I've finally figured out why 3rd edition bugs me

[woodelf]

Wrong, in an agnostic setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people can belive in gods is through faith.

My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works.

However, as soon as a group of people who claim to worship gods can do something that nobody else can, the gods *have* revealed themselves. I mean, no, that's not sufficient to prove their existence with logical rigor--all you've definitely proved is that their belief is true, not the object of their belief. However, we have one bit of info the characters don't: the fact that that difference is codified into he reality by the game mechanics.

I think part of our difference here is you seem to be talking about a world without gods, but one where there are actual higher powers of some sort granting the cleric's abilities. I'm talking about a world where it is not clear that there is anything outside of the cleric involved in the cleric's powers--substituting spirits for gods is not sufficient. From my POV, this isn't about divinities, per se, it's about belief vs. reality, and wanting to be able to divorce the two.

 

[Storm Raven]

So you didn't need the integrated background info, and I loved it. 50:50 in the case of us two. How do you think does the relation look like on a larger scale?

Going by my experience (which is of the oh-so-reliable anecdotal type) the bulk of the gamers I have dealt with drew their inspiration for characterization and "fluff" from (non-RPG related) fantasy novels, and only a tiny handful drew theirs from material published in RPG books.

On a more concrete note: has there ever been a role-playing guide that sold well?

 

[fanboy2000]

I think part of our difference here is you seem to be talking about a world without gods, but one where there are actual higher powers of some sort granting the cleric's abilities.

I'm not talking about an intelligence, if that's what you meant.

Let's say magic is a computer. Not just any computer, but a specialized, insane computer that's only mostly predictable. This computer isn't intelegent, it doesn't think. But, it is programed with lots of IF-THEN statemtns that are kinda, sorta, predictable. And it's tapped into nature, the fabric of reality, and the thoughts of everyone in the world. It's similer to the Force in Star Wars, but with out the midi-chlorienes.

In this magic-as-insane-computer world, lots of people have faith in their god(s). People belive in Pelor, Odin, Thor, Snori, whatever with passion. But some of these faithful have powers. They seem to cast spells, like those weirdos who call themselves wizards, or so the sages say. But only some of these faithful can cast these spells. What sets one faithful person from the other? Who knows?

In reality, when someone if someone is hyper-faithful and wants to use the faith to futher the spread of their faith, a subroutine runs in magic that allows that person to cast spells, to access magic. The problem is, because magic is insane and chaotic, no one knows that its really random.

PC clerics always start out being able to cast spells, because their one of the lucky few. NPC clerics are too. This also adds the spice that some peole try to become clerics (or palidins) and can't cast spells and don't gain their first level in cleric. These people are told that their faith wasn't strong enough, and the failed usually belive it. Why else can't they cast spells? Who is ever going to say: "I can't cast spells because it's a random process that only kicks in sometimes?" No one.

I'm talking about a world where it is not clear that there is anything outside of the cleric involved in the cleric's powers--substituting spirits for gods is not sufficient. From my POV, this isn't about divinities, per se, it's about belief vs. reality, and wanting to be able to divorce the two.

Let me get this straight, do you want a world where people automactly think that a cleric is solely responsible for the spells he casts? You want a world where people don't attributes a cleric's spells to what ever divinity he worships? Why don't you just create a culture where that is what the clerics tech and what the people believe? Historicly, the church has done the most educating, so it would work. All the d20 rules really say is that clerics cast spells, it's the Greyhawk setting attached to it that adds in the bit about gods granting them.

 

[woodelf]

I'm not talking about an intelligence, if that's what you meant.

It is not. [more elaboration later]

Let me get this straight, do you want a world where people automactly think that a cleric is solely responsible for the spells he casts? You want a world where people don't attributes a cleric's spells to what ever divinity he worships?

No, because that wouldn't be an agnostic world-setting, that'd be an atheistic one. I want mechanics that support a world where people can argue over whether or not the cleric is channeling a higher being, or whether or not the gods are real and nothing in the mechanics points in one direction or the other. Where the cleric can be convinced that his deity is real, someone else can be convinced that the cleric's deity is a delusion, but his deity is real, and a third person can think that there are no gods--and nothing any of them can do, say, learn, or demonstrate lends any more credence to one POV than to the others. In short, a world like our own, where faith truly is a matter of faith, rather than opinion, much less fact.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Going by my experience (which is of the oh-so-reliable anecdotal type) the bulk of the gamers I have dealt with drew their inspiration for characterization and "fluff" from (non-RPG related) fantasy novels, and only a tiny handful drew theirs from material published in RPG books.

On a more concrete note: has there ever been a role-playing guide that sold well?

