Subjectivity, Objectivity, and One True Wayism in RPGs

[bouncyhead]

Everything is subjective, but everybody claims that their way is objective.

That's just your theory

 

[Mark Chance]

I think where the absolutist side tends to go astray is asserting that they have encompassed objective truth completely, and that they therefore may be a reliable fount of it.

Just curious: Who is on this "absolutist side" that seriously makes the claim you say is being made?

 

[Celebrim]

Just curious: Who is on this "absolutist side" that seriously makes the claim you say is being made?

Well, for example, 'right wing religious nuts' like myself. Unlike some people who like to comment on the sterotype, I think I have enough first hand experience to say that you do occasionally run up on someone who believes that they are in possession of The Truth and The Whole Truth, and that they are a reliable authority because of their complete understanding. They do not believe that there are mysteries, nor do they in the slightest doubt there ability to understand things that smart people have debated for centuries. It's not a reliable representation of the entire group, but if it wasn't there then there probably wouldn't be a sterotype.

Of course, I bring up 'right wing religious nuts' primarily because - being one - I can speak about them without being insulting or being condesending. I'm on their side, and so not trying to tear down anyone.

I don't bring them up because this is a problem exclusive to the subculture, but, since this is the sterotype, I feel certain that it will be easier to convince the reader of its existance.

As I've said elsewhere, no one has a monopoly on failing to be self-critical. It is a human, rather than cultural failing. Absolute self-assurance of their own superior understanding is found even among people who claim to not believe that there is objective truth out there to be found. Dogmatic evangelists are not confined to people self-aware of their religious convictions. Angry moralists are not confined to traditionalist cultures. You find plenty of angry moralists absolutely certain that they have discovered some absolute truth that has evaded detection across the centuries. Ultimately, at one time or the other about one subject or the other, I think just about everyone finds themselves on the side of close minded dogmatic absolutist.

You even find them playing RPGs or hanging out on EnWorld, preaching the 'one true way' or system or what have you. Speaking for myself, it's a continual fight to force myself to examine and distinguish between what I actually know, what I think I know, and what is just my personal preference.

 

[Umbran]

Of course, I bring up 'right wing religious nuts' primarily because - being one - I can speak about them without being insulting or being condesending. I'm on their side, and so not trying to tear down anyone.

No, really, this is a bad place to go. Even if you claim to be one of them, you don't get to speak for or of them, in general.

Religion's right out people. Stop approching it.

 

[Celebrim]

. One doesn't need a map that shows everything for it to be valuable as a map...However, how valuable is a map that is mistaken for the area is represents?

You didn't go from there where I thought you would go.

The mistake of the relativist point of view is to mistake the map for the thing itself. They mistake the reference to the thing for the thing being referred.

The best we may manage is to have a map of the thing, a pointer to the data, or a token to identify it. The relativist says that since this is all we have, then this must be all that there is, and since the map is relative (by virtue of its abstractness), then it must be that since the map is all we have then everything is relative.

But if this was really the case, it would stand to reason that there would be absolutely no agreement between your map and my map, and his map and their map. And, this is not what we observe. We observe rather that for all the differences we may have in units, scale, details, points of interest, and symbols employed, that we are all basically trying to map the same thing. And we also observe that some maps are more functional than others. The fact that we observe these things strongly suggests that there is some objective truth we a struggling to describe.

This is most easily seen in things that are tangible. It's quite possible to believe that brick walls aren't solid. You can even make a rational argument for the physical insolidity of brick walls based on the sparce density of atoms in the space they encompass and the experience a nuetrino might have with brick walls. Yet, all that is just so many words because however much you may believe that the wall isn't solid, or whatever you may say about it, no one tries to act as if it isn't solid and if they do, they soon get a severe headache. The functional map, 'brick wall = solid', seems to work alot better than any other sort of map, and this suggests that there is some reality to their solidity.

I probably should add to this that I'm often a little mystified that this subject comes up so often when discussing RPG's, which are, for the purposes of pretty much everyone here - a game. And, as a game, what's principally of interest about them is, I would think, that they be enjoyable. And, I would think that of all the things that are probably subjective, the one to which we'd get the widest agreement that it is probably is subjective is the group, "things I enjoy". Yet, invariably, on almost every thread at EnWorld, if it goes long enough we end up in the debate of subjective vs. objective. At one time I just thought this was symptomatic of the larger culture war the gaming culture finds itself in the midst of, but now I'm not so certain. I'm also rather disinclined to accept the easy explanation that its just a matter of people doing the natural human thing and demanding that everyone else enjoy and appreciate the things that they enjoy, although I admit that for the moment this is the most obvious explanation. Still, I'm curious as to what it is about RPG's in particular that provoke the need to debate this question.

 

[Umbran]

I will restate something with less dressing.

I rather started the whole line of discussion, and in retrospect it was not a good idea, and I apologize for it. Whether or not we can, in theory, have objective truth (or know it when we do, which is a separate question) is not really relevant. It is moot. Perhaps interesting, but academic, and in fact not really helpful for purposes of a thread here in a General RPG Discussion forum.

This came up in discussing rules sets, and being able to prove that one is superior to another. The whole line on truth arose specifically so I could demonstrate how 1) we don't have it, and 2) it doesn't apply to individual tastes in any event.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This came up in discussing rules sets, and being able to prove that one is superior to another. The whole line on truth arose specifically so I could demonstrate how 1) we don't have it, and 2) it doesn't apply to individual tastes in any event.

Someone upthread said, "I may or may not be able to know an absolute truth (or be able to verify it), but there are a number of things that are true enough to get the job done and function in the world."

