Quote from: Phillip;462550Exalted is so far the only actual example you have presented, so it is a wonder how you managed to get your presentation so 'inverted'. For that matter, you are so unreliable that I see no reason to take your word as to Exalted.

You're a very funny little  man.  Every post you've  made on this thread so far has been a pointless and meaningless contradiction, and not even of my central argument but always trying to side-step it by trying to question some secondary detail.  If it was starting to frustrate you that I wasn't biting at your little goads, its because they were so pointless that I just chose to ignore them, as I probably will continue to do so if you go on in this way in the future.  And the longer this thread gets, the more silly your claims become as it becomes blatantly obvious that enough people can get what I'm talking about and discuss it (in agreement with me or not) that anyone claiming "this is not a real thing" just looks more and more like an idiot.

RPGPundit

Meanwhile, I think this thread has finally helped me to formulate what it is that bothers me about this kind of thing.  Its that its clearly information meant for the READER.  Its interesting to the dilettante who is reading the book, and nothing more.  It serves no meaningful purpose for the GM as it has no bearing to the game he will run in that world (you could argue that he could MAKE it relevant by directly breaking the concept of this knowledge being "lost forever", introducing some remnant from ancient times, whatever; but that's beside the point; the GM could do that by himself with ANY fantasy world), and it certainly is of no relevance or use to the PCs playing in the game.

So its something that is there for the non-gamer, essentially.

RPGPundit

I think this is a matter of taste.  Some of my favorite fantasy worlds for gaming include Harn and Middle Earth - and both of these have tons of details that are not directly relevant to the PCs.  I don't think that this background necessarily detracts from adventuring - and could help give a sense of depth to the world.

Quote from: RPGPundit;462708Every post you've  made on this thread so far has been a pointless and meaningless contradiction, and not even of my central argument but always trying to side-step it by trying to question some secondary detail.

You have yet to demonstrate that you have any such thing as a central argument. You contradict yourself at every turn!

Assuming you are correct about Exalted, you nonetheless remain incorrect about Tekumel and Jorune. Furthermore, Exalted apparently is not what you referred to in the first place.

If the question about Exalted is why Creation is supposed to be in our own past, then I think an obvious answer is that it is supposed in some way to be a commentary on our present. That is the reason for such placement in mythologies all over the world, and at the very least it evokes those mythologies and their meanings for us. I would expect that reading Exalted materials might illuminate one as to the uses of the theme that the designers had in mind.

The bottom line is that a game is for the players.

AD&D players may enjoy finding a Sherman tank in Baba Yaga's Hut even if the characters cannot recognize it. Players in Mystara may likewise enjoy learning the connections between (IIRC) a nuclear power plant and an immortal and certain far-reaching factors in the world.

The enjoyment, for me, with such settings is that I like there to be some sort of rational coherence to the setting... a logic behind it. Having a science background I try to give a bit of thought to how things might work in line with actual physics... are there 'dragons'? How are there 'dragons'? Do they fly? How?... how did the culture would evolve in the face of some of the creatures/powers available? Where is this place and how did it get this way?
Going through that (enjoyable) thought process generates a LOT more detail than just saying, "It's a world of MAGIC!" and leaving it at that... and, for me at least, ends up with something closer to the science fiction end of the continuum.

To my mind it makes the whole affair easier to run adventures in... answer off the cuff questions in a consistent way... and also generates all sorts of odd stuff I might not have dreamed up from a purely fantastical approach.
There are a lot of details that won't come into actual play... but they're there, behind the scenes... giving color and support to actual play.

I run a setting better when I can suspend my disbelief.

Quote from: Simlasa;462740The enjoyment, for me, with such settings is that I like there to be some sort of rational coherence to the setting... a logic behind it. Having a science background I try to give a bit of thought to how things might work in line with actual physics... are there 'dragons'? How are there 'dragons'? Do they fly? How?

...

I run a setting better when I can suspend my disbelief.

Whenever I've tried to think of fantasy/sci-fi stuff in a scientific context (ie. known physics, chemistry, etc ...), I frequently have a hard time suspending disbelief.

Whenever I played or DM an rpg game, I ended up discarding away any pretense of scientific explanations.  It largely becomes an exercise in futility in coming up with plausible scientific explanations.

Quote from: Phillip;462674"I could have told you that at Poughkeepsie." Wasn't that a Le Guin criticism of the diction of Katherine Kurtz?

Now, none of this has I think very much to do with RPGs.

She was specifically discussing the language of fantasy, it wasn't the diction it was the statement itself.  A major point of the essay in question "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" was that such recriminations and fault finding are particularly glaring in fantasy.  She wasn't ragging on Kurtz at all, but it had been the comment that made a concept click for her that led to the essay.  Essentially: heroes don't say "I told you so."

