Dungeons and Discourse

[Username17]

1181524408[/unixtime]]For that matter, aren't Marxists also pragmatists?

Actually no. When I put down "Realists" I actually meant "Materialists" - in the hair splitting world of Philosophy, the Realists actually are in between Materialism and Rationalism - believing as Kant does that abstract concepts really exist. I'll fix it in the complete draft.

But the Pramatists believe that the difference between "is" and "should" is illusuory, while Materialists like Marx believe that ideas are at best approximations of the world (and self proclaimed materialists like Ayn Rand believe that ideas either correspond to the world exactly and are good or don't and are bad).

Utilitarian Morality is not the same as utilitarian epistemology, which is the radical notion that Pragmatists put forward. Communists frequently subscribe to the one and rarely subscribe to the other.

---

So for example, Leo Strauss might agree with the statement that if something is good, then it is true (to the extent that you should teach it to others as truth). Meanwhile, Marx would say that there are many things that are true that are bad, and that it is your response to those problems that determines your worth. These are very different.

The word "pragmatic" in the lower case sense of the term doesn't really encapsulate what it means to be "Pragmatic" in the philosophical sense. Similarly with "rational" and "Rational".

-Username17

Edit:

Here's a good description of the difference:

The true and sincere opponent of pragmatism - the openly avowed opponent - is materialism, and dialectical materialism in particular. The fundamental conception of pragmatism shows an extremely close affinity with the conception of Ernst Mach, the Austrian philosopher and naturalist, and with Avenarius: the so-called school of empirio-criticism. That we have not done pragmatism an injustice by calling it idealistic, is supported by the testimony of the Encyclopedia Britannica, that great dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon world, which says, in the article on William James, that he defends the idealistic position from the empirical point of view. And the French historian of pragmatism, F. Leroux, characterizes pragmatism as an empirical or experiential idealism.

I should like to cite one more fundamental concept of pragmatism. This is the fundamental concept of a "pluralistic universe. It assumes that the world consists of component worlds which have no connection with each other. I need not labor the point that this concept is a nonsensical self-contradiction. To be sure, it is not self-contradictory to postulate a world which is at the same time a unity and a plurality, but to affirm a world, a universe, which is a plurality without unity is plainly a meaningless contradiction. If one asks oneself how a school of philosophy can achieve such palpable nonsense, one does not have to seek far for the answer: the prototype of the world which consists of parts having nothing to do with each other is the world of the high priests of all schools, a world composed of the earthly vale of tears and the heavenly hereafter which are utterly and absolutely separate and different from each other. The "pluralistic universe" is merely a new "higher" label for this ancient and insipid clerical nonsense. A further characteristic of pragmatism is its concept of truth. For pragmatism there is no objective measure of truth. Since it recognizes no reality external to the human mind, it can have no touchstone for truth. According to pragmatism truth is what "works," what is useful. The measure is thus subjective. The undefined subject who is the measure of truth is not man in general but the bourgeois in particular and his particular ends. The bourgeois mind governed by bourgeois interests is made the supreme judge of truth. That this is very convenient for the bourgeoisie certainly cannot be disputed.

The purpose of all these maneuvers of pragmatism is the "scientific" salvation and vindication of the old religious nonsense. William James himself wrote a sizeable book on The Will to Believe and another on religion experience in which he tries to prove that every form of belief, no matter how insane, contains some element of truth as long as it gives man a certain amount of power and effectiveness. For William James the Christian religion in which he was reared, is such an "effective" truth. For the African Negro it may be a wooden idol studded with nails. The whole trick lies in calling something "experience" that used to be known as belief or fantasy. William James, for example, says that the visible world is a part of a more spiritual universe from which it derives its meaning - a statement that immediately reminds one of belief in ghosts. What William James passes off as religious truth or experience is a conglomeration of the creeds of the hundred or more Christian and non-Christian sects existing in America. It is the laboratory in which the fantastic products of various religions and sects are standardized into a normal or average bourgeois faith. If some sect began to believe that the moon was green cheese and if this belief gave them strength, then pragmatism would mix this ingredient into the general religious brew.

[Catharz]

* Multiple Damage Tracts. Here's a weird idea: four damage tracts. One is Factual or Causal, one is Psychological or Emotional, one is Traditional or Progressive, and the fourth is Indescribable. In this model, if you take Progressive Damage while you already have Traditional damage, the Progressive Damage heals the Traditional Damage before it does any damage at all. Indescribable is thus harder to heal but also the least useful because it can't be used to heal people. Not sure if that flies.

The problem with this seems to be that there's no way to heal Indescribiable damage.

* Mana as Damage The idea here is that you just have a tract of damage that doesn't actually do anything to you until it fills up. Once it does that though, it starts spilling in as normal damage. When you use your magic, you resist damage on this track and hopefully go about your business. I'm not sure if this works with the other idea though.

