Whose "property" are the PCs?

[kigmatzomat]

If I create a world based on certain principles and a player unilaterally creates a piece of it that violates those principles, then the central plot, theme, etc. of the world can easily fall apart.

Okay, I'm with you, to a point. If your game centers around the lack of divinations having a diviner is bad.

You can see that there is a basic conflict between two worldviews about what is local and particular and what is universal and entailed by the structure of the world itself.

....aaaand I'm lost. So what if one character wants to be from a Brahmin-like society and another a Platonic Posiedenist? I see the Brahmanist getting stoned by the Platonics (or being ignored & shunned b/c he "doesn't exist") or the Platonic's head rupturing when in Brahman lands.

There's a starting location with it's own worldview, the characters with their own individual worldviews, and then there's reality with it's local and universal constants. Usually none of them mesh.

As far as the "seas burning and the rivers flow up hill" that may or may not be what's happening. Undersea methane releases could create a layer of fire across the water with the pressure from the release causing the river to backflow with regularity. Or, the seawater catches fire and the rivers flow uphill.

As the DM you can either say "No, take that out", "That's works (but the mechanism is different and I'm not telling you)" or "That works (and I'm not changing a thing)."

 

[fusangite]

....aaaand I'm lost. So what if one character wants to be from a Brahmin-like society and another a Platonic Posiedenist?

No. My point is that they're the same PC. Re-read my example. It's about a group of hypothetical 2300 year old players thinking about a fantasy world.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I still don't see a disconnect. "Brahman-like" could mean a lot of things. Could mean they feel Posieden is an aspect of Brahman, much as the Hindu Gods. Brahman, as the ultimate spirit of all that ever is or was, is the ultimate platonic ideal.

 

[fusangite]

I am not trying to talk about Hinduism. I am trying to explain how Ancient Greek people had a different theory of how the world was constructed, thereby entailing that different things would be universal and different things would be locally particular. If you don't see how this point arises from the words I've typed, I'll try expressing my ideas a different way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fusangite
My world building style has little in common with either approach. Moving around my worlds is like moving around the Mandelbrot Set; when you move off the detailed area, the central world "equation" calculates the pixels in the place to which you have just moved. You are assuming world creation is like photorealist painting; my world creation is more like the process of programming a fractal generator.

(and)

Now, plenty of things about "over there" are up for grabs but some portion of them has been predefined because they inhere in the structure of the world itself.

I must admit to being puzzled. Mandelbrot sets are crappy at modeling areas outside of their boundaries...

Other than the laws of physics- which we all know is protean in a world with magic- how do you design a world where things are constant from point to point, even fractally?

Cultures differ in their concepts of science vs magic, taboos, the nature of the divine the arcane and the supernatural and even the value of a single human life. Or a single bovine life. Or a single rodent's life.

I have yet to see something inherent in the world itself, other than the aforementioned rules of physics and their dictates, that are universally driving forces on cultures.

Looking at other fictional settings, no author I can think of has had that kind of model. Even in James Blish's microscopic cultures in "Surface Tension,"or Larry Niven's gas giant cultures in Integral Trees books, or Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series etc., people differ- sometimes radically- from place to place, especially as distances grow.

 

[fusangite]

I must admit to being puzzled. Mandelbrot sets are crappy at modeling areas outside of their boundaries...

The world is the set. The players just start out zoomed-in to a particular area.

Other than the laws of physics- which we all know is protean in a world with magic-

What nonsense! Most of the laws of physics developed in history have been developed by cultures that believed in magic, in part to explain magic.

how do you design a world where things are constant from point to point, even fractally?

In terms of magic, look at the rules. In terms of things generally, see my post on world design.

Cultures differ in their concepts of science vs magic, taboos, the nature of the divine the arcane and the supernatural and even the value of a single human life. Or a single bovine life. Or a single rodent's life.

Right. But the ways in which cultures are different and similar to one another is entailed by one's worldview. Given that fantasy worlds are premised on different worldviews than this one, each fantasy world should have a different set of general versus specific truths be they cultural, physical or whatever.

I have yet to see something inherent in the world itself, other than the aforementioned rules of physics and their dictates, that are universally driving forces on cultures.

You have never played in a fantasy world premised on different cultural universals than the one in which we live? I gathered that. But surely you could imagine one. For instance, imagine a world in which the Babel theory was true, or one in which the theory of the antedeluvian heliolithic culture was true.

Looking at other fictional settings, no author I can think of has had that kind of model.

Well, I'm no expert on fantasy and don't read much of it because of this very lack. But obviously Tolkien leaps immediately to mind.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz
Other than the laws of physics- which we all know is protean in a world with magic-

Fusangite
What nonsense! Most of the laws of physics developed in history have been developed by cultures that believed in magic, in part to explain magic.

