as are a few folk here. But you're just steamrolling it, man. I say that as a GM. Ha. Not saying that your style of play is bad, it's better that most people's. It's a very oldschool style, and people today just don't know what oldschool RPGing is anymore. But you're oldschool, man. Way, waaay more oldschool than me.

It also changes from scene to scene quite often, again mostly in dreams, but during the day as well, when just casually imagining stuff.

In other words, Phenomenology 101. @Black Elk , of that 10% of initial readership that you still retain, you've now lost like 90% of that. I'm still with you, I'm a professional philosopher IRL. But now you're just going crazy on me, dude. I say that as your GM for this session. But that's fine, we can do academic philosophy here. It's a philosophy game, at the end of the day.

As to the other set of eyes, who could say? It could all just be a solipsistic nightmare flying solo.

No, we're quite certain that it's not, @Black Elk . There's scientific evidence that it isn't, there's philosophical arguments that say it's impossible, and there's our good common sense that says that such a notion is something that a few idiots from the philosophy department say just so they can have a job.

"Is it unethical to look away?" asks Emmanuel to Immanuel.

As in Kant? Come on man, you loose more and more readership when you say crazy things like that.

"Of course, of course! But I'm hoarse"

(Insert a facepalm smiley here). Ok, as a GM, this is what I'm saying to you as a player, and it's utterly stupid. It's a funny thing I was told as a child. And then it stopped being funny at like, I don't know, when I was 10 years old. Here goes:

Imagine a man in a room with no doors, and no windows. Doesn't matter how he got there. Outside, there is a river that encircles the room. How does he get out of the room, and how does he cross the river? First, he sits on the floor until he gets bored. So he grabs the board, and then he cuts in half (doesn't matter how). Two halves make a whole, right? So, he grabs the hole, and he places it on a wall, and he steps out. Then he screams until he's hoarse. So he gets on the horse, and crosses the river.

Legit though, for all I know it could just be one big red eye over there, like Sauron or HAL 9000. I mean I wouldn't bet on it, but still hard to be sure hehe

You have a brain, I have a brain, every human being has brain that has more or less the same anatomy. So you tell me. Are you saying that you're like Sauron or Hal 9000? If that's the case, I'd say you probably shouldn't smoke weed. Not saying that you shouldn't, maybe it's legal in your state, I dunno.

False

I'll take my tips from JustKneller there, since "however it may be defined" is entirely too pragmatic to be practical for the law. Although, that said, if it was a Planet of the Apes tribunal... hehe

Don't go crazy on me, dude. I'll accept Mechanus, the Lawful Neutral plane from where the Modrons come from, and I'll accept Limbo, the place where the Githzerai and the Githyanki come from (and by "accept" I mean that I understand that they're part of the Planescape Lore), but other than that, nothing. There's no Planet of the Apes tribunal here. I'm one of the GM's and I'm saying no way. But @JustKneller is another one of the GM's, maybe he'll allow it. Do you want to be another one of the GM's for this game, @Black Elk ? If so, then so be it. If not, no problem. But you're not getting Planets of the Apes tribunal into the Lore of the game, unless some other GM allows it, in case you don't want to be a GM.

3) "It is physically possible for a person to imagine that there is no difference between reality and philosophy."

False

I think I may be living this physical reality right now but it's hard to trust and I'm still a bit numb, but like where the beating heart and animating spirit has somehow drifted from the center and found it's way over to my left lockjaw. Like a Trismas wish come early, and so no matter how hard I imagine it, it's impossibly hard to separate the real deal from the love of the wisdom teeth on this one. Is it wise to suppose from this one example a universal physical impossibility that extends forever? Maybe not, but that's where I'm at right currently. At the same time, and in the same respect, I imagine it wouldn't make much difference if I thought otherwise lol

Ok, so you don't believe in brain damage, that's what you're saying. In theory, a person could damage their brain in such a way (think of Alzheimer's, for example) that they have delusions, for example, or hallucinations, or loss of memory, or loss of speech, etc. Or, you believe in brain damage, but you don't think there's a specific pathology that, due to brain damage, causes that specific pathology of not being able to differentiate between reality and philosophy. I dunno, you tell me. I'm listening.

4) "Human laws and natural laws are both objective, even though the former are artificial while the latter are not."

False

I object! The error was all my own! Should have known. Sustained and stricken from the permanent record!

Stop being so silly. If you want to articulate a theory that connects the literal use of the language with the poetic use of the language, I'm listening. That's your win condition as a player, @Black Elk . I won't take your answer to (4) as an instance of a poem, you're not @JustKneller .

I'm just here to play and muse, not really to win, but if just showing up is an achievement, I'll take it! hehe

It is, but I'm not giving you a prize for just showing up. I appreciate that you heeded my call, but I'm not giving you a prize just for show. That being said, thanks for showing up!

Io Saturnalia and have a great holiday!!!

Don't push it.

Happy New Year to you!

 

[m7600]

I'm just here to play and muse

Man, I seriously can't get over the fact that you used the word "muse" as a verb here. That's how old-school you are. It's as if you were saying "I'm here for two things: to play, and to Muse."

It's obvious that "musing", if you will, is something different from playing. You literally just said so. That's how old-school you are. Very, very few players (I'd bet good money on this) can follow you here. A few of us are, though.

So. Are you going to tell us about the art of musing, or what? An educated person such as yourself, with such command of etymology and the Classics, can surely explain to the rest of us, the connection (syntax) between the act of musing (pragmatics), the word "muse" (semantics), and the fictional Greek Muses from Antiquity (the purported "reference" of the sign, if you will). Or feel free to disagree: it's rather obvious that I believe in Charles Sanders Peirce's tripartite classification of the communicational sign. Perhaps you share not his theory. In which case, tell us of yours. And how does my own skill as a muser, strike your ear? Is there a musicality to my words? Or have you instead noted in them my public love for the icy slopes of logic?

