Quote from: CRKrueger;979227Just curious Zak, would you call a novel nihilistic because the characters and world depicted in the novels are fiction?  It seems like you're getting into the area of something like "anything not real is by objective definition nihilistic" (that's my quote, I'm not claiming you said it), which I think is why some people are balking at your definition.
.

I don't care. I'm talking about a game. The game happens to fit every definition of the word.

Wouldn't that make every piece of entertainment nihilistic?

Usually when people apply the phrase to some sort of fiction or entertainment it's because that work actively pushes that viewpoint about the world.

Quote from: Zak S;979245The monsters don't obey the player's principles .

You can believe in whatever you want, if you end up in an owlbear's belly, it all came to nothing and Jesus didn't save you.

If you break your principles, and yet you still level up, Jesus didn't punish you.

What if a GM does have Hieroneous punish you, by taking away your Paladin powers because you didn't live up to your religious principles?

Or what if Hieroneous, because you are perfectly exemplifying those principles, does save you?

Quote from: Zak S;979246I don't care. I'm talking about a game. The game happens to fit every definition of the word.

Ok, but wouldn't you agree that a definition to be useful has to actually be true for everything that matches "every definition of the word?"

If novels fit that definition but are not nihilistic, yet roleplaying games fit that definition and are nihilistic, than that definition is not useful as it is being applied.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;979248Wouldn't that make every piece of entertainment nihilistic?

Usually when people apply the phrase to some sort of fiction or entertainment it's because that work actively pushes that viewpoint about the world.

It's not clear in your question what sentence or idea the word "that" is referring to.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979250What if a GM does have Hieroneous punish you, by taking away your Paladin powers because you didn't live up to your religious principles?

Or what if Hieroneous, because you are perfectly exemplifying those principles, does save you?

If that logic extends to the whole of the game (as the explicitly Christian D&D competitors of the 80s attempted to do--i dunno if they succeeded) then the game then has a philosophy. I know of no extant D&D product where this is so, though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;979253Ok, but wouldn't you agree that a definition to be useful has to actually be true for everything that matches "every definition of the word?"

If novels fit that definition but are not nihilistic, yet roleplaying games fit that definition and are nihilistic, than that definition is not useful as it is being applied.

We don't know which definition of "nihilistic" the dork on page one was referring to--because, like most dorks, he was just pissing in the pool and didn't really have a coherent thing he was saying, so he didn't stick around to answer questions, he isn't intelligent enough.

If a novel fits one but not the other, then it may not match whatever the fuck he was on about.

We do know, however, D&D fits both--the first because the end, being open to chance and improvisation and multiple authors, cannot contain a moral lesson. The second because it is fiction.

Depending on which definition the dork meant, any given novel may or may not fit, because the novel is only definitely fiction, thus only fitting the second definition--and yes, the early history of the novel is rife with condemnation from moralizers for being, unlike devotional literature, nihilistic and moral-less. Like drama, the novel grew out of a secularization of what was once a group of moralizing art forms.

Quote from: Zak S;979258If that logic extends to the whole of the game (as the explicitly Christian D&D competitors of the 80s attempted to do--i dunno if they succeeded) then the game then has a philosophy. I know of no extant D&D product where this is so, though.

Fair enough. Neither do I, btw.  I do try to make my campaigns reward or punish the following of religious tenets and principles when the campaign has "Overt Gods" who grant powers, send avatars, etc.  Obviously, that's not appropriate for all campaigns.

Moral principles are a little trickier as usually there is only internal reward or punishments unless you are doing something that should have logical external consequences in the setting, then I try to make sure those consequences occur.

BTW, do you know of any RPGs that you'd say do provide mechanical support for philosophies and religious or moral principles?  Trying to think of some, drawing a blank, maybe Pendragon?

Quote from: Zak S;979259We do know, however, D&D fits both--the first because the end, being open to chance and imporvisation and multiple authors, cannot contain a moral lesson. The second because it is fiction.

Ok, gotcha.

Quote from: Zak S;979259Depending on which definition the dork meant, any given novel may or may not fit, because the novel is only definitely fiction, thus only fitting the second definition--and yes, the early history of the novel is rife with condemnation from moralizers for being, unlike devotional literature, nihilistic and moral-less. Like drama, the novel grew out of a secularization of what was once moralizing art forms.