Missed my point entirely, which was that the laws of physics in the real world are a constant throughout the universe, but in a world where magic is a possibility, the rules are protean (meaning changeable).

Fusangite
...see my post on world design.

I did. I was hoping for clarification- it didn't make sense to me.

Dannyalcatraz
I have yet to see something inherent in the world itself, other than the aforementioned rules of physics and their dictates, that are universally driving forces on cultures.

Fusangite
You have never played in a fantasy world premised on different cultural universals than the one in which we live?

Uhhhh, nope- missed my point again which was: there are only 4 universal (as in, applying to all creatures in a given reality) driving forces on culture:

1) The physical laws of the universe
2) Need for shelter
3) Need for sustinance
4) Need for reproduction/propigation of the species

Like any iterative mathematical function (of which you seem so fond), the "end points" are highly dependent upon the starting points- and small changes may have BIG differences. A culture rich in easy sustinance may not develop agrigulture as quickly as one that has even occasional food scarcity problems. One with a temperate climate and much natural shelter will not be as driven to building permanent architectural structures as a culture in an extreme climate. A matriarchal culture will probably have very different rules on premarital sex, marriage, polyamory, and reproduction than a patriarchal one, especially if the societal heirarchy is based in any way upon a difference population demographics (an imbalance in the ratio of men to women) of the sexes in that culture.

Because of that, it seems odd to speak of a "universe-building equation" that controls everything in your campaign world.

Fusangite
...I gathered that. But surely you could imagine one. For instance, imagine a world in which the Babel theory was true, or one in which the theory of the antedeluvian heliolithic culture was true.

And you are WAY off base here. There is NOTHING wrong with the imaginations of my past DMs or my own campaign worlds.

I've adventured in or created campaigns in which Heliolithic cultures existed; in which Babel was true; in which all characters were literally 2 dimensional (based on Flatland); in which the entire campaign took place within a human's body; in which the entire world was electronic (based on Tron)- or in which only one character was; in which Rome never fell and became a star spanning empire; in which superheroes arose in a Wellsian/Vernian setting; etc.

In each one, there were always the unexplored/unexplained areas out of which almost anything could come, including beings or events that- on the surface at least- might seem to violate the premise of the campaign world itself.

 

[fusangite]

Missed my point entirely, which was that the laws of physics in the real world are a constant throughout the universe, but in a world where magic is a possibility, the rules are protean (meaning changeable).

I know what protean means. You are defining magic in opposition to physics rather than as a subset of physics. A system of physics, is a system that explains everything, including magic which is one of the things a good system of physics systematized. Physics=how the universe works. In this world, all systems of physics included magic until we decided magic did not exist.

I did. I was hoping for clarification- it didn't make sense to me.

What did you not understand?

Uhhhh, nope- missed my point again which was: there are only 4 universal (as in, applying to all creatures in a given reality) driving forces on culture:

1) The physical laws of the universe
2) Need for shelter
3) Need for sustinance
4) Need for reproduction/propigation of the species

That list is premised on the physics and sociology of any world resembling the physics and sociology of ours. Even if we simply delve into our own world's past, you can see systems, like that of Aristotle and Plato, that would posit a different inventory. What you keep doing again and again is saying, "because things work this way in this world, they must work this way in all possible worlds."

If you have an environmentalist theory of culture like that of Hippocrates' followers, all cultures in hot places will fundamentally resemble eachother as will all cultures in cool places. If you have a Platonic theory of cutlure, you are going to assume that all cultures in whcih there is learning equal to or greater than yours, people will have essentially the same philosophy you do. Etc. All you need to do is make one of these theories of how the universe works true in a world you are GMing and suddenly, you will find that just because a culture is isolated does not mean that it can be different in all the ways that the physics of the real world would permit it to be distinct.

Like any iterative mathematical function (of which you seem so fond), the "end points" are highly dependent upon the starting points- and small changes may have BIG differences. A culture rich in easy sustinance may not develop agrigulture as quickly as one that has even occasional food scarcity problems. One with a temperate climate and much natural shelter will not be as driven to building permanent architectural structures as a culture in an extreme climate. A matriarchal culture will probably have very different rules on premarital sex, marriage, polyamory, and reproduction than a patriarchal one, especially if the societal heirarchy is based in any way upon a difference population demographics (an imbalance in the ratio of men to women) of the sexes in that culture.

Sure. This is a theory of how cultures develop. More power to you for having it and spelling it out. Based on this theory, you can see that a player cannot unilaterally define his character without the GM notifying him of a whole bunch of attributes of the culture. That's the original point I was trying to make. Characters are culture-dependent; cultures cannot be added to a game world by player fiat; therefore, for a credible character to be created, there must be substnaial GM input.