Assuming you're talking about a book that tries to "teach" people how to better roleplay and what ingredients go into a well-rounded roleplaying experience, I'd say at least every incarnation of the DM's Guide has sold pretty well
I'm considering your anecdotes to be as reliable as mine, by the way...like the one where two players who were absolutely new to roleplaying, but had read a lot of fantasy literature before, both built an Elric wannabe clone down to the black, soul-sucking sword and the anemia On the other hand I had lots of players who didn't have a clue about fantasy books in the first place, and found the background of one of Mystara's nations inspiring enough to build a character from there. Experiences differ, I'd say

 

[Geron Raveneye]

No, because that wouldn't be an agnostic world-setting, that'd be an atheistic one. I want mechanics that support a world where people can argue over whether or not the cleric is channeling a higher being, or whether or not the gods are real and nothing in the mechanics points in one direction or the other. Where the cleric can be convinced that his deity is real, someone else can be convinced that the cleric's deity is a delusion, but his deity is real, and a third person can think that there are no gods--and nothing any of them can do, say, learn, or demonstrate lends any more credence to one POV than to the others. In short, a world like our own, where faith truly is a matter of faith, rather than opinion, much less fact.

In a way, a faith also is an opinion, don't you think? But to be honest, I don't see the problem here? If you want a world where it's qustionable if it's "only" the gods that grant their priests power, you simply add a budding religion that doesn't draw on any kind of god or god-like figure, or immortal, or whatever, but on a principle, and give those priests just the same power. That way, you have a religion that can constantly claim that gods are nothing but an illusion, and that all that is necessary to be enlightened is a strong faith.
Buddhism would be a great example.

 

[fanboy2000]

I want mechanics that support a world where people can argue over whether or not the cleric is channeling a higher being, or whether or not the gods are real and nothing in the mechanics points in one direction or the other.

Nothing in the 3e mechanics points in one direction or the other.

 

[woodelf]

In a way, a faith also is an opinion, don't you think?

Yes, but i was drawing a distinction between a a belief not based on facts, and one with facts to back it up. At least to me, "opinion" implies a basis in mutually-agreed facts, however interpretive the opinion itself may be. Faith, OTOH, implies to me specifically a belief that is devoid of objective, verifiable factual basis--that's what makes it take faith to believe it. [and, before anybody takes offense: i'm not denegrating either of these in comparison to the other--i consider them different, not better/worse. ]

 

[woodelf]

But we are talking about flavor and personal interpretation here: in other words, something explicitly not part of the rules.

Who's "we"? Seriously, that's exactly my point--that what a flavor-heavy game book brings to the table that a flavor-heavy work of fiction doesn't is that integration. Now, i acknowledge that, for the most part, AD&D2 didn't provide that integration either. But plenty of other games do.

Think of it like this: let's say, for the sake of argument, that you want a magic-item-creation system that is dependent on lots of macguffins, such as newt eyes and roc feathers and all that rot. Mechanically, would you rather have to come up with it given only the D&D3E PH and MM? Or start with something like the power components rules in Unearthed Arcana, or 101 Arcane Components, or the Hacklopedia of Beasts (which lists the useful bits for each creature)?

It's basically the exact same reason, but for a different flavor, as the inclusion of required spells for magic items in the existing D&D rules: the rules always said you needed to know a relevant/related spell, but gave no mechanical bits to match that. So D&D3E added those mechanical bits. Do you consider it "bad fantasy fiction" cluttering up your game rules that each magic item specifies a spell or spells required to create it?

I don't need bad fantasy fiction "tied" to the crunch of a game rule, I have plenty of reasonably good fantasy fiction out there to draw upon for that. I need rules, I can add my own fluff without any real difficulty. I would even argue that most people can add fluff at least as well as most game designers. I don't need to be told how to portray a fantasy character by a game designer, I have hundreds of books on the subject to choose from, which probably cover a range of character types and styles far broader than any "role=playing guide" could hope to do.

Thing is, there's already all sorts of flavor tied to the rules--i'm just suggesting that there could be a multiplicity of flavors, rather than only one.

And, to be clear, i'm not talking about fluff when i talk about flavorful rules--i'm talking about crunch. But i'm talking about the flavor of that crunch, and the degree to which it matches a given set of fluff (or doesn't). Does that make sense? Do you still disagree?

 

[woodelf]

Nothing in the 3e mechanics points in one direction or the other.

A whole set of magic and magical abilities that is labeled "divine", is tied to outer-planar creatures, is explicitly related to gods/higher powers/metaphysical realities (remember, alignment is real in D&D--physical objects react to it), and is distinct in both content and methodology from other sorts of magic is "nothing"? How is that *not* at least *pointing* in a particular direction?

Has anybody in this thread ever known someone who said "i want to play a wizard/sorcerer/mage" and chosen the cleric class to do so, ignoring all talk of alignment, higher powers, etc., both in the mechanical details and in their roleplaying? I'll give you that it could be done--but i claim that the bits are so explicit, and so tightly tied to the mechanics, that it's unlikely-bordering-on-impossible that anybody would, other than in response to a challeng posted in a thread like this, actually come to the conclusion that "cleric" was a mechanical widget suited for playing a non-faithful character in a D&D setting.