hidden variable objectivism

        During my travels (currently visiting the SFC, and hello to Stephen Martin, Rob Heinsoo, Mike Derry, Shannon Appell, and Eric Rowe, all of whom I had the good fortune to meet while in the Bay Area - a pleasure to meet every one of you) I have got somewhat behind in my digest reading. Imagine my surprise, having prepared several persuasive arguments on the subjectivist side, to find that Alex has described me exactly as a "hidden variable objectivist",
>who think that experience can be subjective to a
>greater or lesser extent, but there's a deeper underlying objective
>reality, to which access is limited, unreliable, or partial.
thus throwing me in with my opponents....

        Luckily, I get to breathe a sigh of relief only a sentence afterward
>For my money, HVOs and "subjectivists" are functionally equivalent,
>except that the latter get to spare themselves the mental effort of
>working out what the Hidden Reality is.

        And I certainly do believe that we need to define the Hidden Reality (the true rules of the Otherworld) at least a tiny bit, if only because its the only way we are ever going to ever have things that resemble heroquest/ T&J mechanics. Its one of those little projects I keep on the backburner.

        The reason why I feel that hidden variable objectivism (I think that phrase is just so damn nifty I'm going to use it at every possible opportunity) is essential is because we really need to work out what happens when two cultures meet. Particularly because I think campaigns where two cultures (or more) meet are cool, and can be a major contributor to MGF (I ran a Sog City game once). And eventually, we need to have some way of working out what happens when heroquesters from two different cultures oppose each other. Now, the Objectivist, where one culture is simly wrong, is arbitrary and dull. The subjectivist gives us no answer. So we need hidden variable objectivism. Of course, whether this is going to be something practical we can do anytime soon is another question - nevertheless, I stand soldly behind it as a philosophical stance.

        Cheers

                David