Quote from: Premier;881513(because honestly, when was the last time a bunch of PCs paid a toll to the King's toll collector for using the King's road? - THAT would be a medieval game);

where having the strength and cunning to lay your hands on a chest of gold means that from that point onwards, everybody acknowledges you as the gold's owner in every possible legal and extralegal sense of the word.

1: been there, payed that.

2: Hate to burst your bubble. But there are times when someone can and will contest your hanging onto treasure that was theirs. Such as the PCs taking out the local thieves guild and collecting all the stolen loot. Even Hoard of the Dragon Queen has this to a small extent.

Quote from: Bren;881500If you had confined yourself to commenting on Dee's understanding of angels or on Medieval beliefs in general there would be little for us to disagree about. But instead you have repeatedly mischaracterized what I said. And  you have done so at length. When challenged on this you to failed to provide any evidence whatsoever to support the statements and beliefs that you have falsely attributed to me. You are arguing in bad faith. If this is an example of your ability as an historian, you really shouldn't give up your job as a game designer.

You've consistently misrepresented what I say,  you mean. You've kept trying to paint this as me trying to claim medieval magic is objectively real, when what I was saying has nothing to do with that.

Quote from: Premier;881513Well, yes. I think lots of people fail to realise that at its core, in terms of its basic worldbuilding and gameplay assumptions, Gygaxian D&D is not in any way a "medieval" (or renaissance) game. Not even an ahistorical medieval one.

What it really is is a 19th century Wild West game as interpreted through the lens of a sort of idealised 20th century libertarianism. It's a game of 9th level Randian superheroes rising above the masses of 0 level social leeches by virtue of their superior abilities and ruthlessness and piss on established social structures from high on (because honestly, when was the last time a bunch of PCs paid a toll to the King's toll collector for using the King's road? - THAT would be a medieval game); where having the strength and cunning to lay your hands on a chest of gold means that from that point onwards, everybody acknowledges you as the gold's owner in every possible legal and extralegal sense of the word. Equating the PCs ability to acquire riches with their objective advancement is very much this, and very much NOT anything medieval.

Of course, the Pundit will now correct me because it's supposed to be Objectivism and not libertarianism, or somesuch.

Well no, I'll correct you by saying that's an overly simplistic analysis of D&D.  D&D is based on a LOT of influences. Of course the real middle ages was one influence; as was medieval wargaming, and sci-fi/fantasy. But movies/books/comics from the '30s to the '60s about knights and robin hood and king arthur and even Sinbad and such were also an influence. And obviously American culture and history. And the heroic journey, though I doubt Gygax was consciously informed by Joseph Campbell or anything like that.

D&D is really a big old mishmash.  I think you are reading far too much into the simple formula of 1gp=1xp. I'm pretty sure that was just because of a gamifying quality: you need to go up in level, how do we judge it? By the win  conditions of the game: kill monsters, get treasure.

Also, Dark Albion has tolls and historically-accurate taxation. So if that's what you want, you should check it out!

Quote from: RPGPundit;881636Well no, I'll correct you by saying that's an overly simplistic analysis of D&D.  D&D is based on a LOT of influences. Of course the real middle ages was one influence; as was medieval wargaming, and sci-fi/fantasy. But movies/books/comics from the '30s to the '60s about knights and robin hood and king arthur and even Sinbad and such were also an influence. And obviously American culture and history. And the heroic journey, though I doubt Gygax was consciously informed by Joseph Campbell or anything like that.

D&D is really a big old mishmash.  I think you are reading far too much into the simple formula of 1gp=1xp. I'm pretty sure that was just because of a gamifying quality: you need to go up in level, how do we judge it? By the win  conditions of the game: kill monsters, get treasure.

* applause *
* applause hell, standing ovation! *

The other reason to give PCs an incentive to gather gold is so they can build their castle and armies.  Written by wargamers for wargamers; once everybody hits name level and has their stronghold and their army and their lands, now the wargame campaign starts.  Give a bunch of wargamers armies and castles and fiefs and wars WILL happen.

Quote from: RPGPundit;881633You've consistently misrepresented what I say,  you mean. You've kept trying to paint this as me trying to claim medieval magic is objectively real, when what I was saying has nothing to do with that.

It's not misrepresentation to point out what you have said and to quote what you actually said. You said Medieval Europe was full of magic and monsters, that people really saw animals talk and women have sex with the devil, and that John Dee talked to angels that he summoned using a complex system of magic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;874231This is not exactly right.  Medieval Europe was always a fantasy world full of magic and monsters.

Quote from: RPGPundit;874943To the people involved the witches REALLY DID EXIST. They weren't all just going around being all tongue-in-cheek about it. They really thought that witches were cursing them, ruining their crops, plotting against the king, and what's more they had really seen animals talk or women having sex with the devil in the woods.

You used the words "really saw." You could have said, "claimed they saw" or more neutrally "reported they saw" but you chose to say "really saw" which seems to be making a claim about reality.

How would your wording differ if you were really claiming that the things they "really saw" were really real?

You also said and continue to echo this bit of bullshit.

Quote from: RPGPundit;876323I think you're seeing an ambiguity that isn't there, because the language I'm using doesn't fit your own personal dogmas, and the whole thing is an inconvenient reality for you.
You still desperately want to pretend that the entire medieval world were just trolling us down through the ages and couldn't possibly have been serious about this. Which, frankly, is something only a moron could allow himself to be led by his inept personal dogmas to believe.

You are, in other words, making a faith-based argument here.

