Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Drul Morbok

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
General Discussion and Questions / Re: Alliance mage Lords
« on: January 03, 2019, 07:08:23 AM »
Yeah, great campaign idea, also looking forward to any reports how it went.

Just out of interest: Your players are aware of the fact that the adventure predates the sundering...?
From how I understand it, they know enough that this would be pretty obvious from looking at the sky...

Edit: Sorry, I failed to read that you want your players to assume to live in the "present", i.e. the end of the timeline.
And while I'm aware of the fact that in a pen&paper game, players don't "look at the sky" as naturally as in the real world (or in a modern video game), I don't think it's easy to be consistent about sky-related wordings...

Gaming Tales / Re: Christmas session experiment
« on: December 24, 2018, 07:05:32 AM »
Yeah, I do remember you mentioning the idea of the characters waking up naked in a cocoon on an alien spaceship or something alike, the players having empty character sheets. I liked the idea very much and wanted to do something similar.

Another inspiration was the computer game "Planescape Torment", especially the idea of the protagonist being immortal and waking up in the mortuary initially and after each player "death", the latter one being another aspect I could use when I play a campaign in my setting.

I hope I won't be too lazy for a summary afterwards...anyway I came up with another twist I want to play for long - ingame time lapse.
The commander will decide that from now on, 4 generals will be enough, so the 3 players and the remaining NPC generals will have to fight until 4 remain. I might have to fine-tune the numbers and think about whether the assassin will remain a general or become a puppet master in the background.
In any case, it will become some kind of macabre game of rats in a barrel, that either starve to death or feast upon each other (I imagine that the lich general, who was killed by the assassin, is responsible for the resurrection process, so for now, dead means dead).
And the " free phases" might be used to "fast-forward the story 5 years". Quite obviously, the reduction in number of generals will create a power vacuum in the game world, and the players can imagine how their characters will fill it over the years.

Gaming Tales / Christmas session experiment
« on: December 22, 2018, 08:27:44 AM »
Hi, I just wanted to share an idea for an adventure I might be running these days - it mainly consists of two aspects:

First of all, the session starts with the characters knowing nothing about themselves - from what they can tell during the first hour or so, they just got magically resurrected from death, in a facility where such tasks are performed quite often. They will be told that loss of memory, or illusionary memories, are a common condition after resurrection, but that they will soon be remembering it all, I.e. them being three out of eight generals of The Mercenary Fortress, the worldwide center of power and authority.
Top elite stuff, but without memory and with reduced access to abilities. And they died on a failed mission.

The second aspect is dividing the playing day into "system phases" of at most one hour, where players will be sitting around a table and mostly roll dice according to the D&D system, and "free phases" where everyone can either do out-of-game stuff like shopping, going for a walk, cooking, doing online stuff - or or engage in free roleplaying not tied to any system.

The second component is important, as the "amnesia twist" leads to lots of doubt, intrigue and so on:
For example the question will rise if they really got resurrected, or if they got brainwashed and tricked into believing this. Also the eight generals are constantly scheming against each other and following their own agenda. So the players will have to decide whom they trust (or mistrust least) - there is no "right" decision within the setting.

In short, here is what I hope to gain from such a setting:
- Eliminating the impact of the real world of the players: If the characters talk about atoms and molecules, or about feminism, or about burgers and tacos...well, it's just their "memories from afterlife" and it doesn't matter if such things do exist or are plausible within the game world.
- Similarly, eliminating "knowledge spoilers"... If players find a dead body with a hole in the empty head, and ask things like "does my character know of mind flayers?", I could even give them the monster manual and say " If you want to, that's what you think you remember, but it might be false memories ".
- Steering character knowledge by having them "remember" something, eliminating the "wouldn't the character have known this from the beginning?" question.
- Moral issues. The Mercenary Fortress is definitively no "good-aligned" organization, and the generals the characters are playing where rather unscrupulous and callous in their "former lives". Will the characters at some point question their orders, or will they cast aside all moral quarrels as temporary side effect of resurrection amnesia?

Maybe it would be helpful to give an example of how the adventure might run:
The game start at the resurrection site, which is not within the Mercenary Fortress. After being told what they need to now, they are sent back to the fortress on their own on a dangerous path, leading to some d&d combat scenes. They will also be ambushed by an other general, but after defending well enough, the general will casually stop attacking and jovially state that this time, they sure got back strong. He will claim that it is quite normal and even accepted to attack the newly resurrected - should they be killed, it is only because the resurrection left them weak, so it will be like better luck next time. In fact, generals are fighting each other regularly and they are all about manipulating, blackmailing and tricking, but the stability of the system relies on them not actually killing each other - well at least that's what the attacking general is claiming.

