How old is the Far Realm?

[Celebrim]

Where's the : popcorn : smiley when he's needed?!

I once had an argument with a philosophy professor in which I said something like, "Surely you must conceed that if we accept the evidence of our senses, brick walls are solid."

And the professor smiled and said, "No I don't. I don't have to concede anything."

"Ahh," I thought, "Yes, there is always that." You can bust your nose on the wall, but you don't have to concede you bust your nose on the wall.

You can suggest that the fact that balance checks are not normally thrown when walking on level ground is an obvious counterexample that shows that things that are merely color are not impotent, but that doesn't actually make it a counterexample. If I must make 'obvious' why, its because a) 'level ground' isn't merely color, its also statement about the mechanics of the ground (we know its level because it doesn't provoke balance checks), b) the non-mechanical situation of this doesn't prove the potence of the non-mechanical situation, but rather the opposite (the level ground is powerless to cause the characters to fall), just as the example of the earthquake demonstrates that when we want something to have real 'force' in the game system, we give it a rule (this is by definition, since it is a rule because it defines a situation and a consequence, and if it didn't, it wouldn't be a rule), and c) things for which there are not mechanics to tend be driven from the game in the 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind' fashion. If you don't provide the option via a mechanic, in practice the players (DM's and players) generally do not consider them to be options. And by certain strict conceptions of 'Rule 0' (or it's explicit absence), they are right.

It is possible to role play without rules, but its impossible to have a role playing game without rules. Things that are color can be a part of roleplay in the sense that you can speak about them in character and that they influence the metaplay (how DM's and players choose to act when in character), but they are never a part of the game (except that color is part of the game because roleplaying is part of a role playing game). They have been relegated to color.

 

[Ripzerai]

It is possible to role play without rules, but its impossible to have a role playing game without rules.

In the context of this thread, it seems we're defining rules as numerical qualities assigned to various characteristics of a character.

It should be obvious, however, that these are not the only kinds of rules that can define a game. Some RPGs use variants of "rock, paper, scissors" to determine the outcomes of in-game contests, for example.

So what is a rule? Ultimately, it's any agreed-upon standard. If the DM says "you get past the monster if you can speak persuasively enough to satisfy me," that's a rule. It's arbitrary and perhaps a bit "unfair," but no one can claim it's not a rule, and it'd be difficult to claim that wasn't a game.

If the DM says, "I'll make up a story hook and then you continue on with the story in any direction you want, with no limit," that's a rule, too. And if there's role-playing involved, that's an RPG.

It may indeed be impossible to have an RPG without rules (if only because we are a species that creates rules as naturally as breathing), but it seems like that's not really what's at issue here. In the context of the ongoing conversation, the question is whether a character needs to be assigned numerical traits (or pips, or an element that can always be beaten by another element) in order to exist within the game.

If the game (any game) is defined by its rules, then it's axiomatic that only those things covered in some way by some sort of rules will exist within the game proper. This is an article of faith; we may choose to believe that a game is defined solely by its rules, and if so then the rest of the statement follows from that.

It's inarguable that the rules are what give a game definition, but that's not the same thing as the rules being the sole definers of what is and what is not part of the game. I would actually argue that considering only the rule skeleton to be part of the game is a myopic way of looking at things. It's like arguing that because a sandwich is defined by two slices of bread, the fillings are not part of the sandwich.

I would instead suggest that although rules give definition to the game, the entire experience of game play is equally part of the whole, and it cannot be divided as neatly into elements that are part of the game and elements that are not.

 

[Sejs]

Were I to use the Far Realms in my game, Far Realms outsiders trapped here would make mention of great lords (like Cthullu does), but have that be an artifact of their minds (or whatever far realm equivalent there may be) getting warped by our incomprehensible reality.

That's actually very similar to what I do in my games: Sufficiently Big far realms beings really don't like being here. We have a very bounded, defined reality and they're beings of endless embodied potential. Being forced into so narrow a focus is antithetical to them. It's painful in the extreme. By their very nature they arn't just one thing, they're many things simultaneously and all equally valid. Being One Thing is nonsensical, irritating, and sad to them.

"You mean I have to only be in one place at a given time, and that if I die in a given temporal reference then that's it forever? Pfft, bugger that. How could you even stand to live like that?"

Little things that have less ... existential inertia ... are able to adapt to life on our side of the lens. Mind Flayers, aboleths, etc. But the really big fish? Don't want anything to do with us directly. We're a grain of sand in the panties. Irritating but inconsequential.

 

[Joshua Randall]

You can suggest that the fact that balance checks are not normally thrown when walking on level ground [...]

Hey, man, watch your attributions. I haven't suggested anything; I'm just a not-so-innocent bystander provoking you and Nifft (and others I guess) to continue this argument.

I have no horse in this race.

