Fantasy World

A new take on a classic idea, Fantasy World is roleplaying Powered by the Apocalypse for the 2020s. · By Alessandro Piroddi

Add to collection

game Community Devlog

Fantasy World community

The Priest Questions and Feedback

A topic by Alex Leone created Jul 22, 2021 Views: 488 Replies: 41

Viewing posts 1 to 8

Alex Leone2 years ago

General question here:

Why, rules-as-written, does the World need to know that there are no gods? Why can’t the World have the same ambiguity that the player has?

Also: If the World does have to know that there are no gods, right now (that is, there is a resolution to the Priest’s conflict between faith and doubt, and doubt should win), then, shouldn’t the World note go in, like, a separate World section, so that the player doesn’t see it? If they see that sort of information, that could really deflate the struggle between faith and belief for some players–to know that there are, in fact, no gods, rather than to be in conflict.

Thoughts?

Alex Leone2 years ago

In By God Anointed:

I would change the part of the trigger

When you perform a ritual

to something like

When you perform a ritual of your religion

to differentiate it from the Occultist’s “ritual” move.

EDIT: Also in A Prayer for the Departed and Sacred Ground.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

all fixed :)

Alex Leone2 years ago

In God’s Herald:

This is a cool move, but the trigger for it feels funny with what it does. When I first read it, I thought, like, maybe I would try hold the divine symbol aloft in order to inspire fear or wonder or something. But, the move as written, seems mainly designed to cause harm.

Maybe this violent intent could be included in the trigger, something like:

When you hold your divine icon aloft and invoke your deity’s presence through it, intending to do violence

That seems a bit wordy though.

Also: This move has you roll to Threaten all hostile creatures within range. What are you Threatening them to do? To Threaten, you need to “clarify what you want them to do.” My intuition is that, rather than use the Threaten move, this move should have its own roll+INTENSE, with its own clearly defined consequences.

I’m not exactly sure what to do with this move yet, because it seems like it has a lot of parts missing in its current form. If you can say more about how you envision this move to be used, I could give more specific feedback on it! :) Thanks!

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

Maybe this makes it clearer :)

When you hold your divine icon aloft and invoke your deity’s protection through it >>>

<<< spend as many XP as you want to imbue your actions with power, then perform the Threaten move against all hostile creatures within range. You roll only once, but each individual makes their own choice as to how the move affects them. On a Snag (1-6) your XPs are not spent.

Alex Leone2 years ago

In Guidance:

Regarding the second option from the list:

ask the World what they believe is the best course of action, and gain Advantage to enact this plan

Who is the world answering this question as? Like, if the World is answering a question of fact about the world (as in Look Around, Read Someone, or Recall Lore, for example), that makes sense. If the World is answering a question from the perspective of an NPC (as in Threaten or the Minstrel’s Charming and Open move, for example), that makes sense.

What perspective does the World say what “they” believe in this move? From the World player’s perspective? From the god’s perspective? From some other perspective?

If I was the World, I’d be unsure how to answer this question (“What do you believe is the best course of action?”) if a Priest asked me, as it’s written now!

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

In the Guidance move the Priest is ultimately interrogating "their heart" for advice.

So either the Player expresses what they believe/imagine that the Priest's heart says...
Or the World will tell the Player what they believe/imagine that the Priest's heart says...
Or there will be silence...

It's not about perception and the parsing of factual information. It's not about effectiveness :P

It's about self reflection and dramatic choices. The actual info is irrelevant, as it will always offer Advantage no matter what. We are interested in having the Priest question their heart. Or to see how the Priest reacts to the way someone else (the World) imagines the Priest's heart to be. Also keeping in mind that the World was just now informed of what the Priest is afraid of in this situation, and knows what their Issue and Doubt are. So most probably the World will do something to facilitate and enhance the DRAMA of the Priest's story... which is their whole job anyway :P

Does this clarify?

Alex Leone2 years ago (1 edit)

It kind of makes sense, but the idea that the Priest is interrogating “their heart” for advice is very unclear in the move.

Also, the World answering for the player’s heart still seems weird. It seems to conflict with the rule that players say what their PC does and says and thinks and feels. How come the World gets to decide what’s in the Priest’s heart? (And, does the Priest know that that’s how the World is deciding?)

That is: I’m still confused about this option, and I’m not sure what to do about it. I’ll give it some more thought. Thank you for all your thoughts on the move! :)

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

It's always the Player's choice.

When you ask your deity for counsel and guidance about your future actions >>>

<<< [bla bla your fear bla] Then listen to your heart and pick one:

Here we see the Priest asking/praying their deity for guidance. Then internally reflecting on their fear for this situation (with the Player plainly communicating it to the World). Finally the Priest is instructed to "listen to their heart" and pick one option among 3 available...

- describe what you believe is the best course of action, then gain 1 XP

- ask the World what they believe is the best course of action, and gain Advantage to enact this plan

- alone with your doubts, tell the World how your deity's silence makes you feel. If it's just punishment, why do you deserve it? If it's malice or indifference, why do you stand for it? Either way mark Growth (only once per session)

So the Player can choose to describe what they think the Priest's heart wants them to do.

Or for whatever reason the Player can choose to pass the ball to the World. Maybe they have no ideas. Maybe they genuinely yearn for guidance that comes from an external source. Maybe they want someone else to mess with the Priest's heart for the drama and the lulz.

Or maybe the Player goes for the "silence". Maybe it's more interesting for them. Or maybe they really want the extra Growth mark.

Seems pretty clear to me.

But one thing I could do to make it all clearer is maybe change the wording to direct more attention to the "heart" thing. Like so...

- describe what your heart tells you is the best course of action, then gain 1 XP
- ask the World what your heart tells you is the best course of action, and gain Advantage to enact this plan

Alex Leone2 years ago (5 edits)

Thanks for your thoughts on this! I have a clearer idea what you’re going for, now.

The clarification of adding “what your heart tells you” to both options does make it clearer what you’re going for! So it’s a good addition in that sense.

Still, as the World, I would feel uncomfortable answering the question, “What does Piotr’s heart tell him?” Especially because of the rule I linked in my last post, where the “player says what their PC does and says and thinks and feels” (emphasis mine). That is, this option in “Guidance” upsets the natural flow of the game, where the players tell you what their characters think and feel. That upset can happen here! It just feels weird, because it’s changing how we’ve played the game so far, up until this point, where everyone has so far been responsible for their own character’s thoughts and feelings.