At the Mercenary Fortress, they will learn that the Mercenary Fortress is led by a commander and the eight generals are directly subordinates to him, and that he is calling them together for a mission briefing.
It will turn out that the commander is a priest of Tiamat, and is wielding an extremely powerful black scythe, an artefact of his Deity... or a least used to, as he will open the meeting by stating that Tiamat is testing him by taking away the power of the scythe, and having him prove his worth as commander on his own.
So he is openly asking "now answer me: Who is your commander?".
After some talk, one general claims that he is not willing to follow a weakened leader and charges the commander - who still seems able to slay him easily by grappling him.with one outstretched hand and make the attacker's body pulsate with his heartbeat that gets more and more intense, until with a final beat fountains of blood are squirting from his nose, eyes, ears and so on, instantly killing him.
Another general will claim that such cheap blood magic will not work on him (he might be a lich), and will also attack, but be hit by some arrow that first liquifies and than evaporates his body. Behind the commander, there is a black cloak of vaguely human shape, and without turning, the commander smiles a funless smile and states "oh well, I never thought I might be thankful for knowing an assassin behind me".
The cloak speaks in a deep voice "Nothing is too dead to be killed by an assassin. As to your question, I wanted to mention that I hereby renew my vow of loyalty, oh my commander. Who is against you, is against us".

The commander will conclude that he considers his question fully answers, and if no one else is still doubting (he is looking around, but everyone seems to agree), he will now be telling them the mission.

After that here would be the " free phase ".
The commander's mission is open about how to achieve it. The players can walk through the Fortress, search for equipment, allies, intrigue, and so on.
They can try to form an alliance against the commander and the assassin, or they can defend them against others who might. They might like the commander but fear that right now he is owing the assassin a favor, thereby endangering the balance of power among the generals.
Or they might just care about their mission...about which I might soon be writing more, but right now all that matters is that the mission will include lots of d&d dice rolling again. It will also be influenced by some decision the players can make in the free phase.

I hope my intension is clear - otherwise feel free to ask.
I think I will be writing more on it soon.

Totally awesome man!!!
The coastline looks a lot more scraggly (not sure if this term really fits), I'm really impressed, it looks much more "realistic". Well, of course the mountains and just everything else also look better and more realistic, but I'm most impressed by the coastline  ;D

And I'm all the more impressed when I think that is was not created by "Google Khoras" or some other highly equipped stuff, but by a single person as a hobby  :o

Miscellaneous / Re: Gaming Inspiration from Material Culture
« on: April 18, 2018, 02:24:41 PM »
I totally agree that the Silmarillion is more properly compared with epos than with novels.
Also the Silmarillion made me think of a way to classify the term "verisimilitude":

To me it seems that a central aspect of it is the fact that notable deeds can not be repeated. The whole story wouldn't make sense if it was possible to create the next set of Silmarills, or to plant the next Trees of Valinor. There is no general need to assume things work that way - on the contrary, modern science might be paraphrased as "if it happens once, it will happen again, given time", and industrialisation seems to be based on the concept that if you can build it once, you can build it all over again. So I think that that principle that things will not work the same way twice is part of the "intrinsic" verisimilitude of the Silmarillion. It is a consistent factor within the story, and the story probably wouldn't even work without it, but from the outside, it is not needed.

The law of conservation of energy, on the other hand, would be an aspect of "extrinsic" verisimilitude when applied to magic. To put it slightly inaccurate: If a mage casts a fireball, will the rest of the world get colder? If not, why would magic not lead to a kind of industrialization that dwarves the impact the steam engine had in our world?
The Silmarillion avoids having to answer this question by restricting magic to entities beyond human way of thinking, but any system that allows for magic users as generic classes would have to cope with those questions for me to attribute verisimilitude to them
I'm not saying I only like fantasy scenarios that include a sophisticated answer to questions about the law of conservation of energy, or some equivalent thereof. I'm just giving an example for what I'd classify as extrinsic verisimilitude.

Also I' not trying to make a binary's more like two ways of looking at the same thing.

So those are my thoughts when asked about what I think abut verisimilitude  ;D
I always strive for it, but don't find it easy to say what it exactly is.