I do think you should fork off a new thread, though, if you're going to get into a good ol' down and dirty philosophy-of-game-rules argument. This thread is for discussion of the Far Realms.

 

[Celebrim]

Hey, man, watch your attributions.

Actually, the problem was a failure to watch my pronouns. In English, 'you' is often used casually when the intended meaning is 'one' - perhaps because when you say something like, "One can suggest that the fact that balance checks are not normally..."

I didn't actually intend 'you' to mean you particularly, but the reader generally. Sorry for the confusion.

I do think you should fork off a new thread, though, if you're going to get into a good ol' down and dirty philosophy-of-game-rules argument. This thread is for discussion of the Far Realms.

I thought virtually everyone in the thread was refusing to discuss the far realms with alot of stuff which amounted to 'the far realms are undiscussable and anyone that thinks otherwise isn't as sophisticated as I am' and which looked very much like, please pardon this, group-think. I thought I'd bring a fresh stench of dissent into what was a rather stale predictable thread by suggesting that the far realms could be discussed in very concrete terms and would have to be if you intend to go beyond the far realms as a distant plot device.

I haven't even got to my main point yet. This is a step or two before it.

 

[Sejs]

My fingers keep wanting to call it the "Farm Realm" >_<

I thought virtually everyone in the thread was refusing to discuss the far realms with alot of stuff which amounted to 'the far realms are undiscussable and anyone that thinks otherwise isn't as sophisticated as I am' and which looked very much like, please pardon this, group-think.

That knife cuts both ways, though. Standing as the sole beacon of enlightenment amidst the ignorant dark simply because your opinion is different doesn't hold water either. Validity and justification has nothing to do with what the other guy thinks.

I thought I'd bring a fresh stench of dissent into what was a rather stale predictable thread by suggesting that the far realms could be discussed in very concrete terms and would have to be if you intend to go beyond the far realms as a distant plot device.

It didn't seem that way. A large part of the issue with the Far Realms is that many of its particular features would be supremely difficult-to-nigh impossible to formulate into mechanics, and it's that way by design. It's supposed to be very difficult for the mortal mind to grasp. How do you cook up rules for things that break certain fundamental laws? Rules for co-existing planar layers, branching and independent temporality, or correspondence point distance relations? Saying "He's 5 squares away, but it's actually your square, and every square because location is an illusion and all matter exists at the same point" is kind of hard to wrap a PHB around.

However, right out of the gates, your point didn't seem to be that it could be discussed in concrete terms, but rather your second point of if it can't then it is therefore worthless.

The contention rests on dismissing it as 'only usable as a distant plot device'. That's entirely up to the DM. If I have an Alienist BBEG whose lair is a cyst of exchange between the Far Realm and here, who uses the highly morphic nature of that place to his advantage, who if you kill he's okay because that's just one him here and he's split into several hims there - that's all ways in which the Far Realm can touch the game in a very tangible way.

I haven't even got to my main point yet. This is a step or two before it.

Do tell. We're all ears.

 

[Celebrim]

That knife cuts both ways, though.

Oh sure. Being a dissident is not enherently better than being part of a crowd.

Standing as the sole beacon of enlightenment amidst the ignorant dark simply because your opinion is different doesn't hold water either. Validity and justification has nothing to do with what the other guy thinks.

I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning.

A large part of the issue with the Far Realms is that many of its particular features would be supremely difficult-to-nigh impossible to formulate into mechanics, and it's that way by design. It's supposed to be very difficult for the mortal mind to grasp. How do you cook up rules for things that break certain fundamental laws? Rules for co-existing planar layers, branching and independent temporality, or correspondence point distance relations? Saying "He's 5 squares away, but it's actually your square, and every square because location is an illusion and all matter exists at the same point" is kind of hard to wrap a PHB around.

That's kinda where I was going with this, but along a completely different tack.

However, right out of the gates, your point didn't seem to be that it could be discussed in concrete terms, but rather your second point of if it can't then it is therefore worthless.

Worthless? Let me check. Did I use that word? Because if I used that word it must have been momentary insanity. *checking* No, I didn't use that word. I suggested that without stats its possible impact on the game was very limited, that it was impotent, and that it its interactivity was minimized. But even so, it might well be far from worthless. After all...

The contention rests on dismissing it as 'only usable as a distant plot device'.

...there is nothing worthless about a good plot device.

That's entirely up to the DM. If I have an Alienist BBEG whose lair is a cyst of exchange between the Far Realm and here, who uses the highly morphic nature of that place to his advantage, who if you kill he's okay because that's just one him here and he's split into several hims there - that's all ways in which the Far Realm can touch the game in a very tangible way.

So, does this Alienist BBEG have stats? Because it sounds to me that with that example, you've conceeded to me the whole argument.

Do tell. We're all ears.

But I only have one voice, so its takes a while to speak to all of you.