If that upset is important to you, and that uncomfortable feeling is what you’re going for, you can leave it as is, of course. I’d just suggest that you recognize that this upsets one of the core rules of the game, and then design whatever you want accordingly.

Side note: I understand that the player gets to choose who tells them what’s in their heart. My discomfort with the second option of this move isn’t because the player doesn’t have a choice. The discomfort (as I described above), is that, as the World, I might be asked to tell another player what they think and feel.

EDIT: If you’re looking to introduce an external influence, what if you changed the second option to something like this:

The next person to speak up has a message from your deity; gain Advantage to do what they suggest

This happens often in Christian circles, at least. Someone will pray, “God, please send me a sign, what should I do?” and then someone will give exactly the guidance or help they were looking for. This change also means that the Priest decides what their heart is looking for: it’s looking for a sign! Whoever happens to speak up next could be anyone, for any reason–the Priest’s heart could just be interpreting the event as a sign from their god.

If you don’t like that the version above requires people, you can also go with something like this:

Describe where you look for a sign from your deity–someone else’s words or a feature in your surroundings. The World will describe what you see, and what it appears to mean. Gain Advantage to act on this sign.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

Two things to address...

One
No, having someone else tell you what your PC feels does not upset the general game philosophy. First of all, because you specifically asked them to do this specific thing. It's the classic case of a specific and circumscribed rule that modifies/trumps a more general rule. Secondly, it's ok because you might have this flash of insight about what your heart tells you... but then YOU get to decide what to do with it. Follow it? Ignore it? Challenge it?

The effect is akin to people that toss a coin to see if Heads or Tails comes out. Maybe because in this one instance they don't want to decide, so a random/external outcome is preferable to being forced to make a choice of their own. But maybe also because they know that having this external source pick an option for you might trigger your brain into revealing that, after all, you DID have a preference. You get Heads and go "oh no!" ... and that's your answer for you :)

For these reasons the World is free, and even encouraged, to mess with the PC. It makes no real difference. Tell them something random. Or stupid. Or extreme. Or tell them plain and simple what you (the World) would like to see them doing! It matters very little.

But... the implication that THIS is what their heart desires will often provoke a relatively strong reaction from the Player of the Priest, prompting active self reflection.

Maybe it could be formulated like this, for optimal effect:

ask the World what your heart tells you is the best course of action, then tell them how you feel about this revelation: is it (un)like yourself? is it an (un)welcome truth?
If you act on your heart’s advice, you gain Advantage.

Two
Don't confuse the levels of the move ;-)
The PLAYER is indecisive and looks for external input... from the World, or a fellow Player, or a coin toss.
The PRIEST asks their deity for guidance.
The PRIEST gets an answer from within, from their heart, from their inner beliefs.
The PRIEST uses that input as their deity's answer.

In the fiction, the answer only ever comes from within. There is no external force. There is no deity. The point of the move is to have the Priest produce their own answer. The fact that at the table that answer came from the Player's mind or the World or another Player, is immaterial.

On another note... what you suggest is what the Priest does with the Signs and Portents move :)
The PRIEST sees something external (a person, a sunrise, a boat, a frog, whatever) and ascribes divine meaning to it.

Alex Leone2 years ago

On another note… what you suggest is what the Priest does with the Signs and Portents move

You’re absolutely right! That does look nearly identical.

Here, what about this?

ask the World what thought or feeling springs into your heart, unbidden. If you act on this thought or feeling, you get Advantage.

This feels much better to me, and seems to get at some of your design goals you mention above.

Thoughts?

Alex Leone2 years ago

In Lead the Flock:

A small suggestion: change the trigger to

When you begin to preach to a crowd

That way, it’s clear that the roll happens at the beginning of the sermon, and easier to remember that the hold is to be spent during the sermon, not at the end of it! :)

Alex Leone2 years ago

Also, about Lead the Flock: I have the same feelings about the word “lust” here as I did about “fucking” and “fornicating” in the Minstrel, just much less strongly. Invoking a strong feeling of “lust” is easier to gloss over, but still awkward to have in a game that wants to avoid sexual content (because, you know, lust usually leads to sex, or actions that evoke thoughts of it).

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

I'm afraid that sex is going to be part of the game text. No way around it. Just don't pick the more explicit options... or do, but use them for your own means.

"Giving in to lust" could easily be read as gorging oneself on chocolate XD

Alex Leone2 years ago

In common English usage, “lust” does not refer to chocolate.

Thanks, that’s good to know! I can remove these parts from the rules when I play with friends.

I am curious: What fantasy stories are you drawing on for Fantasy World where sex is an important part of the story we see? I can’t think of any fantasy stories where sex is mentioned explicitly at all, much less an important part of the story.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

The immediate but largely irrelevant answer to your question is... plenty of fantasy novels feature sex. Most of them, I might add.

There is explicit sex in Perdido Street Station, by China Mieville.
And in many books from The Magicians series, by Lev Grossman.
And in some passages of The Kingkiller Chronicle, by Patrick Rothfuss.
And pretty much everywhere in A Song of Fire and Ice, by George Martin.
And here and there in many Cosmere novels, by Brandon Sanderson (I remember at least some in the Mistborn saga, both era 1 and era 2)
There is definitely sex, and quite explicitly so, in the Rivers of London series (by Ben Aaronovitch) and in the Dresden Files series (by Jim Butcher).
There are a few explicit sex scenes in the Broken Earth series, by N. K. Jemisin.
Oh, and there is TONS of sex and actual general debauchery in Elric of Melniboné, by Michael Moorcook.
I hear there is also sex in the classic Conan stories, but I haven't read those, only saw the cheesy (but amazing) movies :P
And oh my gold the sex in The Witcher series, by Andrzej Sapkowski!

And I could go on and on...

Sex was also very much present, albeit never explicitly described, in many classic Forgotten Realms novels by R. A. Salvatore... at least the one involving Drizzt Do'Urden and the Drow underdark society.
There is sexual innuendo pretty much everywhere in the Discworld novels, by Terry Pratchett :D
Etc...

So yeah, if you ask me, there is sex in a LOT of fantasy stories :)

That said... this matters little for Fantasy World.

To use technical jargon: Fantasy World fosters a narrativist agenda, rather than a simulationist one.

In plainer words: it fosters the kind of fantasy stories that the participants create for themselves, rather than celebrating a specific work or genre by closely adhering to it.