Miscellaneous / Re: Gaming Inspiration from Material Culture
« on: April 17, 2018, 12:08:17 AM »
OK, next try ;-)

I'd say I'm very much into verisimilitude, at least when sitting in front of pen and paper. In a video game like Diablo, I don't mind opening a dungeon door to a room full of monsters unable to open doors. At the gaming table, this would be a no-go.
Beyond such obvious blunder, I tend not to like story and adventure hooks where the players get their jobs from figures of feudal authority, like the king or a prince. Or rather, such scenarios fail to convince me of why such an important figure would trust the PCs.
And what I mentioned in another thread about modern values in medieval settings could also be considered an issue of verisimilitude.
I also tend to invent races and names especially for my game world. I think it could be also considered an aspect of "pure fantasy" if players enjoy defeating Medusas or snarling at Wotan's wrath. Keeping out common names and concepts like Medusa and Wotan also can lead to more verisimilitude, because since you already start spending time on creativity, you might as well put some thoughts in background and therefore consistency (but this does not necessarily have to be so).

That said, my strife for verisimilitude and for fantasy rarely conflict. Khoras for example has a very high degree of verisimilitude, and still you might find a demon lord escaping from an inter dimensional prison.
The more you move away from Earth-based assumptions and implications, the more effort has to be put into verisimilitude (as a general rule), but I think it's always worth it.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I think that verisimilitude depends a lot more on how you play and a lot less on what you play. Let's take the terrible cavalier with an incredibly high-stat steed. I think this is mainly a.problem in what I called "stochastic" gameplay where you essentially bring your stats into position. I can easily imagine some "reluctant hero" scenario, where the rider isn't a noble heroic cavalier at all, but everyone assumes he is, a bit like like Rincewind on Discworld..maybe a coward thief that stole the steed and now is bond to it and has to play his role I'm getting ideas for NPCs...

About Superman: Yes, he's a superhero, but nobody would care about the story if all he did was using superpowers. Not sure if this qualifies as verisimilitude, but I think the important thing is his double identity, and the contrast between larger-than-life and quite ordinary.

And one final thought: I think its hard to talk about roleplaying as we know it without talking about Tolkien.
Not sure if there are many D&D fans that do not stand in awe before the Silmarilion. But I wouldn't attribute much verisimilitude to LOTR. It's a great story, but it's driven by the fact that the author wants it to happen, rather than being resolved by action of the protagonists.

Miscellaneous / Re: Gaming Inspiration from Material Culture
« on: April 15, 2018, 03:13:42 PM »
These are the people playing a gritty military campaign with a heavy tactical focus

I've come to call this the "stochastic" type of game: If you repeat the random experiments often enough, the outcome will diverge towards a "fair" game system, i.e. a system that offers you choices that influence your chances in a different way  where a "good" player is good at figuring probabilities.
If you perform each random experiment just once, nothing is "fair".

From what I know, D&D started from a strategy game named "chainmail", so it seems natural to me that it started as the "stochastic" kind of game.
However I think that such a system works best for "versus" situation, with opposing players, so if you play D&D in a "narrative" style that is not about the players overcoming a GM that wants to destroy them, but about a good story, you have to go away from the strategy, whether you admit it or not.

Let me give you an example:
Back at university, a fellow student was fond of the warhammer game, and he like to tell about a battle where a minor artillery hit combined with very poor moral rolls resulted in half of the skaven army running away from battle. I can easily imagine the players involved laughing their donkey of when this happened at the table...if you play skaven, such things can happen, and it's what I called a "versus" game, and also a "stochastic" game meaning that that chances of such an event are balanced against all other numbers.
So while I never played warhammer myself, I can easily imagine that this part of what makes the game fun to play.

However I can rarely imagine a modern D&D party telling a story like "do you remember when we all rolled a natural 1 and our whole party was cloudkilled? Boy, that was fun".
In a video game, it would be a "load save game" situation, and video games might have influenced RPG systems so that they now have such things as "fate points" you can use to re-roll a terrible result and therefore have your players survive bad luck. Either that, or the GM "cheats" dice rolls, introduces some "deus ex machina" intervention that solves a situation that would mean instand defeat, or stops using things like cloudkill alltogether.

So my personal conclusion is that I either want to play consequently stochastic, which I think is also called "rogue-like" (where a cloudkilled party is a realistic part of the game)...or use a system that uses dice to decide how the story will go on, but does not even pretend to decide if it will go on (i.e. a system without hit points and the like). I recently discovered "Fate" as such a system, but didn't play t yet.