What does any discussion of the literary structure of the fantasy genre have to do with rpgs?  Seriously?

Quote from: ggroy;462745Whenever I played or DM an rpg game, I ended up discarding away any pretense of scientific explanations.  It largely becomes an exercise in futility in coming up with plausible scientific explanations.

It would if I was determined to keep the outer trappings of the standard fantasy setting... castles and orcs and dragons... but if I want to keep... say, the idea of dragons... big critters that can fly and belch flame and are ancient and horde gold... but otherwise don't mind changing them to make them more plausible... then I end up with some wild new critter who lives in that niche instead. Then I set about thinking how castles would evolved to deal with them...

I'm not saying my results are scientifically rigorous... just that, in the end, they end up weird/interesting... a bit more complex... and closer to science fiction than 'pure' fantasy... and bypass my handicap of HATING the, "Because it's MAGIC!" explanation for why stupid things exist in fantasy settings (or at least the way that explanation is often put to use).

Quote from: Simlasa;462750"Because it's MAGIC!" explanation for why stupid things exist in fantasy settings (or at least the way that explanation is often put to use).

Whenever I was DMing a D&D game in recent times (ie. 3.5E, 4E, 4E Essentials, etc ...), I ended up falling into this default "because it's magic" explanation.

I didn't see any point anymore in coming up with scientific explanations, when the players just took everything written in the D&D books at face value (for purposes of the game).

It would be different if I was designing my own rpg game and/or original setting.

Quote from: Phillip;462734AD&D players may enjoy finding a Sherman tank in Baba Yaga's Hut even if the characters cannot recognize it. Players in Mystara may likewise enjoy learning the connections between (IIRC) a nuclear power plant and an immortal and certain far-reaching factors in the world.

Yes, and if it happens in-game, great, then its something practical.

But I'm talking about those settings where it doesn't.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;462709Meanwhile, I think this thread has finally helped me to formulate what it is that bothers me about this kind of thing.  Its that its clearly information meant for the READER.  Its interesting to the dilettante who is reading the book, and nothing more.  It serves no meaningful purpose for the GM as it has no bearing to the game he will run in that world (you could argue that he could MAKE it relevant by directly breaking the concept of this knowledge being "lost forever", introducing some remnant from ancient times, whatever; but that's beside the point; the GM could do that by himself with ANY fantasy world), and it certainly is of no relevance or use to the PCs playing in the game.

So its something that is there for the non-gamer, essentially.

RPGPundit

I think you have that right. However:

Quote from: RPGPundit;462927Yes, and if it happens in-game, great, then its something practical.

But I'm talking about those settings where it doesn't.

RPGPundit

I'm still not clear on what actual settings you mean. I can't speak to Jorune, but as has already been stated, it isn't true for Tekumel.

(Not trying to be snarky, here -- I honestly can't think of a setting like the one you're describing.)

It seems like most detailed settings have information that is not likely to come up in-game, secrets and histories ... unless it's purposefully focused on by the folks playing it and the GM chooses to go there.
What difference if those unused bits are magical or scifi elements... except to inform the general themes of the game and give a clue to developing the blank spaces?
Or am I missing something, as usual...?
Mr. Pundit's gripe is not clear to me.

Quote from: Simlasa;462930It seems like most detailed settings have information that is not likely to come up in-game, secrets and histories ... unless it's purposefully focused on by the folks playing it and the GM chooses to go there.
What difference if those unused bits are magical or scifi elements... except to inform the general themes of the game and give a clue to developing the blank spaces?
Or am I missing something, as usual...?
Mr. Pundit's gripe is not clear to me.

Well, I think it's similar to the complaint I have about the Big Secret at the core of SLA Industries: if the secret (supposedly) has no impact on the setting, and the players can't ever discover it, why have the secret?

(Of course, in the case of SLA, the Big Secret's even kept from the GM, making it even dumber.)

I just can't think of a game that keeps the sci-fi origin of a fantasy world totally secret and completely irrelevant.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut I'm talking about those settings where it doesn't.

Try talking about one, with a name and other particulars.

Quote from: Dan DavenportI just can't think of a game that keeps the sci-fi origin of a fantasy world totally secret and completely irrelevant.

Clearly, you are not alone.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;462931I just can't think of a game that keeps the sci-fi origin of a fantasy world totally secret and completely irrelevant.

Neither can I.
I can see it not coming up, not being known/discovered by PCs... but remaining relevant to what happens... the way you can't see a man's bones but they still define much of his form.

The 'SLA' form of 'truth' seems to be more like design notes... where the author mentions that the inspiration for his new King Arthur game came to him during a daydream about Mr. Potato Head.