Fantasy World structure is meant to produce dramatic stories where the protagonists are people. It supports this narrative goal by conjuring (through the rules) emergent character arcs and storylines focused on the protagonists Problems and Doubts, and their common goals and hopes and fears... and usually by challenging all of these with the external world surrounding them: the people living in it, those people's own dreams and fears and goals and flaws and virtues.

Stories that revolve around people tend to also revolve around people's relationships with other people. Which often means sex: love, desire, lust, romance, rejection, heartache, hope, etc... all the good stuff. Kingdoms rise and fall for this stuff. Just think about the epic fantasy that was Homer's Iliad :P

That said... while FW is deeply rooted into people... the game is not, in and of itself, focused on "sex".
There are no "sex moves" like in Apocalypse World, for example.
And the only references to sex in the whole book are to be found in the 2 moves you noticed... and they are there because, well, because they represent (like all moves) narrative clichès and stereotypes :P

One allows the PC to use magic and performance art to crank an audience emotions overboard: sex is the most obvious, natural, and expected outcome. The other does exactly the same, but through the use of rhetorics and passion and fervor.

That said, the mere mention of the possibility for sexual content doesn't mean that it has to be present or central at your table. Or that you have to be graphic in expressing it. It's in the moves to remind the Players that the narrative option exists, then trusts them to do whatever they feel like with it.

Alex Leone2 years ago

The TL;DR of below is: It’s helpful to know which fantasy books you’re drawing from for Fantasy World. Leave these parts as they are!

Wow, I haven’t read most of those books! This is a great list. Sounds like I’ve got a lot of fantasy books to read. :)

The immediate but largely irrelevant answer to your question is… plenty of fantasy novels feature sex.

I don’t think this is irrelevant.

Fantasy World fosters a narrativist agenda, rather than a simulationist one.

I know! Like you’ve mentioned elsewhere, narrativist agendas borrow tropes from stories and fiction to build mechanics that emulate certain kinds of stories.

This list is super helpful to me because it made me realize that I thought I knew what kind of fantasy stories you were drawing from, but it turns out I was wrong!

For the stories and tropes you’re emulating here, yes, “fornicating” and “lust” make plenty of sense to have in your game! I had just misunderstood the kind of fantasy you’re emulating here, which I would call “adult fantasy.” Most of the fantasy I’ve read and seen has been, like, “young adult/children’s fantasy,” like Lord of the Rings, Redwall, Howl’s Moving Castle, Ella Enchanted, and lots of others I’ve forgotten the names of.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

1) on FW "emulation" goals
2) on the relevance of "sex" in FW and the mentioned fantasy novels

1)
I'm glad that the list could help you :)

But as I mentioned... FW is really not trying to "emulate" a specific source. Rather, I was dissatisfied with the usual brand of emotionally immature and superficial fantasy adventuring games that were almost exclusively focused on escapism and power trips. I wanted something more humane and multi-faceted, that could also be "fantasy".

So FW does not take inspiration from specific sources, but rather from "fantasy literature in general". More on this can be read in a post I made a while ago on The Gauntlet forum, here.
There I also talk about playing LotR by way of FW.
I am not familiar with Redwall specifically, but maybe you might like the (partial) actual play of the Assassin's Cheese game I played with a group of friends :D
Howl's Moving Castle would be a perfect source of inspiration:

Howl has powerful magics but deep personal problems. Through the story he evolves from a hurt and spoiled brat, to a healthier and more complete adult.
Sophie is a common girl with big dreams but little confidence, with serious self-image problems. Through the story she grows a lot, overcoming her fears and doubts.
Other characters would probably be more NPC material, as they don't seem to have equivalent agency and depth and arcs... but they are ALL presented as "people" and as such they are never throw-away characters, they never feel expendable. From Calcifer impersonating the whole castle, to the Scarecrow, the weird dog, the young apprentice... even "the villain" Witch is made human and somewhat understandable and relatable, even endearing.
And the story is about how war negatively affects people and the things they love and care about. It's perfect FW material! One could use FW to play something different, but similar enough in all the ways that matter :)

2)
I think we might be experiencing a couple of communicative disconnects. Let's see if I manage to express myself in a way that makes sense :)
Also... everything I'm about to write is just me trying to clarify what I understood of your messages, and replying to that.
I don't want to put words in your mouth that are not yours. Feel free to correct any part I might have misunderstood ^_^'

Reading your previous posts I got the impression (and maybe I am wrong) that in your eyes merely mentioning the existence of sexuality in a story is a big deal for that story.
If we read a story, and the page says something like "...we could hear them having sex in the other room..." it is a big deal.
If we play FW and thanks to a move a player says "...as my PC speaks, some people in the audience get closer together, holding hands or passing an arm around each other, sharing eloquent looks..." it is a big deal.

I think that there might be a disconnect in this. In how we define what is and what is not a big deal for a story (and a game that produces stories).

To me, sex is NOT a big deal, because it is such a fundamental element of the human experience (and thus the stories we tell about it) that I barely notice it, and it would require specific focus and intention to make it into a big deal, to highlight it as one of the main thematic elements of a story/game.

So I read your posts and I hear "it's a big deal". And in my mind "a big deal" means that sex is central to the gameplay and the stories it creates. In my experience this might look like Apocalypse World, where how a PC experiences their intimacy with others is one of the main themes of the game. Or like Monsterhearts, where discovering your PC's sexuality and relation to gender norms is one of the core focuses of the game. Or like the dumpster fire that was Charm, where the teenage-bait advertisement was all about "this game has sex in it!". Or the bizarre D&D Book of Erotic Fantasy, featuring uninspiring and tactless rules to measure a PC's sexual stamina :P
(2 amazingly positive examples, 2 embarrassingly negative ones, for balance sake)

And to this I say no... FW world is not like that. FW is not about sex. So it's also It's not a big deal ;-)
And I say the same thing about the novels I mentioned before. Sex is not the main focus, so it's not a big deal.

But while writing this I notice how, if one changes perspective, it IS a big deal XD
FW is about people. People relations are largely driven by sex. To me it's invisible, but the moment you try to purge this element from the game... then it becomes a big deal.

And here there might be a second disconnect.

When I talk about "sex" I mean anything "sexual" or that obviously implies it. For example I easily spot sexual content in Howl's story :)
The character of the Witch is portrayed as being obviously lustful for Howl, both for the power he holds, and for his young pretty face. And after she is cursed, a good part of the "fun" of the situation and character specifically comes from the obvious cringe of an old woman hitting on a young man.
Sophie herself deals with more than one sexually charged situation, as she struggles with her feelings of being undesirable. It's a CORE element of that character :)
And the soldiers and young women from the various cities in conflict are often shown as quite obviously being sexually active, and in sexual pursuit of each other.

If you tell me that there is no sex in Howl's story, I say "no, there is".
But because it's not graphic and explicit you say "no, there isn't".

So when in FW you notice something that could potentially lead to an explicit description, and in itself uses explicit words such as "lust" and "fuking", for you it already is a big deal... and you express it... and I react to it using my parameters for what a big deal is to me... and I say that it's irrelevant... and you say "no, it is relevant"... etc ^_^

Interesting analysis... let me know if I have completely misunderstood you and have gone on an hallucinated tangent trip XD

Anyway, this distinction is relevant to me because of what it means.
If sex is not a big deal in FW, then you can ignore it and use the game to play the kind of sex-less stories you want.
If sex is a big deal in FW, then you can't ignore it and you won't be able to play the kind of sex-less stories you want.

To this I can say:

FW is, among other things, about people and their relationships and their emotions
FW is not about graphic and explicit depictions of sexual intercourse

If you are OK with the first point, then I think your group can safely use FW to play any kind of fantasy story they want, no problem.
If you need for graphic sexuality to not be depicted in the game... they can effortlessly do it.
If you need to purge any possible reference to sex from the play content... it's also doable and 100% up to the players.
If you need to purge any possible reference to sex from the game text... that's harder, but doable as there is no pervasive use of such language. But here and there it is present. So you'll have to do some redacting on your side :)

Alex Leone2 years ago(+1)

Thanks for the link to the Gauntlet thread! There’s some great context in there.

I have to agree with Froggy in what he said in that thread:

I really think it would benefit the game if you were to put together a list of touchstones and not wishy-wash around the “what type of fantasy” question.

The more I read it, the more I realize that Fantasy World is absolutely trying to emulate a particular kind of fantasy, and I’m realizing my own fantasy biases. When I think of “fantasy,” I realized I’m almost always thinking of “romantic fantasy.” FW does not seem like it will play out romantic fantasy well. You’re going for something more like Game of Thrones, which you mention briefly in the Introduction.

FW is really not trying to “emulate” a specific source.

That’s true, but it’s clearly trying to emulate a specific type of fantasy–one that’s prevalent in many different books, as you listed! I do think it would helpful if you said more about the type of fantasy FW emulates. Listing inspirational books and movies is one way to do that. Saying more about the type of fantasy FW emulates is another way to do that.

Re: sex (much less important)

When I say “sex” in all my posts, I mean explicit sexual intercourse, not sexuality. Hopefully that clarifies some confusion.

When I say “it’s a big deal,” I don’t mean that it’s central to the game, or the main focus. I mean that, if it happens at all (again, explicit sex, not sexual content or innuendo), it’s important, and usually veiled (as in, Lines and Veils).

The Minstrel and Priest moves in question here, have sex (again, intercourse) happening very casually (“and the entire crowd turned into one giant orgy”). Clearly the One Golden Rule could stop this from happening, but it initially seemed awkward to me that it was included as an option for the Minstrel and Priest at all.

Now that I know more about where you’re coming from, and what source works you’re drawing inspiration from, it makes much more sense.

And you’re right, it’s easy to remove, so I’m not worried about it. :)

Hopefully that cleared up any confusions you had! :D

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

When I think of “fantasy,” I realized I’m almost always thinking of “romantic fantasy.” FW does not seem like it will play out romantic fantasy well.

That's very interesting to me... could you elaborate? :D
What do you mean by "romantic fantasy" and why do you feel that FW doesn't do that well?
Wikipedia offers some info, but I want to be sure about your specific point of view.

(also at this point I have a question for background: have you played FW already?)

Alex Leone2 years ago (2 edits)

Wow, yeah, that Wikipedia page is really short. XD I found this page, which lays out in more detail what I’m thinking of.

Also, as far as Wikipedia pages go, High fantasy is another fantasy type that interests me, and its page is much longer and more detailed.

The thing that ties them together for me, is that, in these stories, the antagonist is usually “evil”–greedy, cruel, arrogant, power-hungry, etc.–if not to their core, then at least in their choices and actions. The protagonists can then work together to make the world a better place. It doesn’t seem like that’s what Fantasy World is going for, and that’s a good thing! No game can capture the entire fantasy genre. :D

(No, I haven’t played FW yet. I read and study every game I bring to my table very thoroughly before I introduce it to my players. I noticed some typos and things I didn’t understand when I was reading through FW thoroughly for the first time, which is why I started reporting them to you here. I’m still studying FW.)

View more in thread

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

It doesn't really make a difference.

The idea is that the PC is being described as doing a thing... and at some point, someone at the table notices that such description fits the trigger of the move.
Be it at the beginning, during, or end of the preaching activity, is irrelevant. Also because, most probably, the description will not be as lengthy and detailed as to encompass the actual speech given.

Fictionally it could be as brief as "and I ask them to remember their better natures".
Or it could be "and I spend the next week preaching to the people of the village about X and Z and Y".

I mean, practically it can't happen any other way... After a description is offered to the table then someone will point out that it triggers the Lead the Flock move, at which point the mechanics will take effect, offering the Priest a number of holds to be spent "during the speech". Which could look like a simple mention of what the audience does as a result of the speech... or could look like something more detailed, as in "and when I mention Gargaroth that's when they go into a frenzy".

It's up to the table, and set up in a way as to offer maximum narrative freedom, after the minimum requirement of "describe the PC preaching to a crowd" has been met :)

Alex Leone2 years ago (2 edits)

If the move can trigger during a speech, or after a speech is described, then I would remove the phrase:

During the speech

from the move. Or replace it with the word “Then,” to emphasize that it happens after the first part. As it is, “during the speech” sounds like you have to spend your hold before the speech has ended. But, if you’re preaching to them for a few days, they may do these things between sermons, rather than in the middle of one.

Also, it was unclear to me that this move could be triggered once from a series of sermons (as opposed to triggered multiple times). If that’s the case, removing the immediate language of “during the speech” would make that more clear, I think.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

Fixed :)

Alex Leone2 years ago

This one is maybe too picky. :D

The move name Messiah doesn’t really describe a Messiah. The Messiah was god in the flesh. What the move describes is a sort of charismatic leader.

I’d suggest a name more like “Rabbi” or “Blessed Teacher” or something–that would get more at the heart of what the move is about, and evoke the right kind of image for people who start by reading the name of the move.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

I'm writing this post only because I get fascinated by the etymology of words and their usage-journey through history and cultures. It's not meant as an obnoxious "hmm actually..." ^_^

That said. As far as I understand...

According to the english Oxford dictionary (but also the italian Treccani) a messiah is literally "a charismatic leader" specifically coded as a "saviour" of people/nations.

So for example the use of the word messiah in religious contexts is common not because a messiah is a religious leader, but because most religious leaders promise/represent "salvation". It's not, in its origin, a religious word. The actual ancient hebrew etymology is even more generic, only meaning "chosen one" or "anointed one".

Also, in my personal experience consuming movies and novels and articles and common parlance I have always encountered the word messiah used exactly in this way (charismatic saviour/leader), also outside of religious contexts: dubbing Elon Musk as the messiah of electric cars :P

While I have never heard of its use as "god incarnate" ... for that I would usually think of the word "avatar".
But I can imagine how in christian tradition there could have, in time, been a mismatch... as the word "messiah" got transliterated to "christ" (same meaning, different root language) but then because it is applied exclusively to Jesus, and Jesus is the son of God and God the son, then meaning-A washed on to word-B although word-B has its own meaning.

Or, am I missing something? :)
(could be, happens quite often XD )

Alex Leone2 years ago

You’re absolutely right, the word “Messiah” does get used in that context: as one who comes bearing salvation. I may have gotten carried away with my very specific “god incarnate” definition: god incarnate is indeed one way to bring salvation to a people!

With the Priest’s “Messiah” move as written, there’s nothing really about the kind of “salvation” that the Priest is bringing to their people. Are they bringing freedom from foreign rule or slavery? Freedom from guilt? What are they saving their followers/people from?

As is, the “Messiah” move seems much more like they’re amassing a following of people who they teach or lead in some way. I’m thinking of modern day TV preachers. They have some teaching they want you to follow (“God wants us all to support green energy” or whatever), and then they charismatically attract people to that teaching. In that sense, at least, Messiah doesn’t quite fit as a name. You could add something about the “salvation” that the Priest brings, or rename the move to fit what the content of the move already provide, I think.

Does any of that make sense? I may also be off here. I really appreciate the time you took thinking about this! I also enjoy thinking about this stuff. :D

Alex Leone2 years ago

In Sacred Ground:

It says:

The area is [consecrated] and [safe] until true believers of your cult dwell in it.

Is this meant to mean that the area stops being consecrated and safe when true believers of your cult start to dwell in it?

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago (1 edit)

ops... that "until" was meant to be "for as long as" XD

Alex Leone2 years ago

That makes so much more sense! Nice.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

General question here:

Why, rules-as-written, does the World need to know that there are no gods? Why can’t the World have the same ambiguity that the player has?

Also: If the World does have to know that there are no gods, right now (that is, there is a resolution to the Priest’s conflict between faith and doubt, and doubt should win), then, shouldn’t the World note go in, like, a separate World section, so that the player doesn’t see it? If they see that sort of information, that could really deflate the struggle between faith and belief for some players–to know that there are, in fact, no gods, rather than to be in conflict.

Thoughts?

The World needs to know that there are no gods, because there are none, so anything that they come up with has to have some other plausible origin, justification, rationale. It's simply the most practical and sane technique to help the World play the game in the correct way with the least difficulty and fatigue possible.

As for the Player side... I believe you might have misinterpreted the core conflict at the heart of the Priest class ;-)

Faith (in this game) is about the belief of a person in the fact that their actions and choices can be justified by something external. The conflict is NEVER about checking if this external thing exists or not. The conflict is ALWAYS about reflecting on the Priest's own choices and actions and what do they believe them to mean: are they justified? do they feel right? what do they say about you? and now? and now? how about now?

It's not a puzzle to be solved, it's a mirror to be stared at.

Of course this is ingrained deep within a frame of wonder and adventure and exploration :)
So while the game as a whole, it being an imaginary adventure, can offer the enjoyment of an escapist power fantasy... religion in the game is not allowed to itself be lived as an escapist power fantasy.

It is then irrelevant whether the deity exists or not... you as a Player are agreeing to dress the role of "a person that believes in a religion", same as you might dress the role of "a person that is an elf" or maybe "a person that believes might-makes-right" etc. Part of the fun IS in having the Priest actively look for things in the game that feel like a divine sign or omen, while World can toy with the notion of presenting situations that could be ambiguous and play on such expectation (is it a miracle? is it a sign?). If this is interesting to a Player, then ok. Otherwise they should probably play another class. Either way hiding the fact that gods don't exist would be a dishonest "gotcha" at the expense of the Player... something that runs quite counter to this game's core philosophy.

Does this make sense? :)

Alex Leone2 years ago (4 edits)

It kind of makes sense.

The problem for me (it may not be a problem for others) arises when the player, knowing that there are NO gods, is asked to play a character who believes that there are gods.

For me, it would be fine for the rules to say, “There will never be any evidence that the gods exist, and there will never be any evidence that the gods don’t exist. Whether or not they exist cannot be known in this game.” THAT would really highlight the conflict in belief: it’s not about figuring out whether or not the gods exist, it’s about struggling with the uncertainty.

If the player knows that the gods don’t exist, then it’s very different from playing, to use your example, “a person that believes might-makes-right.” Might MIGHT make right. We don’t know–there’s uncertainty in this belief! I personally don’t think that might makes right, but that doesn’t make me right. I love that uncertainty, and want to preserve it for the Priest as much as possible.

Faith (in this game) is about the belief of a person in the fact that their actions and choices can be justified by something external.

If the player knows that there is no external justification for their actions, then the game becomes the act of playing a character you know is flawed or wrong fundamentally. I know some players who enjoy playing games like this (for instance, friends who love the game Fiasco). The conflict of the Priest is really enticing for me, but I would not enjoy playing it if I was certain that the conflict was most properly resolved in one direction–I want to be uncertain whether or not the gods are real.

Also:

The World needs to know that there are no gods, because there are none.

Why does this need to be the case? It seems really weird to me that one of the core Fantasy World truths is “Gods are silent” when the truth is that “There are no gods.” If “Gods are silent,” it implies that there are or may be gods, or maybe there were gods once but they all went away (as in, say, Tolkien’s Middle Earth). The gods are still silent in Middle Earth, and all evidence that they were ever here may be gone (beyond old myths and stories), but, in that world, they exist (or existed) all the same.

I don’t know. Do any of these concerns make sense?

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago

For me, it would be fine for the rules to say, “There will never be any evidence that the gods exist, and there will never be any evidence that the gods don’t exist. Whether or not they exist cannot be known in this game.”