Hmm, reading all over things again, I think I haved somewhat moved from your original question. But I do not want to delete what I wrote, but will come back to your points soon.
And I will also whatch your video ;-)

The Art of the Game Master / Re: The omniscient holodeck
« on: April 06, 2018, 03:04:24 PM »
Well, somehow I think Star Trek has often been somewhat..vague on a high level.
They have an enormous knowledge on why some things don't work (yet?) in our universe so they just declare it's suddenly working in the future.

But actually I don't know that much about explanation within the series. My claim was more about logical restrictions:
In your example, I would assume that whoever created the holodock had to know that it was possible to convert energy pulses into Kreiger radiation...and what exactly happened if you did so.

I mean, if the holodeck "creates" energy pulses, it has to "know" what energy pulses are. Even if the creator of the holodeck did not explicitly know about Kreiger radiation, the holodeck created energy pulses in such a way that they had the inherent property of being convertible into Kreiger radiation.

So either the holodeck has access to some "lexicon of the Universe" where it can "look up" what it is expected to reproduce (and here I think the term omniscient applies) or what you described only worked because the holodeck creator knew it worked that way.

And yes, in any case, my idea is not about "right or wrong" within Star Trek canon, but about the idea of a holodeck that "knows" more than the society using it.
If the holodeck does have a divine component or if it is an artefact of an immensely advanced civilization from the past...well, no need to decide which one is true, as long as people in the game world believe either.

The Art of the Game Master / The omniscient holodeck
« on: April 02, 2018, 01:22:09 PM »
For my game world I also integrated an idea based on Star Trek's holodeck - which I assume to be known enough not to explain.

I came up with the conclusion that the holodeck could not be used to find out something unknown to its creator/programmer
 I could enter the holodeck and say "build a particle accelerator", or I might go to some console and specify. Then I might conduct experiments and measure results.
But I might as well look into source code of holodeck software.
The result of an experiment within the holodeck should have a deterministic outcome based on its algorithm and the data I enter.

So a society that builds a holodeck can not gain knowledge from it.
At least that's the way I see it, but I might be any case, I wanted to build a story around a holodeck without this limitation.

In some other thread I wrote about a religion claiming science as its faith, and they revere a God that provides the holodeck (of course its not really a holodeck in my game world) with all the knowledge he has about the world...well, only scientific knowledge, its not an oracle, its more like a simulator to create laboratory conditions. A perfect science lab, not limited by issues like energy consumption, able to provide 100% pure elements and shutting of all external influence like gravitation and background radiation.
But as with the original holodeck, you can not take anything out of it, so the society would feature a huge gsp between knowledge and synthesis. They might know the theory of mass defect and about the speed of light, but not use electricity or the steam engine in their daily live.

So for me the whole thing has two purposes:
Thinking about how such a society might develop...and which roleplaying stories might arise
And creating alternative physics...I mentioned the mass defect as an example, but that does not mean my gamecworld mechanics will use the atom model.

Gaming Tales / Re: Players at wordbuilding
« on: April 02, 2018, 08:07:01 AM »
For what I mean, I just came up with the term "Schroedinger campaign" where the state of the game world is undefined until the players look at it.
But I do not mean improvising a campaign, making up things as we go. More like retroactive wordbuilding.
Let's call it applying Ockham's Razor to Khoras until a minimal game world remains, putting all other great Khoras ideas on a Schroedinger stack to get back at them as needed, but making no assumption about it until you need it.

If the players do not seem to like the idea of searching the artefact for too long, I might decide that is was build by a crazed loner who had the geniality to build it, but lacked any ambition or creativity to see its potential, so it spent its whole time in a chest in an unknown laboratory only a few days travel away from War Vale.
In this case, there would be no need that there ever was the Great War, so "suddenly" there never was one. At least not until it might come in handy at a different long as there is no need to know whether the Great War ever happened, the question of whether it happened is in Schroedinger state. Same about Aggradar and Qeshir.

Since I'm a big fan of the Sarthak, I might take away Duthelm and replace it by the Trosolli Dominion. But this would be a surprise for my players. All they knew was that there was a huge area full of Goblyns whose raids used to be a constant borderland nuisance until they stopped a year ago. Nobody knows why. And as might have been guessed, the "why" is in Schroedinger state ;-)
The campaign might get really interested by an organized large-scale invasion by abominations from the Trosolli Dominion. Will the players take the chance for separation, knowing that Rukemenia would not want to fight a two-front-war - at the risk of dooming first Rukemenia and than War Vale to be invaded by an overwhelmingly powerful enemy, which would have been defeated by joint forces?
But maybe the players will come up with the idea of making Rukemenia invade the Goblyn wildland in the first place - in this case I might decide that there never were any Sarthak.

