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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dice Fudging and Twist Endings
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8955129" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>See, that's the problem. They are not <em>intentional <strong>untruths</strong>.</em> That is the exact problem. They are intentional, yes. And they do not have <em>literal, physical</em> truth. That does not, therefore, mean they are <em>intentional untruths</em>. That would require, as I have said, the intent to deceive.</p><p></p><p>A story, in general, does not--and in particular a collaborative story can't do that to the people collaborating on it. No one plays D&D thinking it is literally, physically true, which is why the Chick Tracts about D&D are so hilarious. You do agree with this, right? That no one who plays D&D goes into it thinking, "I am LITERALLY, PHYSICALLY Black Leaf the Thief, and <a href="https://www.chick.com/images/tracts/0046/0046_03.gif?" target="_blank">if Black Leaf dies, I AM ALSO DEAD</a>."</p><p></p><p>So, when telling a story, we aren't talking about things that bear literal truth-value. That's perfectly fine; we talk about plenty of things with no <em>literal</em> truth value that have some other form of truth-value. Counter-factual claims, for example, can be true without being literal: "if it rains Monday morning, I will bring my umbrella" remains true even if it happens to be the case that on Monday, it doesn't rain--because it represents intent, regardless of whether that intent bears out. Or a mathematical statement can be abstractly true, such as the four-color theorem (TL;DR: simple maps, with no oceans/lakes/etc. and smooth borders, never require more than 4 colors to make sure all regions have different colors if they're connected by edges.) That's a truth that doesn't actually require there to be any such maps, or indeed any maps at all.</p><p></p><p>Stories, on the other hand, tend to be held to (at least) one of three standards. Either they need to be metaphorically true (representing something, whether it be a physcial thing e.g. a satire of real political persons or an abstract thing like a moral lesson), or they need to be subjectively true (depicting the <em>experience</em> someone has had, even if the actual <em>facts</em> that induce it are unreal), or they need to be at least <em>self-consistently</em> true (depicting something with minimal connection to anything real or abstract, but any "facts" established within the story remain so unless and until a greater understanding reveals that previous "facts" were incomplete or faulty.) A few, like documentaries and textbooks, may be held to the higher standard of literal truth, as they claim to be giving information about real-world events, but these are by far the minority among things people tend to call "stories."</p><p></p><p>Defining "lie" as "anything which is not literally true" is a poor definition of "lie," which does not comport with the way actual people use the term, creates major confusion regarding things like abstract, normative, or subjective/experiential truths, and is nearly guaranteed to get a ton of pushback. If we instead define "lie," as many dictionaries do, as (some variation of) "presenting a knowing falsehood as though it were literally true," we cut out all of that nonsense--but we also, definitionally, find that fiction becomes a third category. It is neither a lie, nor literally true; it is something else entirely, because it doesn't have <em>literal</em> truth-value, it is <em>neither</em> literally true <em>nor</em> literally false because it doesn't have the <em>capacity</em> to bear literal truth-value (most of the time; again, documentaries etc.) Much the same can be said of nonsense phrases: e.g., there is no true answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" if you never beat your wife in the first place (or do not have a wife, etc.) because the question is malformed. Or, "The current King of France is bald," which can be neither true nor false, because there <em>is</em> no "current King of France" to bear or lack the property of baldness. That doesn't make "the current King of France is bald" a <em>lie</em>. It makes it <em>nonsense.</em></p><p></p><p>I don't think stories are entirely <em>nonsense</em> either, because stories almost always serve a purpose--perhaps good, perhaps bad, but some purpose nonetheless. But it would be a significant step up from the utterly incorrect notion that all storytelling is <em>lies</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8955129, member: 6790260"] See, that's the problem. They are not [I]intentional [B]untruths[/B].[/I] That is the exact problem. They are intentional, yes. And they do not have [I]literal, physical[/I] truth. That does not, therefore, mean they are [I]intentional untruths[/I]. That would require, as I have said, the intent to deceive. A story, in general, does not--and in particular a collaborative story can't do that to the people collaborating on it. No one plays D&D thinking it is literally, physically true, which is why the Chick Tracts about D&D are so hilarious. You do agree with this, right? That no one who plays D&D goes into it thinking, "I am LITERALLY, PHYSICALLY Black Leaf the Thief, and [URL='https://www.chick.com/images/tracts/0046/0046_03.gif?']if Black Leaf dies, I AM ALSO DEAD[/URL]." So, when telling a story, we aren't talking about things that bear literal truth-value. That's perfectly fine; we talk about plenty of things with no [I]literal[/I] truth value that have some other form of truth-value. Counter-factual claims, for example, can be true without being literal: "if it rains Monday morning, I will bring my umbrella" remains true even if it happens to be the case that on Monday, it doesn't rain--because it represents intent, regardless of whether that intent bears out. Or a mathematical statement can be abstractly true, such as the four-color theorem (TL;DR: simple maps, with no oceans/lakes/etc. and smooth borders, never require more than 4 colors to make sure all regions have different colors if they're connected by edges.) That's a truth that doesn't actually require there to be any such maps, or indeed any maps at all. Stories, on the other hand, tend to be held to (at least) one of three standards. Either they need to be metaphorically true (representing something, whether it be a physcial thing e.g. a satire of real political persons or an abstract thing like a moral lesson), or they need to be subjectively true (depicting the [I]experience[/I] someone has had, even if the actual [I]facts[/I] that induce it are unreal), or they need to be at least [I]self-consistently[/I] true (depicting something with minimal connection to anything real or abstract, but any "facts" established within the story remain so unless and until a greater understanding reveals that previous "facts" were incomplete or faulty.) A few, like documentaries and textbooks, may be held to the higher standard of literal truth, as they claim to be giving information about real-world events, but these are by far the minority among things people tend to call "stories." Defining "lie" as "anything which is not literally true" is a poor definition of "lie," which does not comport with the way actual people use the term, creates major confusion regarding things like abstract, normative, or subjective/experiential truths, and is nearly guaranteed to get a ton of pushback. If we instead define "lie," as many dictionaries do, as (some variation of) "presenting a knowing falsehood as though it were literally true," we cut out all of that nonsense--but we also, definitionally, find that fiction becomes a third category. It is neither a lie, nor literally true; it is something else entirely, because it doesn't have [I]literal[/I] truth-value, it is [I]neither[/I] literally true [I]nor[/I] literally false because it doesn't have the [I]capacity[/I] to bear literal truth-value (most of the time; again, documentaries etc.) Much the same can be said of nonsense phrases: e.g., there is no true answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" if you never beat your wife in the first place (or do not have a wife, etc.) because the question is malformed. Or, "The current King of France is bald," which can be neither true nor false, because there [I]is[/I] no "current King of France" to bear or lack the property of baldness. That doesn't make "the current King of France is bald" a [I]lie[/I]. It makes it [I]nonsense.[/I] I don't think stories are entirely [I]nonsense[/I] either, because stories almost always serve a purpose--perhaps good, perhaps bad, but some purpose nonetheless. But it would be a significant step up from the utterly incorrect notion that all storytelling is [I]lies[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dice Fudging and Twist Endings
Top