On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 21:25:10 +0100, Timothy Collinson wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 04:04, David Johnson - piperfan at zarthani.net (via
>tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:
>
>> I will say here that it occurs to me that it might be useful to focus on
>> "Using Religion In Your Game" going forward. Speaking of DGP, I am reminded
>> here of Joe Fugate's comments on *Knightfall* (in *MegaTraveller Journal*
>> #4) that it reflected his "philosophy of 'fun to play' rather than just
>> 'fun to read.'"

>I'd like to think I aim for *both*.  But YMMV!

I'm not entirely convinced that there's as much of a dichotomy between the
two as some of the discussion in this thread appears to imply. Put simply,
"Fun to read" is going to inspire imagination, and it is the imagination
that helps determine "fun to play". For example, one can read David Drake's
"Republic of Cinnabar Navy" series, and know that it's "fun to read", by
design. But having read it, your imagination is fired up, into thinking
about how it would be "fun to play" that universe, even if you don't have
solidly-formulated rules for defining "RCN Traveller".

In a way - or, more accurately, in different ways - "Off the Table" and
"Travelling In..." are intended to point the reader towards "fun to read",
and thus indirectly inspire imagination in the direction of "fun to play".

Having said that, yes, sometimes it's useful to start from the actual play
and "work backwards".

>> Here, I think, is a good example of "fun to read" but I'm wondering about
>> "fun to play." I'm not sure the distinction you're making between religion
>> and philosophy, based primarily on the "Deitic Principle" concept,
>> *matters* much when it comes to play in a *science-fiction* role-playing
>> game, because that "Deitic Principle" bit is going to be very little
>> *science* and almost entirely *fiction*. This has some compelling
>> implications for "fun to play" which don't exist (as much) in a *fantasy*
>> role-playing game where that "Dietic Principle" can actively intervene. . .

>This does remind me of one thing that I meant to add to my comments on
>Jeff's initial post.
>
>Will there be any room for (discussions of? rules for?) the condition in
>which there may be lots of religions in the game universe but only one is
>actually 'true'?  (Yes, I know each believe is going to think there's is
>The Way.)  Or is this too contentious?  Or just too difficult to model in
>an RPG?

I have been looking at this as a way to provide some "personality
structure" for playing a religious character, without having to stick to
present-day known religions and accidentally 'stepping on toes' and at the
same time, avoiding the [implicit] parodying or ridiculing of religion
represented by some of the more extreme examples (e.g., what I have been
calling "California Cult of the Week").

>(Note I'm not suggesting that one particular religion real, based on real
>or entirely invented) has to be THE true religion, but that the Referee may
>have in mind that one is and has some real world (in game) consequences for
>PCs following that belief?)
>
>Which brings me neatly onto a fondly imagined (real world) universe where I
>have the ability (courage?) to try to write some rules for playing
>Traveller with a belief system layered on.  (I'd chose evangelical
>Christian obviously but others might choose something else).  Do you
>represent it with 'just' additional skills?  Do you add characteristics of
>some sort (e.g. another set of six, I don't know: devotion, discipline,
>piety...)?  A combination of that?  How do you model a god (or in this case
>God) interacting with the universe (e.g. answering prayer etc)?
>
>This has been in the back of my mind for years (and could probably only be
>played with like-minded individuals) but seems so difficult/contentious
>I've never got beyond half a page of scribbles.

Again, this is ultimately about _characters_. If a table wishes to play in
a campaign where _which_ religion a character believes has consequences
(which is how I'm more-or-less interpreting your question), that is at the
table's discretion, and it is up to the players to interpret the characters
for that context - and it doesn't matter whether it's because the Flying
Spaghetti Monster has put in a personal appearance in front of a crowd of
mixed faithful and non-, or simply because of a local _cuius regio, eius
religio_ situation.

Similarly, if a table feels that incorporating religion into the campaign
at all is a Bad Idea, for whatever reason, they're certainly free to take
what I present and toss it in the nearest bit-bucket.

>And yes, in my scenario above, how do you then model the *players* knowing
>that the or a religion is real rather than the state which it seems to me
>the real-world universe is in where belief/disbelief is very finely
>balanced such that 'both sides' (I'm aware it's more complicated) can point
>to their 'evidences' of God or no God.  (In other words, it seems to me
>that if there were a *little* more evidence for God - and I can point to
>several things but not *proof* - it would be impossible not to believe, and
>if there were a *little* less evidence for God, it would be virtually
>impossible to believe.)  I'm not sure I've expressed that well but it seems
>to me that it's an intriguing facet of the universe...

Again, this document isn't relevant at that level; if you want to discuss
reality-as-anthropomorphic-entity, r-a-a-e is agnostic. Or even
agnostic-as-to-whether-the-question-is-meaningful.

>> Here is a central concept that will be extremely important for game play.
>> What will "carrying the kirpan," for example, mean for how that character
>> interacts with others? What will a character "doing this thing" mean for
>> how *other* characters interact with them? Eating rituals and other
>> devotional acts will mostly be just cultural "colour" from a game play
>> perspective. What will matter will be how devout characters interact with
>> others who don't practice those rituals and how others who don't practice
>> those rituals interact with the devout. These "interactive beliefs" will be
>> much more important, in terms of game play, than the specifics of what the
>> devotional activities mean to those who practice them.

>Agreed.  And feeds into my difficulty of how you account for it being
>'easy' for a *player* to say they spend the week in Jump in prayer or
>fasting or whatever, when we know that that might be really really hard for
>the *character*.  Easier in a more role-play focussed group; harder in
>those more interested in the roll-playing or 'plot' let's say more kindly.

>But, in a science-fiction game, these won't actually exist.

>Actually, in my envisioned universe/rule set above, they would exist.  I
>just haven't worked out they'd be implemented!

As far as this goes, I don't see the choice of devotional activity over
some other 'intensive' activity as changing the difficulty of character-vs-
player - is it really any different to spend the week in jump in 'devotion'
vs 'study' (the latter being with intent to improve skills)?

>> From a game play perspective, what will matter here are the implications
>> for believers' beliefs in "supernatural things" when interacting with
>> non-believers who don't share those beliefs (and vice versa).

>But that too...

Not just belief vs non-belief in supernaturality, but essentially anything
where belief/teaching vs non-belief/teaching results in a difference of
behavior in an interaction. Even if it's something like Joe being invited
to a Texas barbeque (lots of BEEF!) and Joe is a Hindu.

>> Characteristics of Religions
>>
>>    Model
>>
>>    The goal for any religion is to provide a common worldview to bind a
>>    society into a cohesive whole.
>>
>>
>> A huge potential conflict exists here, from a game play perspective,
>> between believers and non-believers, regardless of the "model." If I don't
>> share your "worldview" for our "society" I'm really not going to care much
>> for the details of the model. Likewise, the model for "how to be" in the
>> religion won't matter much when interacting with others who are not part of
>> the religion. (This, of course, is why religious wars can be so bloody.)

"Society" is kind of a fuzzy word here. It doesn't specify itself; it's
specfied by context. If you're Hindu and I'm Zoroastrian, are we really
part of the same "society" if we live next door to each other and send our
respective kids to the same school? Or are we part of different societies
because we attend different temples and have different devotional
activities and different images of the Deitic Principle?

>Quite.  And why I'm not even considering running a game in any rule set I
>might develop at a convention.  Although I *might* at something like
>TravCon where I'm a known quantity and would put clear
>warnings/instructions on any sign up offer.

In other words, an 'abbreviated session zero', where the table decided just
how compatible your mutual images of religion-in-Traveller are. Nothing
wrong with that...

>> Also having trouble understanding the implications for game play here.
>> Perhaps a few examples would be a good way to start the "Using Religion
>> In Your Game" section.

>Just in defence of not necessarily impacting game play immediately.  You're
>not wrong in wanting that to be the main focus but in my
>experience/opinion, this kind of detail *can* inspire adventure even if
>it's not directly required.  Sometimes, just thinking into what may be
>(interesting reading) can lead to other thoughts, so I wouldn't discount it
>just because it doesn't appear on a character sheet or task roll or
>something.

Thank you! You've arrived at the point I more-or-less started from; as I
stated above, it's about giving the player some sort of basis for applying
imagination to play a devout character without necessarily going "over the
top" in an effort to avoid "stepping on toes".

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Mongoose Publishing, 1977-2025. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)