u/A_Vinegar_Taster

I am coming at this from an Existentialist angle. I do not believe that "Rights" actually exist beyond concepts and opinion, and I don't see any grounding for them in the physical reality we exist in.

I would like to start off with the common ground that we can all agree on. There is no force of the universe that will enforce your rights. If you are being chased through the woods by a serial killer, your right to life will not cause the universe to save you. Food will not fall from the sky if you are starving, water will not appear when you are dying of thirst. People and animals die in horrible, unfair ways all over the world every single day without fail and reality does not change to conform to their rights. So, I believe that we would all agree that the physical universe does not respect your rights.

A little more controversial is the view of Rights regionally and throughout history. What a person is allowed to do or guaranteed is dependent on who and when they live. Rights have expanded and contracted based off of all kinds of characteristics, financial situations, relations... They are not constant and have changed along with the society and the commonly held opinions of the people who 'grant' them.

I see the turn "human right" said about a lot of things. It is delivered as a fact. But, actually, all rights are just opinions held by a majority (enough to tip the scales of a social interaction). We should not view rights as an immutable fact that exists. It is an opinion, just like "pumpkin spice is the best flavor latte" or "Vegemite is food".

This leads me to the conclusion that 'rights' are exclusively opinions held by other people and the only real strength they have behind them is the strength that other people grant them. If someone decides to dismiss your rights, you don't have them - unless other people who support those rights are allowed to weigh in. It is more of a social balancing act than it is a rule of nature.

Perfection is a state of completeness, flawlessness, or supreme excellence.

I would argue that from instant to instant, the entire universe is progressing from one state to the next in the most perfect expression of causality. The balance of forces and energies is exactly as it should be. Deterministically, any given moment could not have turned out any other way; there is no alternate path, just this one.

If determinism is true, then everything is as it should be. Nothing could be otherwise. At least viewed through the lens of causality, every instant is a perfect resolution to the previous instant. The 'progression' of time is a faithful execution of causality without fail.

Obviously, as human beings, we have meta-opinions about the universe and how things should be. We don't like that we stubbed our toe, or that the power went out or that we got cancer - but we can't deny that these things are exactly what should have happened. There was a Zen Comics panel I read a long time ago where a teacher and a student were sitting together and the student says "Why isn't everything perfect?" and the teacher says "It is."

The universe is a flowing, ongoing expression of perfection. Causally, physically and mathematically.

Maybe it is just my algorithm, but I keep seeing die hard Tyler Robinson defenders doing everything they can to fight back the avalanche of evidence against Tyler Robinson. I'm no stranger to conspiracy theories - I think it is healthy to question and doubt and really put evidence through the crucible to make sure we aren't being lied to. I say this so I am clear that I am not one of those people who thinks we should blindly believe whatever the government tells us.

But, at some point the dismissing and challenging of evidence becomes a lifestyle choice. It turns into fingers in the ears and "lalalalalala-I-can't-hear-youuuu-lalala". It stops being honest, and that is a serious problem. It is dogma and blind faith couched as skepticism.

The case presented thus far in the Tyler Robinson case is compelling. But, people seem to want to challenge everything about it. It isn't him on the videos, that's not his car, that's not his shirt, his DNA and fingerprints were planted, Charlie wasn't even shot, there were no bullet fragments, all the evidence is faked, the confessions never happened, the note is forged, the cops are in on it, the feds are in on it, everyone is in on it to go after this one random kid in Utah. If you try to put together a narrative on how the people framed Tyler did it, none of it makes sense, but people still fight for him.

If you are intellectually honest, you will take all evidence as it comes and consider it. People seeking the truth don't jump to conclusions, and they don't dismiss evidence because it doesn't fit with their preconceptions. Skepticism is good, but don't use it for your confirmation bias.

Suppose I concede that quantum behaviors have no pattern whatsoever, and are truly random (for the record, this is not what I believe, but for the sake of argument I am forwarding the idea).

If things on the macro scale are ordered, but on the micro scale it is random, does that mean that the universe can be said to be random, ordered, or some quasi state in between?

Seemingly random fluctuations (quantum foam or whatever) impact subatomic particles which affect atomic and molecular particles - eventually leading to a universe that is generally ordered, but which has an underlying bedrock of randomness. This would be in line with how we currently understand quantum theories.