And so on...

The Art of the Game Master / Re: Metaphysical sidenote: space and time
« on: April 02, 2018, 06:38:45 AM »
You know, the more I think about it, one axis of temporal dimension also is pretty heady ;-)

And also kind of a cultural issue:
Of course a stick in the ground can make for a primitive sundial, by mapping measure of time to measure of length (I.e. quantify time by the distance the shadow "moves").
But the idea of time as a linear dimension is a lot more sophisticated...a bit like the difference between counting apples, and postulating the Peano Axioms, even though both is about natural numbers.

I think that thea idea of a time scale is not " natural", but became a necessity with the concept of interest and compound interest.
If lending is about "I give you ten gold pieces if you give me eleven gold pieces next spring", a rudimentary circular time concept would be enough, only defined by the change of sessions.
Only if it starts with "I lend money at 10% interest per what if I lend money for 9 months?"  there comes the need for linear time measure.

So in some way, the saying "time is money" might have a deeper truth than what is commonly meant by saying it ;-)

In any case, my main motivation is playing with the idea that if culture was different, the concept of time also would be different, and that the idea of one time axis is a model among many, but it does not mean that time IS like this.

Gaming Tales / Players at wordbuilding
« on: March 31, 2018, 07:17:52 AM »
Unfortunately I plan a lot more than I actually play, so most of what I write here about ideas and settings still waits to be met by actual players. But here's a new idea I already found interested potential players for:

It seems to me that in many settings, players are expected to react rather than act: If the players do not step in, someone else will reach his goal (or sometimes not reach it), and this would be bad for the game world.
I want the players to be the initiators: If they do not step in, things will go on as they are, but they do have an ambition to change it.

Maybe an example would do best:
I might ask my friends "Hey, what about a campaign where the protagonists get access to an artefakt that gives total control over a race of shapeshifters created by said artefact?" (I guess the source of inspiration is obvious  ;))
One of them might say "Why, yeah. This sounds like a perfect tool for someone who wants to take over rulership in his kingdom, realm, whatever"
Another one might say "Yes, but maybe not take over rulership, just control the current rulership because we think ist is weak. We are loyal to our nation, including whatever current authority, but we dream of restoring former glory. Less petty struggles"
Than I might say "Well, in this case, I already thought of something called the War Vale. Wanna hear?"
The might say "yes, this would be a cool campaign: Using this artefact to somehow unite the War Vale. Not becoming rulers of it, more like a paramilitary secret service...never seen, but able to install a nation-wide legal system and military, getting people to get their identification from being citizens of War Vale and not of their duchies."
I might say "Wait, wait, the Rukemian Empire might get nervous about a unified military. Come to think of, it, they might prefer the current state and already be actively working on keeping it that way."
They might say "OK, in this case out goal is independence from Rukemenia"
I might say "Well, I can't promise success, but you DO have a powerful artefact, and it sounds like something that someone in the game world might try, and if we stretch the campaign over decades of ingame time, inserting time lapse periods,...and you know, even failure could make for an interesting story. Let's do it.
Oh, by the way, did I say that you DO have a powerful artefact? Well, that's not quite true. You DO have pretty certain indications of where to find it, but doing so would be the first part of the campaign.
So now let's talk about what group of characters might secretely come together to plan and conduct all of it."

And so on. In any case, much of was planned before could be changed sooner or later thereby deviating from Khoras canon. The fact that I used some Khoras names above is to (somehow) properly credit my source of inspiration, and because it comes with a lot of information I'd otherwise would have to first invent and than write in my post.
Ocean travel might seem too much, so I (or rather *we*) might do away with all geography, history and so on that comes from Khoras. A whole race of shapeshifters might be too much, so we might change it to an artefact that can create and keep alive a small number of shapeshifters at a time.

And of course the players might make different decisions in the first place. Maybe they want to use the artefact to incite a "savage" race to an uprising, centering the campaign around the Mandalar.

In any case, I'm looking forward to trying such a (at least for me) new approach, since my former approaches were more like first creating the world and the strory hook, an than presenting it to players who made their characters without knowing much about what awaited them.

The Art of the Game Master / Metaphysical sidenote: space and time
« on: March 31, 2018, 05:12:13 AM »
I just wanted to mention something I came up with for my game world:

Within it, people believe in a 5-dimensional world. Or, as they'd say, there are five directions, three of wich can be walked either way, and two that can only be walked one way.
The first three are spatial (up/down, forward/backward, left/right), the latter two are temporal (earlier, later).