Initially it was like this. It got changed because it simply did not work as intended. On the contrary, the current system reliably produces the desired effect.

I need the Protagonists, and especially the Priest (and in its own way the Knight), to have no alibi for their actions. What you do is your choice, your responsibility. The character may believe otherwise. But the Player has to know this without a doubt.

Again, the Priest's conflict is NOT about the alleged presence of a deity.
It's about conscience and the very personal meaning that religion can have for the Priest.
(and this will emerge through active play whether the Player understands this or not, if they engage with the Class moves)

I mean, WHAT IF there was no judeo-christian-islamic God? Would the whole religion be invalid? Its teachings and morality devoid of value and meaning?
The existence of God has always been a false problem. The true questions is: do you believe that the rules and doctrines you follow are good and just in and of themselves? Are they making the world a better place EVEN IF by chance there is no Heaven and Hell?

THIS is the conflict at the core of the Priest. And "knowing" that in the game world there are with certainty no deities is key to make it all work. If anything, it enhances the (very faintly simulated) experience of "having faith" in something.

If this is not some Player's cup of tea, that's certainly fine :)

Alex Leone2 years ago

K, I have some game design thoughts and some religion thoughts, which are separate. I’m putting the game design thoughts at the beginning, since they’re relevant to the actual subject of feedback here. :) The religion thoughts are just context and interesting to me, feel free to ignore them if you like!

Game design thoughts:

Initially it was like this. It got changed because it simply did not work as intended.

This is really interesting! Do you remember what went wrong with it? I’ve been trying to think of ways this could not work as intended, and I can’t think of any. I’m really curious.

What you do is your choice, your responsibility. The character may believe otherwise. But the Player has to know this without a doubt.

I know some people like to separate player and character knowledge (it seems like you do, for instance!), but at my tables, player and character knowledge are virtually the same, or as close as they can be. Mainly: If the players know something at my table, the characters know it too, or at least are allowed to know. The Angry GM summarizes my thoughts on why I do this really well, if you’re interested.

The Priest playbook–specifically this part, that asks the Priest to believe their deity exists when the player knows they don’t–is the only part in Fantasy World that requires the player to separate their knowledge from their character. If that’s your design goal (to require the player and character to separate their knowledge), then that’s fine! It’s a design I would definitely change before I played Fantasy World, mainly because of my aforementioned table rule. But, some people will definitely like it–that is, the people who enjoy separating player and character knowledge.

Thoughts on religion, belief, faith, and doubt: (for context only)

I mean, WHAT IF there was no judeo-christian-islamic God? Would the whole religion be invalid? Its teachings and morality devoid of value and meaning?

To the second and third questions, I would answer: absolutely yes.

I think theology (the study of god, right?) is a search for truth: Does a god exist or not? If one or more does exist, what are they like?

I think religion is the systems and rules that people make, based on their beliefs about the truths about god. As in, I think religion is based on some sort of theology. If the theology that a religion is based on is somehow (not sure this is possible?) demonstrably shown to be false, then the religion itself would have no basis. Many of its teachings may be good ideas, but they would have to find another foundation to base themselves on, if the god they were based on actually doesn’t exist.

The existence of God has always been a false problem. The true questions is: do you believe that the rules and doctrines you follow are good and just in and of themselves? Are they making the world a better place EVEN IF by chance there is no Heaven and Hell?

These questions are based on the assumption that “we should be making the world a better place” (whatever “better” means–many people don’t agree! but that’s a much longer discussion and out of scope here, I think). Many religions come to the conclusion that we should be making the world a better place (for some definition of the world “better”), but they are not based in that assumption: they are based in the assumption that some theology–that is, some set of beliefs about god–are true.

This is all super interesting to me, but I don’t know if the Fantasy World forum is the best place to have a discussion on religion! (Let me know if you disagree, and I’m happy to continue it here.) If you’d like to continue this discussion in private, feel free to use the email under the Contact section for any of my games, or direct me anywhere else you like. :)

Otherwise, it seems like we have different ideas about religion, and that’s okay! Hopefully my game design thoughts and general perspective were helpful. Thank you for sharing all of your perspectives with me!

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

We might chat about religion :)
But maybe in a separate post ^_^'
As for the rest...

Do you remember what went wrong with it? I’ve been trying to think of ways this could not work as intended, and I can’t think of any. I’m really curious.

Simply put... the game ended up being played like D&D with the Cleric/Paladin.
That is to say:

On the Player side, the fact that a deity existed was plenty of justification for any and all actions the PC undertook. No moral dilemmas, no doubts, no questions asked. They are on the deity's side, so they are on the "right" side, no matter WHAT they do or HOW they do it or WHY they do it. This made most Priest moves fall flat.

On the World side, sooner or later there would ALWAYS be a moment when a deity would just manifest itself in obvious ways.
It's the most simpler and most effortless answer to a PC that behaves in that direction and actively seeks/plays omens and signs.
GMs that tried to not do this reported a LOT of fatigue and difficulty in reminding themselves to constantly second guess everything they did (it has to look like it could be a divine sign, but it might not be, but maybe it is...)

Also... the aforementioned Player behaviour led many Worlds to feel as if they should, like in D&D, pass judgement on the Priest's behavior, to check that they don't abuse their divine power. But this is NOT what the World in FW should do, nor they have the tools to do it. So there was a lot of frustration all around.

Instead with the new and clear state of things (there are no deities, period) everything works much better.
Priest move are effective in helping the Player express their personal version of faith and morality and religiousness, while at the same time confronting them with it without any alibi or finger to hide behind.
The World doesn't have to keep track of "meta levels" and can much more easily and effortlessly come up with what they need to. Nor do they feel the need to keep the Priest in check, and can instead LEAN ON anything the Priest does with the normal tools that FW offers.

It was a night and day change. And for the better :)

If the players know something at my table, the characters know it too, or at least are allowed to know.

That's how things work in FW too!

There is a TON of metagame going around, and it is a good thing that everyone is encouraged to embrace and leverage for the betterment of everyone's enjoyment of the game :)

What the Angry GM is addressing are a lot of connected things... but that ultimately have little to do with playing the Priest as written. He also talks from the perspective of completely different kind of games. Some things he says I completely agree with. Other things make my skin crawl with cringe. One good thing that I see as shareable is this:

YOU are always a part of the equation. You’re not BEING a character. You’re attempting to make choices for a character based on your understanding of their motivations and the world and the consequences. Everything you choose for your character is warped through the lens of your own perception, your own understanding, your own experiences, your own biases. And, a lot of the time, you’re guessing. You’re guessing what it would be like to be this completely different person in completely different circumstances in a world that doesn’t exist.

