Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4812730" data-attributes="member: 32536">You really are twisting around what I was trying to say into a totally different point.Basically, you are taking one thing you consider to be an advantage to the &quot;power of belief&quot; system, which is the &quot;infinitely mutable&quot; idea, and then you saying that I am arguing against that advantage rather than the system which has that advantage. Or rather, you are simply implying that the only way to have an infinitely mutable setting is to base it on the power of belief, which is totally false. There are countless ways to have an infinitely mutable setting without relying on that assumption. As other people have pointed out, the easiest way to do so is to simply make no such assumption at all.Besides, the &quot;infinitely mutable&quot; nature of the &quot;power of belief&quot; is false, since by its nature what people don't believe to be true can't be true, so there is no real way to create a conflict between people's beliefs and the actual truth of the world within such a setting. That means there are certain plots and stories that can't be told within such a setting, so it is not truly infinitely mutable. Once you place a limiting guideline or rule of any sort upon something, then it can no longer be said to be all-inclusive, no matter the kind of rule you place.However, if you want to know what I really meant, my comment was directed much more at the very specific idea that the power of a god, or even the very divinity of a god, is directly related to how many people worship that god. I detest that concept with a passion, for a variety of reasons ranging from general gut reaction to my preferences for alternative systems and stories that can only be told in alternate systems.Besides, I may as well say that I don't consider infinite mutability to even be a valuable trait in a setting, since I prefer to simply create a large number of settings that each have a much more specific feel and limited set of traits. The overall mutability of the game is basically the same either way (since the only limitations on any game of D&amp;D are the limitations placed upon it by the players and DM), so neither approach has any advantage whatsoever.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 4812730, member: 32536"] You really are twisting around what I was trying to say into a totally different point. Basically, you are taking one thing you consider to be an advantage to the "power of belief" system, which is the "infinitely mutable" idea, and then you saying that I am arguing against that advantage rather than the system which has that advantage. Or rather, you are simply implying that the only way to have an infinitely mutable setting is to base it on the power of belief, which is totally false. There are countless ways to have an infinitely mutable setting without relying on that assumption. As other people have pointed out, the easiest way to do so is to simply make no such assumption at all. Besides, the "infinitely mutable" nature of the "power of belief" is false, since by its nature what people don't believe to be true can't be true, so there is no real way to create a conflict between people's beliefs and the actual truth of the world within such a setting. That means there are certain plots and stories that can't be told within such a setting, so it is not truly infinitely mutable. Once you place a limiting guideline or rule of any sort upon something, then it can no longer be said to be all-inclusive, no matter the kind of rule you place. However, if you want to know what I really meant, my comment was directed much more at the very specific idea that the power of a god, or even the very divinity of a god, is directly related to how many people worship that god. I detest that concept with a passion, for a variety of reasons ranging from general gut reaction to my preferences for alternative systems and stories that can only be told in alternate systems. Besides, I may as well say that I don't consider infinite mutability to even be a valuable trait in a setting, since I prefer to simply create a large number of settings that each have a much more specific feel and limited set of traits. The overall mutability of the game is basically the same either way (since the only limitations on any game of D&D are the limitations placed upon it by the players and DM), so neither approach has any advantage whatsoever. [/QUOTE]

Verification