Yeah, the attacks against moral-less or lesson-less art goes back to ancient greece and probably further.  Aristotle wouldn't have used the term nihilistic, probably Epicurean or "lacking arete" or something, but he might have meant something similar.

In addition to Pendragon there's Dragonraid, a rpg made in the 80s by evangelical Christians as a D&D-like RPG with explicitly moralistic mechanics. Actually sounds like an interesting game, still available to order directly online believe it or not. It looks sincere and was still condemned by the anti-D&D evangelicals.

As does Birthright, as the mechanics of moral reward and punishment of those rulers 'bound to the land' are built into the setting's land (Cerilia) itself. And also Ravenloft, in the classical moral pageant sense (for The Dark Powers of The Mists will intervene on behalf of making sure the Dark Lords shall forever be punished), which is arguably an extant game through 5e.

But now we're on a needlessly far tangent from the usages, and discussed definitional agreement thereupon, for "Nihilism."

Which is a pity because I am more curious about the at-table functionality formatting, a topic we were exploring years ago here with Zak, and now Zak's published something that is getting praise in that vein. I am curious what sort of presentation decisions bantered about here made the cut, and what has been their real world reception (ideally from actual play reports).

I also feel like long, oblique, run-on sentences at this hour, which is probably a sign that I should get sleep...

Quote from: Opaopajr;979270As does Birthright, as the mechanics of moral reward and punishment of those rulers 'bound to the land' are built into the setting's land (Cerilia) itself. And also Ravenloft, in the classical moral pageant sense (for The Dark Powers of The Mists will intervene on behalf of making sure the Dark Lords shall forever be punished), which is arguably an extant game through 5e.

Neither of those products are very thorough about enforcing that morality.

QuoteBut now we're on a needlessly far tangent from the usages, and discussed definitional agreement thereupon, for "Nihilism."

No, it's a good and useful tangent, because it lets everyone know that the people who complained it was "nihilistic" as if that's a bad or rare thing are not intelligent or reliable and so should be blocked and ignored.

QuoteWhich is a pity because I am more curious about the at-table functionality formatting, a topic we were exploring years ago here with Zak, and now Zak's published something that is getting praise in that vein. I am curious what sort of presentation decisions bantered about here made the cut, and what has been their real world reception (ideally from actual play reports).

I also feel like long, oblique, run-on sentences at this hour, which is probably a sign that I should get sleep...

All the play reports about functionality have been basically ecstatic (google "actual play""blue medusa" there's blogs and at least one podcast, plus youtube vids), people like that stuff is repeated so they don't have to flip pages, they like that things are summarized then expanded, that all the creatures are summarized again in the back, and we use all the Vornheim tricks like not letting things spill from one spread to the next, etc.

Book beats pdf though, unfortunately as the book is now out of print and 100some$ on ebay.

My personal criticism is that, functionalitywise, some of the room descriptions are too long because Patrick had written some great stuff and I didn't want to cut it down (though I often rewrote stuff I didn't like). The Red & Pleasant Land format...

-Short Stuff
-With Bullet Points
-If the players do this statements like this in a separate bullet
-If the players do this other thing in another bullet point
-Then Stats

...is my ideal. But there's no point in co-writing with Patrick Stuart if you're not going to let the prose breathe. We did our best.

You'd be right to argue the pictures don't always tell you a lot about the rooms they're in, but on the other hand point to another 300 room dungeon with a picture for every room, and directly on the map.  If 1 out of 10 help you remember "oh THAT room" without having to reread the description then they did more than the pictures for any other megadungeon.

Quote from: Zak SNeither of those products are very thorough about enforcing that morality.

Does Sagas of the Icelanders count? It's all about conforming to* social and genre expectations of the settlers culture of the period, or risking prejudice and curses upon your family. And this is ingrained in the mechanics.

Don't know if it's "enforced" in the way you put it, though. The rules are conscious to those social values and enforce them, but it's possible to challenge them if you will, and even drop them with the passage of time (and the contact with Christianity).

Quote from: Itachi;979284Does Sagas of the Icelanders count? It's all about conforming to* social and genre expectations of the settlers culture of the period, or risking prejudice and curses upon your family. And this is ingrained in the mechanics.