The error many people do, and that he correctly calls out, is to think that:

you are you
the PC is the PC

THIS is the illusion. What in truth happens is:

you are you
the PC does not exist, the PC is also you playing pretend

So when a Player behaves like an a-hole and excuses themselves "because my PC would do it"... that's no excuse.
You are describing a thing, and you know that describing that thing would ruin your friend(s) fun. This is what exists, and nothing else:
- either you describe a thing, even though you know that you are being an a-hole for doing so
- or you describe a different thing, because you know this will be better for your friends at the table

But then this applies to EVERYTHING in the game.

You are not a woman, but can play a PC that is a woman.
You are not an elf, but can play a PC that is an elf.
You are not old, but can play a PC that is a thousand years old.
You are not a criminal, but can play a PC that is an outlaw.
You are not strong, but can play a PC that had great physical prowess.
You are not violent, but can play a PC that fights and kills.

You know that in the game there is no "god", but can play a PC that believes in some god.

Heck, this knowledge is what makes it so interesting to play the Priest in the first place!
Like knowing as a Player that your PC has no chance of getting romantic with a certain NPC, but choosing to have your PC try anyway BECAUSE you know that watching them try will make for an interesting story, regardless of the outcome. It's a matter of drama and good storytelling, it's about facing challenges not because we care about the win/lose outcome, but because facing the challenge in and of itself means something for our story.

How about all the times when you know something, and the PC could know it too, but you choose to portray the PC as ignorant because it would lead to more fun play?

It's about playing to find out what happens next, in a way :)

If a Player is interested in playing a PC that believes in a god (and the whole religious system of dogmas and values that come packed with it)... and then, knowing that in the game there are no gods, can't help but portray a Priest that feels cynical about their own religion... well then so be it! It's an awesome dramatic character! :D
How are they facing this crisis?
Do they feel lighter and more free to forge their own path?
Or do they feel abandoned and aimless?
How is it influencing their choices?
How are they affected by a world that instead blindly believes in the god they are doubting?
What will they do when confronted with "true believers"?
Or when someone else will go ask them for comfort, or theological guidance, or counsel... what will they do?
What could restore their faith in their deity?
Or lift up their spirit, to find new energy and purpose in life?
Or what could become a new focus of worship?

How does the Player feel playing this? Is it somehow a reflection of something they recognise? Or do they feel complete distance and separation? Does play suggest interesting questions? Or gives them a chance to try out for size different answers?

THIS is why you play the Priest in FW.
(or any other Class, for that matters)

...when you play FW maybe try first playing it as written. That is... with the assumption that when a Player knows something, they can use that knowledge however feels best to enjoy the game more ;-)
You won't find this specific sentence anywhere in the rules, but I'm positive that there are plenty of sections where this concept is expressed, one way or another, and that the sum total of the game mechanics support and reinforce this approach.

Alex Leone2 years ago

First, thank you so much for sharing your playtesting notes from the Priest! Those are super helpful to me, to see what you and other GMs have already tried. It’s a really interesting dilemma, to be sure!

But then this applies to EVERYTHING in the game.

You are not a woman, but can play a PC that is a woman. You are not an elf, but can play a PC that is an elf.

I’m with you and on board for all of this.

You know that in the game there is no “god”, but can play a PC that believes in some god.

I think this one is different, and it’s a little tricky.

In that last quoted sentence, you wrote, “you can play a PC that believes…” (emphasis mine) That is true! At my tables, you have a choice: If you know that trolls are vulnerable to fire, you can decide to play a character that knows that, or you can decide to play a character that does not know that. But you’re always free to play either kind of character, and neither one will break the game. The key for me is the freedom to choose what player knowledge your character shares.

However, FW–just for this one playbook and this one fact about the world–doesn’t allow you to choose what your character knows. This isn’t a big deal, as I said earlier, if this is what you’re going for. But it’s different from the rest of the game, is all.

So, as an example of what I’m thinking of, let’s say we didn’t get to choose other aspects of our character. Like…

You are not a woman, but you must player a PC that is a woman.
You are not an elf, but you must play a PC that is an elf.

This seems fine to me, and I imagine it seems fine to many other players as well. None of these statements requires me to separate player and character knowledge. If I know that vampires burn in sunlight, my woman elf character can still know that vampires burn in the sunlight, if I choose to.

But, if you want to play the Priest at least (i.e. a character conflicted by doubt, very appealing to me personally, at least!), FW says, essentially:

You know that in the game there is no “god”, but you must play a PC that believes in some god.

That requirement that player and character knowledge are separate, is what makes this different. In this case, the player is not free to choose whether their player knowledge (“There are no gods”) is shared by their character–they’re not allowed to share it.

Actually, okay, maybe the Priest could also know that their god doesn’t exist. That’s a kind of a character, right? The person who follows a religion’s teachings, but knows that the god the others of their religion believe in, doesn’t really exist. That’s kind of an interesting character.

But, when I read through the Priest, that’s not the kind of character I think is described by the moves. The Priest “asks [their] deity for counsel and guidance” and “invokes [their] deity’s presence” and “calls upon [their] deity’s wrath,” things like that. The language of the Priest strongly suggests on its own that the character believes their deity exists.

So, the Priest requires that you (the player) know that gods don’t exist, but strongly suggests that your character believe in a deity. For my table (where player knowledge is always free to become character knowledge), this feels very different from the rest of FW, where player and character can freely share knowledge, if the player chooses.

Side note: When I first read the moves of the playbook, I was excited to find a playbook that accurately represented what it’s like to believe in a god you can’t ever know existed–wrestling with belief and doubt, trying to find your deity in signs and portents and prayers, wondering at night if everything you believe is a lie. That was the character I was excited to play.

But, I guess, the type of Priest I was excited about can’t be played in FW as written, using my rule about player-character knowledge, since that Priest can’t share the player’s knowledge (“There are no gods”). The player who plays the believer wracked by doubt, looking for their deity everywhere, is required to have that character not share their player information.

knowing as a Player that your PC has no chance of getting romantic with a certain NPC, but choosing to have your PC try anyway BECAUSE you know that watching them try will make for an interesting story

Maybe this is helpful to clarify the kind of game that I enjoy, but, like, I would never have my PC try something that I know for sure is impossible, just because I want to see my character try, the same way that I wouldn’t try something that I knew was impossible, just to see myself try. I know other people enjoy this sort of separated play, where they’re watching their character separate from themselves, and that’s fine.

