Post by Alex Leone in The Priest Questions and Feedback

Viewing post in The Priest Questions and Feedback

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 Piroddi3 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 Leone3 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 Piroddi3 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 Leone3 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 Piroddi3 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 Leone3 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 Piroddi3 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 Leone3 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

Viewing post in The Priest Questions and Feedback