 

[JustKneller]

I'm not sure if it should go here or your Charisma thread, but I think this is appropriate for philosophical musings. But, how granular does a person need to be for you to be satisfied with their taxonomy? What if Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma were lumped together into something like "Mind"? What if Dexterity were split into Speed and Accuracy? What if Strength and Constitution were just Physique? I'm not considering messing with any of these things myself (i.e. for my retroclone) but I'm really just curious as to where you stand.

 

[m7600]

What if Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma were lumped together into something like "Mind"? What if Dexterity were split into Speed and Accuracy? What if Strength and Constitution where just Physique?

Sure, why not? It could work. I think Vampire: The Masquerade did it best, by dividing ability scores into Physical, Mental, and Social. You can then be more specific (i.e., Social includes Charisma, Manipulation, and Appearance).

It's "pseudo-sociology" for gaming purposes, if that makes any sense.

 

[JustKneller]

Fun fact, WW eventually changed "Appearance" to "Composure". Did the Physical, Mental, Social actually mean anything or were they just column headers? Full disclosure, my group at the time only played through a couple sessions of Exalted and wrote it off as power fantasy faff. I would have been tempted to try Hunter, though. It seemed the most down to earth of the bunch.

I would agree that it was a clever design, though. It was pretty elegant how you could mix and match Attributes and Abilities depending on how you were doing something.

 

[m7600]

Did the Physical, Mental, Social actually mean anything or were they just column headers?

They were just column headers, not mechanically relevant. But it made taxonomic sense, and that's no small feat, I would say.

Full disclosure, my group at the time only played through a couple sessions of Exalted and wrote it off as power fantasy faff.

I think tabletop V:tM leans more on the storytelling side. Even the skills are tailored that way. For example, Clan Giovanni has a skill which allows your character to look into the eyes of a corpse and see the last thing that the deceased saw before dying. You can throw in some RNG stuff there if you want, but it's not strictly necessary. V:tM skills are usually like that, unlike D&D and Pathfinder, for example.

 

[JustKneller]

I think tabletop V:tM leans more on the storytelling side.

I think it tried to, but a lot of the criticism I've read is that it's a beat 'em up masquerading as a story game. I remember a lot of Exalted skills were basically what-ridiculous-way-do-you-want-to-be-able-to-slaughter-a-village. But, and it's a big but, it's all about how you run it. I'm sure VtM can be run without a crap ton of ass-kicking fights. I haven't looked at it in forever, but I remember it being a pretty clean system that could work fine for something more toned down.

 

[m7600]

It all depends on how you play it, I guess. For example, if your character is a Giovanni, you could essentially play a detective story with the skills that you have. Looking for clues and stuff, solving cases. No need for combat at all, at least not in the slugfest sense that D&D has us accustomed to.

 

[m7600]

The game continues. New list of questions, for all participants. This time it's not "true or false", it's instead "agree or disagree". Indicate if you agree or not, and explain why (or why not).

1) Latin America is not a continent. It's a group of people that speak a language that evolved from Medieval Latin. That's why it includes Spanish (i.e., Argentina), Portuguese (i.e., Brazil), and French (i.e., French Guiana). The country of Suriname, formerly the Dutch Guiana, is not part of Latin America, since their official language is Dutch. The French part of Canada, on the other hand, would indeed be part of Latin America, since they speak French, and French evolved from Latin. To speak of "Latin America" as if it were a region is like talking about "Anglo-Saxon America" as a region, it kinda makes no sense. Agree or disagree?

2) Central America, if it exists, is a region, not a continent. The only continents of the Americas are: North America and South America. Those are the continents. Everything else is just regions and countries and, in some cases, colonies (French Guiana, for example). Agree or disagree?

3) Mexico is physically located in the continent of North America. It is therefore part of North America, in the same sense that Canada and the United States are. Agree or disagree?

4) Central America, together with the Caribbean, is physically, geographically, part of North America. After all, Mexico is indeed part of North America in that sense, so why would the other countries in Central America be an exception? Agree or disagree?

Cheers ,
-m.

P.S.: How's everyone liking the game so far? Makes no sense to play it (or even read it) if you're not having fun.

 

[JustKneller]

1) Agree. I would label it a (inaccurate) cultural designation, if anything.
2) Agree.
3) Geographically, sure. Culturally, no.
4) (Dis)agree? The Caribbean is weird. Puerto Rico is North America, Aruba is South America, and so on. The other Central American countries are geographically part of North America, but just geographically.

P.S. It's making me think. Despite the fact that we're not talking about game design, it's helping me with my current project and I just had a major breakthrough a few days ago on a major design problem that is now solved. If we keep this up, the game will be done in no time!

 

[m7600]

P.S. It's making me think.

Good. That's one of the specific objectives of Philosophical Musings: A Forum Game. The general objective is to have fun. And, as I told you in a PM, another one of the specific objectives of this game is for the players (and the readers) to make up their minds about a given philosophical issue.

 

[m7600]

@Black Elk , would you like to give it a shot? Answer the four new questions about Geography, please. (Or not, its up to you).

 

[m7600]

Despite the fact that we're not talking about game design,

Who says we're not? Here's a statement (I do not endorse it myself, I think it's false) for you to make up your mind on:

5) "Metaphorically speaking, Reality itself feels like a rigged game of Chess."

True or false? And why?

 

[JustKneller]

False. Chess is quite simple and objective. Reality is relative. It's why both terms share most of the same letters. Of course, it would share fewer letters if we were talking in Spanish (realidad vs. relativo), but that really only supports my thesis.