Except that I have not said nor have I implied that the entire medieval world were lying about their beliefs. Nor have I said that most of them were lying about their beliefs. Nor do I believe that most or all of the medieval world lied about their beliefs.

Despite this, you continue to misrepresent my statements and mischaracterize my beliefs. Why is that?

Quote from: Bren;881745It's not misrepresentation to point out what you have said and to quote what you actually said. You said Medieval Europe was full of magic and monsters, that people really saw animals talk and women have sex with the devil, and that John Dee talked to angels that he summoned using a complex system of magic.

No, I didn't. I said that to the people in it, medieval europe was already full of magic and monsters, talking animals, devil-sex and angelic conversations.

QuoteYou used the words "really saw."

You conveniently ignore the part that says "to the people involved".

QuoteYou could have said, "claimed they saw" or more neutrally "reported they saw" but you chose to say "really saw" which seems to be making a claim about reality.

No, because to them it wasn't a 'claim'. It was something self-evident.
If one of us today saw a devil coming through a window, we would immediately doubt the experience. Even if you were nominally Christian, you would doubt it. Even if you were strongly Christian, today in the 21st century, you would have a hint of doubt. That's because the 21st century paradigm puts a strong emphasis on saying "there is absolutely no such thing as devils", and this is so powerful it subconsciously superimposes itself even on the most religious people in the west (you'd have to go somewhere operating on a totally different paradigm, like Africa, to get someone who really wouldn't experience that hint of doubt).   Even if you're an evangelical pastor, some part of you would be thinking you're drugged, or insane, or having a stroke, or any number of other possible things before the presence of an actual devil coming through your window.
Someone in the medieval paradigm would have no doubt at all, because it was an accepted part of reality.

QuoteHow would your wording differ if you were really claiming that the things they "really saw" were really real?

I would have said: "that's because these things really DO exist! There really are demons and magic and angels and talking animals just like the medieval people thought"!

QuoteExcept that I have not said nor have I implied that the entire medieval world were lying about their beliefs. Nor have I said that most of them were lying about their beliefs. Nor do I believe that most or all of the medieval world lied about their beliefs.

Despite this, you continue to misrepresent my statements and mischaracterize my beliefs. Why is that?

Maybe because you seem to also believe that I keep trolling this thread.  Maybe because you are VERY CLEARLY allowing your personal prejudices to warp your most basic capacity to understand what we're talking about.  Pretty much exactly the way fanatical religious believers do. No real surprise there.

So when you say, someone "really saw" something, you don't mean they really saw that thing they said they saw and you don't mean the thing they said they saw really existed. What you mean is that they really thought they saw the thing they said they saw? Well you certainly have an odd and roundabout way of speaking and I'm glad you cleared that up.

We can agree that many medieval people who said they saw things, really thought they saw the things they said they saw. I never said or thought otherwise and that was not a point I ever contested.

Quote from: RPGPundit;882145Maybe because you seem to also believe that I keep trolling this thread.

Well you have continued to misattribute statements and beliefs to me that I haven't said and don't believe. You've yet to retract or support those claims. If you want to call that trolling, I won't disagree.

Quote from: Bren;881745It's not misrepresentation to point out what you have said and to quote what you actually said. You said Medieval Europe was full of magic and monsters, that people really saw animals talk and women have sex with the devil, and that John Dee talked to angels that he summoned using a complex system of magic.

 
You used the words "really saw." You could have said, "claimed they saw" or more neutrally "reported they saw" but you chose to say "really saw" which seems to be making a claim about reality.

How would your wording differ if you were really claiming that the things they "really saw" were really real?

Bren, I'm curious on your stance on this metaphysical position: Do Words/Symbols have eternal abstract meanings, or does meaning depend entirely on the totality of context?

I'm seeing two paradigms completely talk past each other, and it had me curious. Thank you for any response.

Your arguing has drawn a wandering monster.

Roll reaction time.

Quote from: Telarus;882159Bren, I'm curious on your stance on this metaphysical position: Do Words/Symbols have eternal abstract meanings, or does meaning depend entirely on the totality of context?

Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things." In general, I agree with Protagoras.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;882161Your arguing has drawn a wandering monster.

Damn it!

QuoteRoll reaction time.

You can't fool me. There is no such thing as reaction time in OD&D. But I rolled for surprise and I wasn't surprised.

Quote from: Bren;882166Protagoras said, "Man is the measure of all things." In general, I agree with Protagoras.

Damn it!

You can't fool me. There is no such thing as reaction time in OD&D. But I rolled for surprise and I wasn't surprised.

Reaction time is my house rule.  

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;882171Reaction time is my house rule.  

:hmm: Well then, I rolled a great reaction time. Obviously since I'm posting, a much better reaction time than Pundit, who is monster chow by now.

Correct; you're attacked by a monster Chow, a little poofy dog enlarged to be six feet tall at the shoulder.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;882176Correct; you're attacked by a monster Chow, a little poofy dog enlarged to be six feet tall at the shoulder.

A six foot tall Chow with a pipe. Yes I can see that. I retreat down the passage as I toss oil on the Chow dousing his poofy fur. Then I chuckle to myself as his lit pipe ignites the oil.

I toss caltrops behind me as I run away faster than the dwarf in my party.

Quote from: Bren;882178A six foot tall Chow with a pipe. Yes I can see that. I retreat down the passage as I toss oil on the Chow dousing his poofy fur. Then I chuckle to myself as his lit pipe ignites the oil.

I toss caltrops behind me as I run away faster than the dwarf in my party.

As the party Dwarf, I say this:  "CHOKE ON MY HAIRY ASS, YOU FLEA INFESTED BEASTIE!"  And promptly get eaten.