So past and future are independent dimensions, rather than forward and backward on the same axis.
This effectively removes all kind of time travel paradoxa - if you first "travel" one minute into the future, and than one minute into the past, you do not end where (or rather "when") you started, but sqrt(2) minutes away from it (by the theorem of Pythagoras).
There is no such idea as to "turn back time" - time only turns forward, either into the past or into the future.

This might be hard to imagine for someone used to think of time as one axis, but someone used to think of it as two axes and never coming up with the idea of one axis could live consistently in this worldview, at least in a fantays word. And he would in turn find theidea of one axis rather strange.
And to be honest...I'm not even sure if modern real-world science could easily prove the idea of two time axes wrong (there even might already be such a theory of two axes, but if so I do not remember it).

Gaming Tales / Re: The Prismate – Story idea
« on: March 30, 2018, 10:38:35 AM »
I edited a less short version of the creation into my last post. Now for what it has to do with the Prismate:

Wortklaubers work with the primal echo of the rune words. So their powers are older than the Gods, and people are more afraid of Wortklaubers then they are of the Gods. Also the goals of a Wortklauber are more alien to mortals then the goals of the Gods.

One rune word is carried only by one Wortklauber at a time.
There is a prophecy that one say, there will be the Word War, where all Wortklaubers will fight each other until only one remains. This will be the end of the world as it is known.

In the campaign I intend, people will see the characters' encounter with the Prismate as a sign that the Word War has started.

Gaming Tales / Re: The Prismate – Story idea
« on: March 09, 2018, 02:41:48 PM »
I'm glad you like the idea.
In my game world, there'd be a saying that „you don't master magic- it's magic that choses you to wield it“.
It's symbiotic and individual..there'd be no „fire mages“ as a generic class, there'd be one „fire wortklauber“ somehow inspired by superheroe scenarios where there's one character for one supernatural power.
Everything about the character would fit with the superpower, and vice versa.

In my game world, the wise-guy from above would now continue with a lesson on words:
„In short:
In the beginning, there was the word.
Than there was the sentence.
Then there was the question.
Than there was the story.
Than there was you.

In long:
In the beginning, the world was bijectively described by the runes inscribed into the scales of the Black Dragon Norazûhl: There was no aspect of the world that was not described by exactly one rune, and there was no rune that did not describe exactly one aspect of the world. Our scientheologists speak of this as the world-word-monade, but this is rather inaccurate, as there are what we call words that do not refer to aspects of the world, like "as".

Than there was The Ancient Gnome Mother Ms. Chief, and She read alout each word on each scale, and the echoes of the words rose up and flew around and about. Our scientheologists call this the word-echo-dual, and since then, the world is described by the echoes of the words. It is also often called the beginning of time, despite the obvious inner incoherence of such an idea.
What today we call "demon" is actually such an echo, a manifestation of a prime aspect of the world.

And the words mixed and joined together. Our scientheologists call this the word-sentence-multitude, but the term "sentence" has somehow changed its meaning and today mostly refers to a sequence of words. Originally it named what we might call the fabric that hold the words together.
What today we call "Gods" are actually those sentences, as they built words into terms.
And yet, it was still such that sentences described the world, if only in an infinite multidude.

But there was one sentence that was not satisfied with this dualism of describing and creating the world. His name was Retmayeb an he started describing the Gods. He actually mocked them, claiming that while they where able to shape word and worlds at their will, they still where "all shape and no content".
So the Gods grew angry and worked together to cast Retmayeb into what they considered a miserable shape with a torso, two arms and legs and a head, and forced him to reproduce livings of his own alike for all eternity, and they ripped of his eyelids so he had to  watch his creation forever.

And here we are, His creation, taking pride in it and our duty:
Retmayeb mastered infinity once by describing all Gods, and he will master eternity and rise again.
We are scientheologists, knowledge is our faith, since the day we, his creation, have described the the whole world, He will be all there is to say about the world, making Him truely Everything and Always."

[GM note] Remember that this is not a "true" creation myth of my world, it's some guy talking to the player characters. First and foremost this means that he is translating the myth into their language, and as we all now, you can't translate without losses. For example, the relationship between "sentence" and "God" can only poorly be translated into the language of Earth dwellers.
Also this guy tends to get carried away. At first he tries to stick the long version to the structure of the short version, but he doesn't keep it up.
When interrupted, he insists on finishing the story first, but after that, he will try his best to make things clear by elaborating vague points. [GM note off]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7