1) is a thing which I am willing to agree to a priori. However, it should be noted that, as with scientific data precision =/= accuracy. It is quite possible to be accurate without being precise. Demonstrating accuracy, of course, encounters the same problems I began discussing relating to worldviews. For that matter, so does determining accuracy in the first place.

Nonetheless, I am willing to say that (for example) Piratecat's DMing skills are better than those I possessed during the first game I ran (and possibly better than my skills now), and that this is a true, if not objective, statement.

Within the context of the above,

2) is not something which can be stated as a matter of truth. It is, AFAICT, a matter of opinion. It is your opinion that there is no true method of deriving relative value, apart from the subjective tastes of individuals. That does not mean that relative value is not "real", and that individual tastes cannot themselves be graded according to a "real" standard.

Prior to the development of the philosophy of science, there was no successful means to probe the rules of the physical universe. Even the advent of the scientific method did not prevent flawed conclusions -- and flawed observations, for that matter -- from proliferating (and this is as serious a problem now as it ever was). Flawed observations and flawed conclusions do not, however, negate the value of the toolset.

Prior to the development of the philosophy of science, much of physical nature was thought to be subjective -- either subject to an anthropomorphic will of its own, or to the whim of deity. Yet much that was thought unmappable has turned out to be chartable after all, and we have a good map of the physical interactions of the universe as a result.

That we have no similar means to map valuation, at this time, does not mean that there is not a "real" standard of valuation to be mapped. Moreover, it does not mean that a toolset will never be discovered that can do so, with the same level of result as that of the scientific method. What that toolset would look like, obviously, we have no idea (or, if you do have an idea, and are able to develop it sufficiently, a Nobel Prize may be in your future).

-------------

I believe that the topic comes up in relation to rpgs so often because rpgs offer something akin to a language for understanding the dilemmas involved. The campaign milieu is an analogue for a world or universe, and it obeys both known rules and unwritten rules (regardless of how close the GM attempts to cleave to the RAW). Because the position of the GM exists (even if taken over by all the players as a council, and even if the GM attempts to suppress it as best he can), the milieu has an underlying valuation that is "real" from the position of the rpg characters. Frex, if the GM believes slavery to be evil, slavery is evil within the game milieu, affecting alignment (if the game has such a system), and very likely being punished when engaged in by the PCs....again, whether the GM intends to punish the players or not.

Likewise, because the RPG has winning strategies, and some way of measuring PC success, there is again a real form of valuation within the system. These things combine to give rpg players the basic ideas of this particular area of philosophy, and a language in which to discuss them.

Games like D&D not only posit real valuations existing (alignment), but postulate a toolset to explore the same (detect alignment).

(This is obviously not unique to rpg players.)

This is similar to how fans of Star Trek or Doctor Who could do a doubletake when Kip Thorne "solved" the Grandfather Paradox by invoking alternate universes. Those fans not only had the language to understand what Thorne was saying, but they had also already seen the same "solution" more than once within the context of their favourite programme. Simply put, although the solution made the front covers of magazines, it had been telegraphed long ago by sf media.

 

[Umbran]

2) is not something which can be stated as a matter of truth.

Dude, when the moderator apologizes for adding to a line of discussion, and says it was a bad idea, that's probably a sign to drop it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I thought you were posting as "Umbran"; there is nothing in your post to indicate otherwise. You certainly didn't close the thread (which makes me wonder why you would expect the thread to be "dropped"?)

Otherwise, apology accepted.

 

[Janx]

At some point, you ought to admit to yourself that you are not as omniscient in understanding as you would like to believe and that there are many matters and perhaps every matter that will escape your full comprehension.

I thought my post pretty much admitted that by referring to "functional truth" the idea that humans may not be privvy to absolute truth (possibly also defined as objective truth), but the truth they have is good enough.

For me, I think the usage of objective and subjective, in relation to truth are misleading.

Traditionally, an objective statement refers to a fact. As in, "D&D 3rd edition was released in 2000."

A subjective statement refers to an opinion. Such as "D&D 3rd edition is the best edition."

The complication arises because it is possible to make a statement that sounds like a fact, but is really an opinion. For instance, "D&D 3rd edition has more refined multi-classing rules than prior editions." It is a fact that the rules are different, and that some thought went into them. However, the word refined may imply an opinion on quality.

I am most likely interpreting the term "objective truth" to mean objective statement, i.e. a fact. Which I accept as being reasonably verifiable.

Subjective and truth are apples and oranges, unless you prefix each subjective statement with "This is the opinion of the person who said this"

I think this thead is better served by considering a truth to be something easily verifiable as a fact in the physicla world in which we operate. Getting deeper just muddies the water.

Now getting back to the original topic, on OneTrueWayism...

From a process management standpoint, there is value in getting everyone on the same process. It minimizes deviation, standardizes results, and sets expectations (if you followed the process, then I can expect to find things in order when I get there).

Thus, it is useful to label alternatives as bad. Not bad as in awful, just stuff to be avoided.

Obviously, in doing so, you run the risk of being blind to new ideas and process improvements. But that's a risk, that some can manage (and may even do recon to incorporate new ideas).

But on the flip-side, I see a trend of extreme anti-OneTrueWayism, where all ways are excepted as good and valid ways to play the game.

Honestly, I can think of some really horrible ways to play the game that are wrong. Surely each of us can find some scenarios of being truly awful. Many of which would offend Eric's grandma.

Thus, while there may not be a true one way to do something, it is NOT true that there are no wrong ways to do something.

The onetruewayists have a tendencie to have blocked out everything else, with a partial intent to eliminate the wrong ways.

In being too open, the allwayists do not explicitly declare the wrongways as wrong, which bugs the heck out of some folks. Granted, doing so would be tedious.

But that is what I see is the conflict of onewayism and allwayism.