This sort of separation of player doesn’t seem necessary in FW–you always seem to have the choice to give player knowledge directly to your character–except in the case of the Priest. Clearly this separation creates more of your desired effect, after all your playtesting! I was just very surprised to see that the separation was necessary for the Priest, when it wasn’t necessary the rest of the game.

when you play FW maybe try first playing it as written.

I may! If I do play it as written the first time, I almost certainly won’t play with the Priest (as tempting as the class is), whether I’m a player or the World.

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

I have to admit, I don't see the difference you seem to find so relevant.
And maybe part of the problem is due to your initial expectations and hopes about how to play the Priest (does God exists or not?) and your specifically "theist" way of intending religion.

Let's see if I can reframe the Priest for you :)

1) Player knowledge

When the player feels like having the Priest believe in god, that's a good day for the PC, their faith is strong and steady.
When the player feels like having the Priest not believe in god, that's a hard day for the PC, their faith is shaken and unsteady.
See? Free choice. Either way you can easily switch back and forth.

I mean, you could also play the Priest "upside down" :D
he PC might not believe in their deity. Maybe they never did, as they were indoctrinated but never truly bought in into the spiel. And then the player chooses to notice how a crop of flowers looks like a sign. And how the PC looks at a star constellation and feels an omen. Or how the words of a stranger resound full of meaning, although it probably is just a coincidence.
Maybe the Player starts the campaign choosing to apply their knowledge to the Priest, and later on develops the character is such a way that they will choose to NOT apply their knowledge, having the character "believe again" :D

And you said it yourself: the language of the moves is suggestive. Nothing else. You can then take what you want from it :)
The priest doesn't believe in their deity? Fine, but the ritual prayers STILL feature the deity's name, obviously. How does the Priest feel about that? Is it a bitter joke? Is it a comforting tradition? Is it puzzling and conflicting?

2) The core question

I don't know... maybe it's because I look at it from a different angle in general? Like... I don't care whether the deity exists or not. Not being able to EVER know makes the question uninteresting and irrelevant to me. Thus my focus shifts on to the religion itself: the preachings, the dogmas, the tenants, the values, the rituals, the traditions, etc...

The question is: do I believe that my religion is valid? are my inner feelings and beliefs aligned with my religion? are there pain points in my adherence to the religion? do I shape it, or does it shape me? and what about the rest of the world... how do they relate to my religion, and to me as one of its representatives?

THIS is the question at the core of the Priest.
I understand that it's a different question than what you initially expected. Sorry to disappoint ^_^

3) Ungodly Gods
One very interesting way in which I saw the Priest played a bunch of times is to simply sidestep the whole "guy in the sky" question at the diegetic level. Like... instead of a positive religion, why not play a philosophy?

Gods don't exist, but what if your religion is instead about "the universal balance"?
Game mechanics say that there is no "guy in the sky" but say nothing about... I don't know... Karma... or reality being a computer simulation... or kale being good for you... or being vegan.

There can be a religion based on ANY such things, and the Priest can believe them or not as they are, in game terms, an open question.

I had a campaign set is a sort of "mythological greece but in spaaace" where the Priest believed in "the golden triangle" ... a fundamental principle of geometric harmony. It was very believable, it played perfectly, it even sparked many scenes (often Bond scenes during a Long Rest move) where the Protagonists would discuss, debate, enquire about his religion :D

So unless they only draw of the Priest was the "is god real or not?" question, then my suggestion would be to try, as a fun experiment, to play a Priest and see what happens :)
I personally would be very curious to know how the experience goes for you :D

Alex Leone2 years ago (4 edits)

So, the Priest made much more sense, and seemed much more appealing to play as written, when I realized that Fantasy World is set in a materialist, morally relative world. That’s an interesting space to play in, but, just reading the wiki as it is now, that fact was very unclear to me until I talked with you here on the forum. “Gods are silent” is different from “Gods don’t exist.” :) That’s the main change I recommend, is making the bold perspective above very clear in the Introduction, as early as possible. That way, people who want to play in a world like that, will know right away, which is a great sales pitch, and people who aren’t sure won’t feel confused later and feel the need to change the rules around. :)

That’s the most important thing, really, to clarify FW’s framing.

Thank you for your framing of the Priest! It’s helpful. Hopefully I can clarify a few things (although these are less important).

My question is: Can the Priest character know that their deity doesn’t exist, and still be fun to play? Not, can they believe or not believe, but can they know? I think this is different from the question interesting to you.
I agree: I think what you’ve described is the core question of the Priest! To me, the question “Do I believe that my religion is valid?” is uninteresting in this context. I think a religion is valid if the truth it’s founded on is true or at least likely–whether that “truth” is a guy in the sky, or veganism, or something else. This is a similar philosophy to C.S. Lewis, if you want to read more about it. It seems that we have different ideas about what’s “interesting” about religion, so this probably veers more towards a separate “religion discussion,” whenever you’re interested. :)
This is an interesting take on the Priest! I personally wouldn’t call a “computer simulation” or a “triangle” deities, but that’s clearly up to the conversation that happens at each individual table! I hadn’t considered that in-game interpretation. Thanks for this! :)

Alessandro PiroddiDeveloper2 years ago(+1)

I don't see FW as materialist.
There are no gods in the religious sense... like... a magical person that KNOWS what's right and wrong always for everything and thus justifies any behaviour if enacted in its name.

But... there ARE spirits and magic and metaphysical entities. Matter can be a by-product of mind and spirit. No problem :)

What is true though, is that I strongly feel that morality is relative, and I worked really hard in the design to make it so Players and World can't misunderstand it.
Characters can believe in absolute good and evil, and the game never tells them they are wrong... but it TESTS this belief, it makes them question it. They they surely can answer "Yes, that's exactly what I believe" at every turn. But the question was posed and played through. Repeatedly explored to discover its limits.

This. It never occurred to me that this could be a relevant thing to mention in describing the kind of fantasy stories the game supports ^_^'
I'll have to ponder on this point. It's very interesting :D

Alex Leone2 years ago(+1)

It never occurred to me that [moral relativity] could be a relevant thing to mention in describing the kind of fantasy stories the game supports

It was clearly very important to you! That should give you an idea of how it might be important to other players, and maybe how to market and describe it.

Good luck with this! :D

itch.io

Fantasy World

The Priest Questions and Feedback