Two Existentialists will fight far more viciously/quickly than an Existentialist and a Rationalist (because both Existentialists are probably using the Indescribable arguments to minimize drain). This makes sense if you want to take a stance of 'I'm more likely to listen to arguments similar to my own,' but IMO that level of realism would be bad for the game.

A sort of fusion of the ideas could work well, where using an argument of energy A costs energy B. With 5 types, it would probably work better as a circular system than an oppositional system. So making an Indescibable argument leaves you Emotionally drained, and a Factual analysis leaves you open to Pregressive rhetoric. Or whatever other circular system you like.

[Endovior]

The circular system sounds interesting... moreso then the multiple damage track system. It also fits better with the circular pattern of the schools in general. I'm generally in favor of a circular system, so long as it makes sense and doesn't get too complicated with the multiple mana types.

[Username17]

My desire with the Mana Costs is to have overflow not happen unless your mana track is completely full to begin with. This way, characters follow the anime model naturally where they use their biggest attack right near the end of the fight.

In short, if you have an ability that uses up about 3 mana and an ability that uses up about 8, then you can use the 3 mana ability three times and then the 8 mana ability, or you can use the 8 mana ability once and then use the three mana ability. Either one will fill out your damage track.

Now, once you've used up your mana and start taking wound boxes, I'm not really certain what kind of wound boxes you should take. Possibilities include filling up whichever one is most full already, filling up Indescribable, or just filling up one at random (rolling a d8 or something).

---

As to healing damage - I figure time wounds all heals and that you can (out of combat), heal pretty much anything. It would only be combat healing of Indescribable Damage that would be unhealable if I went with that model.

-Username17

[Endovior]

Not necessarily. You could implement a special ability that specifically heals indescribable damage.

[Crissa]

What stops them from using the eight ability twice?

-Crissa

[Username17]

1181945130[/unixtime]]What stops them from using the eight ability twice?

-Crissa

In principal, nothing. One thing I am seriously looking at is the prospect of making Mana Costs into a resisted Damage value rather than an actual cost. In that manner, the average amount of Mana might vary by as much as +/- 5 on especially lucky rolls. In that case, an effect that cost an average of 8 would be DC 27, and 35% of the time you'd straight up get your entire mana track zeroed out using it cold.

I don't know, is that too variable?

-Username17

[Username17]

On further reflection, I think that there should be an Eastern philosophy and a modern philosophy represented for each alignment. Something like this for the initial version:

Existentialists
Modern – Sartrian
Eastern – Buddhist
Western – Nihilist

Materialists
Modern – Dialecticist
Eastern – Conficianist
Western – Utilitarian

Evangelical
Modern – Dogmatist
Eastern – Theurge
Western – Apologist

Pragmatists
Modern – Neo Conservative
Eastern – Legalist
Western – Progressive

Skeptical
Modern – Anarchists
Eastern – Carvaka
Western – Cynics

Empiricists
Modern – Positivist
Eastern – Taoist
Western – Epicurean

Rationalists
Modern – Idealist
Eastern – Logician
Western – Platonist

---

Carvaka is kind of obscure. I feel like I'm missing some really obvious rejectionist philosophy to be the stand-in for Asian Skepticism.

-Username17

[Endovior]

For some reason, I find that I like the first list better.

[Neeek]

A better set of sub-divisions might be into "Analytic", "Continental", and "Eastern".

Though, finding a group for each of your categories might be tough.

[CatharzGodfoot]

[angelfromanotherpin]

Where's that from?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Where's that from?

http://dresdencodak.com -- the original source of D&D. This was part 2.

[Roy]

Catharz, that is Fucking Epic. Thank you, that is all.

[KauTZ]

Fuck that was hard to read.

[Koumei]

Wait, what? Why is the Kantian about doing evil for its own sake regardless of utility?

[Gelare]

I like the second list much better. If, for some reason, we were going with the first list, Hume should probably get a spot.

Also, that comic is sweet.

[shau]

A system like this should have a place for Berkelian idealists. Playing a guy whose powers are based upon his staunch refusal to admit the existence of matter would be great.

[Bigode]

Wait, what? Why is the Kantian about doing evil for its own sake regardless of utility?

Utilitarianism criticized deontological ethics (e.g. Kantian categorical imperative) from the start, because the latter uses absolute rules instead of utility calculations. Hence, "regardless of utility". And he's a dark Kantian - imperative to do evil.

[Username17]

Looking back on it, it seems pretty clear that characters in Dungeons and Discourse are using 4e mechanics.

They have at-will abilities that allow them to swing swords or make pronouncements, they have encounter slots that they can use bigger powers out of, and they have daily slots that they can draw upon larger powers from.