Don't know if it's "enforced" in the way you put it, though. The rules are conscious to those social values and enforce them, but it's possible to challenge them if you will, and even drop them with the passage of time (and the contact with Christianity).

I don't know I never played it.

Quote from: Zak S;979138You're not making any sense at all.

I didn't say ANYTHING about what the imaginary character thought they were doing in the story or what the PC's philosophy is. Thats not relevant at all.

You did say "The life of a D&D character conforms to no religious or moral principles".
Life, for us, is what you make of the things given to you by a "setting" with way more randomizers than the average game. If the characters make it a lesson in following a moral code, then it is a lesson in following a moral code.

QuoteI didn't say a stupid, obviously untrue, simplistic thing like "Characters in games don't believe things". Nobody would ever say that: Clerics and paladins by definition believe things.

Please try to pay more attention before typing.

You got me here - I just assumed you don't have many Paladins in your games, and I shouldn't have;).

QuoteI said a true thing, not a stupid thing:

They could be mormons, they could worship a fish god, they could follow the strictest morality imaginable, it doesn't mean that their life and fate follow that principle.

Like just because my character thinks his fate is the result of a pig goddess' whims or that Faith Will Be Rewarded, the fact is it doesn't at all and he's wrong: his fate is the result of d20 rolls and what players decide. Always. It is the result of no moral or supernatural agency at all.

I'd say that's not what the "life" of the characters is. That's the mechanics governing the outcomes of said life.
But a Righteous Deed isn't any less so if it fails. It's just less likely to end well for the one attempting it.

Arguably, to the best of our knowledge, the fates of RL people don't depend on any ethical or moral philosophies. And yet, if we follow them, we're not called "nihilistic".
Thus the "life" of a fictional character is, by necessity, whatever he did in actual play/on the pages of a novel, along with his motives for doing so. Not even the motives of the player - strictly the character's motives.

QuoteCharacters' fates are determined by whim, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate.

There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives.

That's, to me, akin to saying "the lives of novel characters are determined by the autors' whims, not by moral principle, regardless of what the character thinks determines their fate. There is, therefore, no moral lesson you can draw from their lives."

(I know published authors who used to cast doubt on the "determined by the authors' whims" part, so I don't subscribe to the above for even a minute. But it is a logical conclusion if we accept your approach).

Quote from: Zak S;979245The monsters don't obey the player's principles .

You can believe in whatever you want, if you end up in an owlbear's belly, it all came to nothing and Jesus didn't save you.

If you break your principles, and yet you still level up, Jesus didn't punish you.

Obviously, that was the divine plan all along!
(Or alternatively, it is a consequence of us having Free Will - we might deal with the owlbears, if we're prepared well enough, or fail to do so, if we fail to prepare well enough).

Quote from: Zak S;979256It's not clear in your question what sentence or idea the word "that" is referring to.

"That" is, undoubtedly, "Zak's line of reasoning".

Quote from: Zak S;979258If that logic extends to the whole of the game (as the explicitly Christian D&D competitors of the 80s attempted to do--i dunno if they succeeded) then the game then has a philosophy. I know of no extant D&D product where this is so, though.

So, "D&D is nihilistic", but Fate (and 2d20, arguably) embody the concept of cosmic balance - because for every bad thing that happens to you in those games, you can get a lucky break later:D?

That's a line of reasoning I'd expect from someone who was bashing D&D and trying to promote narrativist systems. Yes, I've read that logic already...on the Forge, in its early days.
I'm genuinely puzzled what you think you're achieving with basically repeating it.

Quote from: Zak S;979259Depending on which definition the dork meant, any given novel may or may not fit, because the novel is only definitely fiction, thus only fitting the second definition--and yes, the early history of the novel is rife with condemnation from moralizers for being, unlike devotional literature, nihilistic and moral-less. Like drama, the novel grew out of a secularization of what was once a group of moralizing art forms.

I haven't posted on the first page, so I assume "the dork" isn't referring to me. But FYI, I'm relating to the first definition you quoted - it's the one I usually mean when I refer to something as "nihilistic".
(And in some cases, I use it to refer to a Russian political movement from the 1860s, but I usually make it clear when that's the case. Now is not one of those cases).

Oh, and the moralizers were, of course, wrong;).