Because of that, it seems odd to speak of a "universe-building equation" that controls everything in your campaign world.

It doesn't control everything. But it does define quite a bit.

In each one, there were always the unexplored/unexplained areas out of which almost anything could come, including beings or events that- on the surface at least- might seem to violate the premise of the campaign world itself.

But the GM evidently exerted enough control that nothing violated the premise/structure of the world, right? Surely this must have entailed limiting and channeling character background choices. People's characters could not come from cultures that made a lie of the world structure. This is why I say that characters are collaborative creations. Because if culture really mattered in your play and was, in the ways you have outlined above, dependent on the physical world, then, in fact, your GM had a fairly profound role in defining character.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I am not trying to talk about Hinduism. I am trying to explain how Ancient Greek people had a different theory of how the world was constructed, thereby entailing that different things would be universal and different things would be locally particular. If you don't see how this point arises from the words I've typed, I'll try expressing my ideas a different way.

I see that but I don't see how it impacts world building. Individual cultures' hypothesis on reality will impact the people who live there and how they intuitively interact with their environment. It is up to the DM to decide whether any given phenomena is universal, local, or a complete misunderstanding of the mechanism.

Try using an actual example: the guy who's background you didn't accept. What kept you from saying "Fine, but you're from a land across the sea and you got here from a shipwreck?"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fusangite
You are defining magic in opposition to physics

No, not at all. I'm merely stating that in RW physics the rules are the same everywhere, whereas in a world with magic, they may not be.

Example: any world with "Dead Magic" zones or "Wild Magic" zones.

Dannyalcatraz
1) The physical laws of the universe
2) Need for shelter
3) Need for sustinance
4) Need for reproduction/propigation of the species

Fusangite
That list is premised on the physics and sociology of any world resembling the physics and sociology of ours.

No.

Statement 1) assumes that the universe in question HAS rules that all creation must obey- a campaign in absence of rules would be set in the Plane of Chaos, otherwise. Those rules need not be the same as ours.

Statement 2) only assumes that creatures are not impervious to the effects of the environment, and thus, must seek protection at some time, and that there may be other dangers (like predation) that may also demand a creature seek shelter. The hazards and predators need not resemble ours- the predators may only be feeding on a brain's alpha waves, and other creatures would need some kind of shelter to conceal those emanations.

Statement 3) assumes only that entropy is still in effect, so a creature must seek energy sources outside its own body. That energy source need not be food- it could be solar radiation, magic, alpha waves, whatever.

Statement 4) assumes only that creatures are not immortal nor in danger of cessation by outside means, and that creatures have a desire, either conscious of instinctual, that their species not die out. They may not enjoy it- see the Kraken in the latest issue of Dragon- but even they would rather see Krakenkind not die out.

Fusangite
All you need to do is make one of these theories of how the universe works true in a world you are GMing and suddenly, you will find that just because a culture is isolated does not mean that it can be different in all the ways that the physics of the real world would permit it to be distinct.

OK, that's a pretty factual statement that I can accept as true. I wouldn't want to GAME in that world- that kind of world would be pretty bland since the rule eliminates a LOT of cultural variation.

Fusangite
This is a theory of how cultures develop. More power to you for having it and spelling it out. Based on this theory, you can see that a player cannot unilaterally define his character without the GM notifying him of a whole bunch of attributes of the culture.

No. For the most part, all he has to do is design a character and ask me where such a character may be found as a point of origin If there is NO place in my campaign world in which such a PC could be found, THEN I have to step into the PC creation process.

Dannyalcatraz
In each one, there were always the unexplored/unexplained areas out of which almost anything could come, including beings or events that- on the surface at least- might seem to violate the premise of the campaign world itself.

Fusangite
But the GM evidently exerted enough control that nothing violated the premise/structure of the world, right? Surely this must have entailed limiting and channeling character background choices.

Nope.

Example: I was entering a pretty vanilla D&D campaign and the PC I designed appeared to be a female drow Mu/Th. In "actuality," the PC was an android from another dimension that had been programmed to be an NPC female drow Mu/Th in a LARP game that had somehow wound up in the campaign world...and it was utterly convinced that it was still in the game. At various points, the android would even discuss things or make comments that related to its percieved reality- and it had knowledge a drow Mu/TH shouldn't. Even its back-story was off kilter- while the android could recite its whole drow history, family, and why it didn't live in the old city anymore, no one in the campaign world had any idea of the places or events the drow was talking about- so the drow was written off as insane-by most.

Who was delusional- the android or everyone else- was NEVER answered.