Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why Worldbuilding is Bad
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7396768" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't think I saw anyone make that claim. I thought that [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggested (between them) that (i) quantifying amounts of knowledge is fraught, and that (ii) earlier people were having experiences that triggered cognitive processes and belief formation at something like the same rate as contemporary people.</p><p></p><p>Longer life expectancies might be seen as a factor relevant to (ii), but that would then take as back to (i).</p><p></p><p>When it comes to discussion of changes in how knowledge is generated, accumulated, engaged with by individuals, etc, I'm a great admirer of Weber's discussion in <a href="http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Science-as-a-Vocation.pdf" target="_blank">Science as a Vocation</a>, although I suspect darkbard (and maybe others) would want (at a minimum) to put some qualifications around Weber's own persepctive, which relies upon a ready-to-hand conception of "the savage":</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Scientific progress is a fraction, the most important fraction, of the process of intellectualization which we have been undergoing for thousands of years and which nowadays is usually judged in such an extremely negative way. Let us first clarify what this intellectualist rationalization, created by science and by scientifically oriented technology, means practically.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Does it mean that we, today, for instance, everyone sitting in this hall, have a greater knowledge of the conditions of life under which we exist than has an American Indian or a Hottentot? Hardly. Unless he is a physicist, one who rides on the streetcar has no idea how the car happened to get into motion. And he does not need to know. He is satisfied that he may 'count' on the behavior of the streetcar, and he orients his conduct according to this expectation; but he knows nothing about what it takes to produce such a car so that it can move. The savage knows incomparably more about his tools. When we spend money today I bet that even if there are colleagues of political economy here in the hall, almost every one of them will hold a different answer in readiness to the question: How does it happen that one can buy something for money--sometimes more and sometimes less ? The savage knows what he does in order to get his daily food and which institutions serve him in this pursuit. The increasing intellectualization and rationalization do not, therefore, indicate an increased and general knowledge of the conditions under which one lives.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">It means something else, namely, the knowledge or belief that if one but wished one could learn it at any time. Hence, it means that principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather that one can, in principle, master all things by calculation. This means that the world is disenchanted. One need no longer have recourse to magical means in order to master or implore the spirits, as did the savage, for whom such mysterious powers existed. Technical means and calculations perform the service. This above all is what intellectualization means.</p><p></p><p>Well, I think this aspect of [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s claim - that people believe things they're not aware of believing - was evident as soon as reference was made to <em>unknown knowns</em>.</p><p></p><p>Relating Weber and ideology to worldbuilding in RPGs: I think many fantasy RPG settings are presented in a strangely rationalist fashion. There are accurate maps, accurate conceptions of history and politics, rather unified cultural and linguistic practices, etc. Even Glorantha - which makes a serious attempt at presenting a <em>non</em>-disenchanted world - suffers from this, in the sense of being presented to us in a series of more-or-less logically organised textbooks that document, in rational fashion, the non-rationalistic lives and beliefs of the Gloranthans.</p><p></p><p>How would "worldbuiding" for a fantasy RPG look if it was attempting not just to assert, but to produce an experience of, a non-disenchanted world? It couldn't start with maps and catalogues. It couldn't start with an assumption that the roll of the dice models impersonal causal forces. How would we do it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7396768, member: 42582"] I don't think I saw anyone make that claim. I thought that [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] suggested (between them) that (i) quantifying amounts of knowledge is fraught, and that (ii) earlier people were having experiences that triggered cognitive processes and belief formation at something like the same rate as contemporary people. Longer life expectancies might be seen as a factor relevant to (ii), but that would then take as back to (i). When it comes to discussion of changes in how knowledge is generated, accumulated, engaged with by individuals, etc, I'm a great admirer of Weber's discussion in [url=http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Science-as-a-Vocation.pdf]Science as a Vocation[/url], although I suspect darkbard (and maybe others) would want (at a minimum) to put some qualifications around Weber's own persepctive, which relies upon a ready-to-hand conception of "the savage": [indent]Scientific progress is a fraction, the most important fraction, of the process of intellectualization which we have been undergoing for thousands of years and which nowadays is usually judged in such an extremely negative way. Let us first clarify what this intellectualist rationalization, created by science and by scientifically oriented technology, means practically. Does it mean that we, today, for instance, everyone sitting in this hall, have a greater knowledge of the conditions of life under which we exist than has an American Indian or a Hottentot? Hardly. Unless he is a physicist, one who rides on the streetcar has no idea how the car happened to get into motion. And he does not need to know. He is satisfied that he may 'count' on the behavior of the streetcar, and he orients his conduct according to this expectation; but he knows nothing about what it takes to produce such a car so that it can move. The savage knows incomparably more about his tools. When we spend money today I bet that even if there are colleagues of political economy here in the hall, almost every one of them will hold a different answer in readiness to the question: How does it happen that one can buy something for money--sometimes more and sometimes less ? The savage knows what he does in order to get his daily food and which institutions serve him in this pursuit. The increasing intellectualization and rationalization do not, therefore, indicate an increased and general knowledge of the conditions under which one lives. It means something else, namely, the knowledge or belief that if one but wished one could learn it at any time. Hence, it means that principally there are no mysterious incalculable forces that come into play, but rather that one can, in principle, master all things by calculation. This means that the world is disenchanted. One need no longer have recourse to magical means in order to master or implore the spirits, as did the savage, for whom such mysterious powers existed. Technical means and calculations perform the service. This above all is what intellectualization means.[/indent] Well, I think this aspect of [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION]'s claim - that people believe things they're not aware of believing - was evident as soon as reference was made to [I]unknown knowns[/I]. Relating Weber and ideology to worldbuilding in RPGs: I think many fantasy RPG settings are presented in a strangely rationalist fashion. There are accurate maps, accurate conceptions of history and politics, rather unified cultural and linguistic practices, etc. Even Glorantha - which makes a serious attempt at presenting a [I]non[/I]-disenchanted world - suffers from this, in the sense of being presented to us in a series of more-or-less logically organised textbooks that document, in rational fashion, the non-rationalistic lives and beliefs of the Gloranthans. How would "worldbuiding" for a fantasy RPG look if it was attempting not just to assert, but to produce an experience of, a non-disenchanted world? It couldn't start with maps and catalogues. It couldn't start with an assumption that the roll of the dice models impersonal causal forces. How would we do it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why Worldbuilding is Bad
Top