To make things interesting, I would propose that they actually have sorcerer style slots rather than 4e D&D power charges. That is, they actually have more encounter powers than they have power slots, and they can use them in whatever order that they want.

It's very much a "shout the name of your move" system like 4e, but it's not a "use the same four moves every battle" system like 4e.


-Username17

[JonSetanta]

You're too late.

http://forums.koalawallop.com/viewforum.php?f=6

Info found thanks to /tg/, naturally.
http://zip.4chan.org/tg/res/3550562.html
(thread might be gone for most of you by the time you see this)

KauTZ, how is this stuff difficult to read/understand? Maybe I've been wasting too much time in philosophy in the last decade or more...
Am I (as /tg/ suggests) elitist for laughing at the Laplace's Demon joke?

The person who writes this comic must be really annoying. Like he reads Wikipedia for random ideologies/beliefs/etc. and then pastes them into his comic, hoping people will think he's smart.

Uses big words that the average reader will only have a vague idea of its source or none at all. For the purpose of letting their imagination fill in the gaps between not knowing and the images presented to create their own understanding at a much more entertaining level.

A good comic for the slightly above average learned or at least aware person?

I agree with the latter. A bit. Although, a few clicks and types in Wikipedia and you'll have a rudimentary grasp of the names and theories.
Assembling said references in your head as actual humor is another matter.

And of course the inevitable:

I bet webcomics are alot more enjoyable when you aren't constantly striving to interpret them as attempts to stroke their creator's ego in some roundabout fashion. It's a bunch of philosophy in-jokes, get off your high horses.

[Crissa]

Oh, yes, smart people aren't allowed to have in-jokes. That's so... Horrible...

Bugger off if you didn't take philosophy in college, geez. I don't expect to get everyone's jokes.

Heck, by that argument, people shouldn't make jokes in other languages, because that's too esoteric for this guy.

-Crissa

[Username17]

You're too late.

http://forums.koalawallop.com/viewforum.php?f=6

Meh. I don't really see anything getting accomplished over there tht I would want to be a part of any time soon. Too many cooks going in too many different directions. I mean let's face it: the class list talks about MP and the rule thread says there are no MP. That's... not good.

What's needed is actually a D&D fix, because that's what D&Dis actually is. Everyone is a fighter/mage because everyone has an excuse to use what are effectively magical effects. The second comic actually looks a lot more playable than the first. Look at how much more regulation stabbing is going on.

So really the goal shouldn't be to create some kind of RNG-defying Tri-stat whooplah, nor should it be to make some kind of crazy card game or final fantasy clone. Basically it just wants to be a game where you run around in slightly surrealistic wilderness and dungeon environments, tactically fighting monsters with sword and bow, where you occasionally pull super abilities out that do wild shit.

Essentially, this is the answer to how to fix D&D, because it's a setting that doesn't distinguish between Fighters and Wizards but still distinguishes between classes. The goal should only be to make a game which is interesting and entertaining as a sword and bow combat simulator that can be appended to a universally accessible magic system without breaking.

Project Goals:

• Attribute System Differentiate characters without pigeonholing them or forcing characters to "specialize or suck."
  
  Skill System Characters should be able to swing a sword, exchange money for services, and climb a tree without relying upon magical teaparty.
  
  Tactical Combat Characters should be able to move around the battlefield and fight enemies in an interesting and not "auto-attack" way.
  
  Intermittent Magic Characters should use their magic powers without spamming everything at the beginning or saving everything for an alpha strike at the end. Magic powers should be used by every character in a staggered fashion so that each character can at times be in the sole spotlight t least for a round.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

I feel like dungeons and discourse would work better with a rules-light approach. For example, as Carl Jung, you want to be able to say "extreme solipsism often has roots in personal trauma... tell me about your mother", and have it work - even if the game designer didn't think of this connection and therefore didn't give a bonus to psycho-analysis versus solipsists.

[Username17]

I feel like dungeons and discourse would work better with a rules-light approach. For example, as Carl Jung, you want to be able to say "extreme solipsism often has roots in personal trauma... tell me about your mother", and have it work - even if the game designer didn't think of this connection and therefore didn't give a bonus to psycho-analysis versus solipsists.

I have to disagree with that. I think it would work best with a fairly structured setup. After all, you want people to be able to say things like "My existential dread won't work if they have no sense of self!" which they would not say in a free form game. In a freeform game it falls to the p-zombies to interject that they are immune to existential dread because they have no sense of self. That's an important difference that I think wants exploration.

What is going to be wanted is some kind of semi-freeform killing blow "debate" move with a lot of ad hoc modifiers. So game mechanically, after you beat down a boss to the bloodied condition, you try various killing blows by pulling out debate techniques. And you get modifiers depending upon the relevance and hilarity.

But until you get to finishing moves, it should be fairly structured and tight.

-Username17