Imagine a calculator that functions orderly, but with truly random input. Are the results the calculator gives random because the input is random? Is it ordered because the process is ordered? Or is it best described as what it is - order following chaos?

Most of my roleplaying career, I've had the same vision of what kingdoms and cities would look like in a fantasy world with magic and monsters. I've experimented with some different ideas, but in general I keep coming back to the same general vision. Castles, knights, magic users... You could accuse me of a lack of imagination - that's fair.

But, today I started thinking what a major human society would do in the world of magic spells. What would they do if there were orcs and goblins and ogres? Nothing about what I imagined would be there. Everything would be different.

First off, you would not have freelance spellcasters of any stripe. Every spellcaster would be licensed. Magical training would be restricted and controlled. Spellcasters would be required to sign contracts and swear allegiance; they wouldn't be allowed to just wander into dungeons with random fighters in search of gold. No, if you are a freelance spellcaster, you're a threat and you need to be handled - once you can cast fireball, you need to be vetted before they'd allow you to be anywhere there is a concentration of people. Spells might even be highly restricted, you might not have access to any spell you want - your sponsor noble chooses what they want and they make you learn that. Warlocks would probably all be organized, maybe even making oaths to the same infernal creature. Clerics would be legion. Druids would build massive defensive walls around kingdoms and cities. Roads would be perfect. Irrigation would be perfect. There would be no such thing as a bad harvest. Ravens and owls would watch the people in the streets as spies. It would be a dystopia, but it would work. The town guard would all be fairly high level fighters - they would not be peasants with spears.

What do you think? Think it would play out differently? What would you imagine humans would do if you handed them the world DnD (or really any fantasy world with magic) promised them?

When I go to the gym, I have a mix of music that I listen to that pumps me up. There are quotes that I think about that motivate me. There are memories and thoughts and situations that make me feel emotions and inspire me to act. We all have that song that we play air guitar to, or that scene in a movie that gives us goosebumps or makes us cry. What is that?

All of these reactions come from simple stimulus. The music is just sounds, the quote is just words, the scene in the movie is just acting, but the effect on us is much more profound. I'd like some insight into what happens when we have those thrilling moments. What is going on in the brain when the music hits your favorite part, or when you read that quote you love so much. Is this neurological? Is it psychological? Is it a mix of both? Or is it something else altogether?

I've been in games with a lot of GMs who seemed to posture themselves as my opponent during role playing games. If I found a loophole or a creative use for something, they'd find ways to shut it down and fight to keep me from exploiting it. Even in some subreddits, when I post about some creative uses for spells, there are people who can't help but try and fight against it. It's almost like they see themselves as the players' opponent rather than a neutral arbitrator.

This isn't entirely a bad thing. Players can easily spiral into being overpowered without being held in check. And once the character gets too powerful, the game loses something. So, I realize that the GM has to keep the tension up, and keep the players grinding to keep it interesting. But, then again, I've had so many games end just as I've started to feel like I've got enough power to do what I want. It's almost like so long as the GM has the power, the game is fun, but once the players have the power the GM loses interest.

What do you think? As a GM, do you oppose your players? Are you neutral? Do you facilitate them? How do you handle GM-hood, and why?

I've been posting some threads here and elsewhere about various ideas that have been rolling around in my head recently about a stripped down gaming system that can be tailored to fit a wide variety of different genres. The core of the game is really about boiling everything down to the essentials - quick, clean and simple.

But, it got me thinking and I wanted to ask the players out there (not you forever DMs) what degree of pluses, penalties, racial modifiers, ranges, class proficiencies, traits, experience points, mana points, etc. do you like in a game? What I mean to ask is, does an in depth character sheet with tons of granular detail on your character appeal to you more than say a simplified one? Would you feel like something was missing if your character was reduced to a small number of strengths and weaknesses, or would that be liberating? Does the detailed character sheet give you something to think about, minmax and plan? Do you like keeping track of these details?

As I said, I am developing my project with simplicity in mind, but I wanted to get a read of the room and see if players actually prefer having a lot of documentation for their character. As a player, I have my own opinions, but I'd like to hear yours.

Thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts.