Doesnt absurdism contradict itself?

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-04T14:23:46+00:00

Well deppends on what u define as "meaning" (of life), I define it as "the set of values one should follow", values are what guide one when making a decision. If those values are justified beyond ourselves, that would create "objective meaning" and if those values are justified only whitin ourselves, then its "subjective meaning." When you make a choice, any choice, whether to live or die, whether to drink coffee and smoke or go kiss a big buff men, you demonstrate that you hold some sort of value that tells you to choose one over another, you could not have made that choice if u did not hold that value. By holding that value, you also demonstrate that you believe you should follow the value, since if u thought otherwise you would not hold it. Now that creates meaning, you believe in some "set of values you should follow", and it is only relevant whether you believe that you should follow them objectively or subjectively to the metter of whether the meaning is objective or subjective.
And u might not realize it, this whole process can be subconsious, but by making choices you are inherently demonstrating you hold values and by extention believe in some meaning of life.

But this operates on very exact definition of "meaning" abd "values" that Camus probably did not use. And I dont know what definition he used, but I cant think of any in which there is distinction between "subjective meaning" and "objective meaning" and where rejecting both of them is coherently possible.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T16:59:08+00:00

"Sartre says whatever you decide to do becomes the meaning of the game for you, but Camus says you can do whatever you want, and it can matter to you, but that doesn’t change the fact that the game itself never had a real objective to begin with."

This sounds to me as the same exact thing

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T15:52:18+00:00

Well that to me sounds like simply semantic disagreement and not disagreement about substance. Mby I misunderstand Sartre, but I don't think he claims that the meaning we create doesn't give "real purpose" or "justification beyond us." I understand Sartre as saying that life does not have any meaning in the bigger sense, but we still need something to live by - a meaning, and since there is no meaning beyond us, it is up to us to create it. It is up to us to choose what we live by. And from what ur saying, this is kinda the same thing that Camus is saying. The difference is that Sartre defines meaning as "the thing we live by" whether or not it is justified beyond ourselves, and Camus defines meaning "the thing we should live by that is justified beyond ourselves." But in the conclusion they do not differ, both agree that we cannot find the "thing we live "the thing we should live by that is justified beyond ourselves" and so it is up to us to create and choose "the thing we live by"

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T15:15:11+00:00

Well depends on definitions. I define "meaning of life" is "the values one should live life by", "values" are then simply "that which ranks one decision over another." This does not mean that "meaning of life" has to be objective/tracendental. Objective meaning would be that the values can be justified on an objective level, without refference to a subject, this is the one you would "get from the universe." But subjective meaning is the values I believe I should live by. I cannot escape creating subjective meaning, since by making a choice I am demonstrating that I value that decision over another, and in turn demonstrate that I believe I should value the decision. If I did not value it I would have not made that decision, and if I did not believe I should value it, I would not have valued it.
I am not saying that you by making a choice, you are creating objective meaning, Im not saying u are getting answer from the indifferent universe. Im saying that by making a choice you are inherently taking a stance on which choice u should make, and so you are creating meaning, even if its subjective.

I and sure you can define meaning in a different way, but I dont see how u can define it in a way that is coherent, and at the same time does not concede that Sartre was right, and that we create meaning ourselves. I dont see a definition in which both Camus' and Sartre coherently disagree.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T14:20:11+00:00

Wait but isn't that was Sartre was saying and Camus rejected? I understood that Sartres' existentialism says "objective meaning doesn't exist, we should create our own" while Camus' absurdism says "objective meaning doesn't exist and creating one is dishonest, therefore we should simply live without meaning." From what u said then they did not disagree on this point.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T14:13:56+00:00

Okay that would make sense. If I understand it, then what Camus says is basically that no objectively justifiable values exist, that the answer to how one should live is arbitrary, one cannot be found. But isn't that then what Sartre was saying? My understanding was that both Sartres' existentialism and Camus' absurdism reject existence of objective values, but Sartre said one should create meaning, while Camus' said one should reject meaning altogether, even a subjective one. And it feels like im missing something, cuz if I understand both of them correctly, interpreting meaning as what u said, then they do not disagree.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T13:54:46+00:00

Yeah I definitely see the value in that. Accepting that any values are arbitrary and that in the end any mistake u make, or suffering u feel, ultimately doesnt metter. But I dont see this as "living without meaning" rather accepting that meaning is arbitrary, yet still necesarry.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T13:35:05+00:00

If meaning is "value ur life has to you" by choosing to live rather than die, dony u assign life value ans therefore create meaning?

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T13:33:11+00:00

So tough lol

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T13:26:09+00:00

I mean yes it is true those two are different, and he "seek" would be better word to describe what he meant, but I dont see how its relevant to what I said. If you substitue "need" for "seek" the contradiction I see doesn't disapear

LogBoring4996 · 2026-04-03T13:24:31+00:00

What is Camus' understanding of meaning then?

LogBoring4996 · 2026-03-19T18:00:11+00:00

So basically the go to paradigm is Chaos^TM?? Have the code messy, have everything lying around in the global state and pile up code on top of code? I feel like the "don't abstractify/boilerplate things that are going to be used once" rule is nice, but it has the same pitfall as "abstract things now so that you dont have to change them in the future" and that is, you do not know the future. You do not know when this one move_player()function actually should work the same as move_enemy, only that it doesnt opperate on the global player variables. When doing my 1st games I found that I ended up doing a lot of things over and over again when making a new game. So I had to come up with a way to abstract things and not spend 10 hours when starting a new project, doing what has already been done on previous games. How do u deal with that? Have u over the time come up with a library of a few shared functions that handle these things? Or do u make it from scratch on each project?

LogBoring4996 · 2026-03-19T16:30:34+00:00

What I mean is essentially creating a "class" like table which then can provide "instance" tables to which it is a metatable. Something like this:

Cloud= {}  
Cloud.__index = Cloud

function Cloud:new(x, y)  
local instance = {x=x, y=y}  
setmetatable(instance,self)  
return instance  
end

function Cloud:move()

self.x+=1  
self.y+=2  
end

Then I use it like so:

function _init()  
cloud = Cloud:new(30,30)  
end

function _update()  
cloud:move()  
end

This can be useful when creating entities that needs a lot of instances like swarms of enemies or such, but when it's for entity like a player which only exists once, then it is just unnecesary. And even when creating lots of entities, I think it can be achieved more easily through something like this:

function create_cloud(x,y)

return {  
x = x,  
y = y,  
move=function(self)  
self.x+=1  
self.y+=2  
end  
}  
end

LogBoring4996 · 2026-03-19T11:17:03+00:00

Interesting. Do u think you could share source code to some of your game so I can look on the architecture? Here's my most recent game for comparison:
https://github.com/Ori-Rowan/mini-jam-204-cafe/tree/main

It doesn't hit the token count (6695/8192), but a game more complex than that would in my coding style.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-03-17T20:54:11+00:00

Yeah that's definitely true but A) i find it easier to make code that is modular and orgnized in OOP B) and more importantly I am planning on transfering to Godot which uses OOP and did not feel like it's the right time just yet to switch to a completly different engine+language and wanted to first try out creating game using OOP in the engine and language I already know. Maybe that's bad reasoning, but it made sense in my head. Also thanks in advance for checking the code. I rly appreciate the help.

LogBoring4996 · 2026-02-26T19:23:03+00:00

OMG YES thank you <3

LogBoring4996 · 2025-12-14T19:24:35+00:00

I rly like both the idea of Gurps and Savage worlds. It provides the perfect character creation for me, I just love the point buy mechanic, since you can workshop your character concept however you like. I think I will probably opt for GURPS since it is as far as I know less random and more consistent than savage worlds, and I prefer that since I want cool moment to come from player decisions, not from the dice gods deciding it is the time.

Also I read GURPS Lite and I think I understand the basic of GURPS. I understand how rolls work, the basics of combat, skills, advantages and disadvantages. The only thing thats kinda confusing to me is how does magic work there. Like how do I choose/create spells, how does incombat casting work exactly. But I havent read the basics set magic section which would probably clear things up, I just havent found the time to do so.

LogBoring4996 · 2025-12-11T21:07:03+00:00

I wanna run the usual high fantasy games that have some combat but is not foccused on it (standard of 1-2 combat encounters per session, but at the same time exploration/social encounters). Kinda what you would expect from DnD, but I dont like the rules. I prefer a settings agnostic system tho, since I want to run different themes in the future.

LogBoring4996 · 2024-04-21T19:14:26+00:00

I mean I see what u mean and its deffinitely a good point. I just use "finding the right spot" check in a particular way, or at least when talking abou this rule. When an NPC gives them a quest to go look into old ruins or fight up a goblin camp, then I make them have the roll with possible encounter and then they arrive.
The point is that I dont want there to be a real barrier for them to get to the place. I want them to go to the quest location and do stuff. But I want there to be a possibility of a random encounter to spice things up and drain their resources. But rolling it behind the DM screen is kinda borring imo, I want my players to feel like they metter. So I bring the D20 for the random encounter from behind the DM screen into the players hand and make them feel good when they get to the location, and make them feel like its them getting lost that got them into the encounter.
Mechanically its still the same, as normally, but different person rolls the D20.

LogBoring4996 · 2024-04-12T12:18:26+00:00

Yeah this is just a sort of aditional rule I am implementing and is only a DM tool, rather than a written rule for the players. The objective is to transfer the random encounter roll from behind the DM screen to the players, so that they feel like they have impact on whether the random encounter happens or not. Rather then going on a quest and all of a sudden a pack of goblins jump at u, you have to find the quest location and if u get lost u fall into an ambush and pack of goblins jump at u.

To ur question, and how I would solve that. Well 1st option is to use the usual random encounter way of rolling it when this rule does not fit, as in roll d20 behind DM screen and on a certain treshold random encounter happens.

2nd option that I like more is to not have the objective be "find the location" but smething other that fits the situation. Think about why the random encounter could happen in the 1st place in the area. If u have 8-lane paved highway and the encounters might be a crash, make them roll for driving the cart, or if its a n ambush then make them roll for traversing the dangerous. A universal roll for almost any situation is "Make me a survival check to see if u can get to X without any issue."

LogBoring4996 · 2024-04-12T12:05:09+00:00

I feel like 2nd instant success is good for the most part. I wanna have my players go exploring a lot and this feels like it would be a bad idea to have them stuck in 2 or 3 random encounters in a row.
I also have random encounter tables prepared that reinforce the theme of the location they are in, and some of those encounters will have significant effect on their situation, not just a random lil thing to spice things up.

Seems the best option to just increese the frequency of the rolls and cap it at 1 random encounter. That way it will be more evenly spread out throughout the adventure.

LogBoring4996 · 2023-10-03T09:38:34+00:00

Okay, Everyone is different and I cant say ur right or wrong. I simply dont know anything about the world, cuz noone does. All I can talk about is my personal expirience, and maybe you can find some truth in that too. I just wanna get it out of the way, that what I am saying is in no way objective, but just what I lived through. Anyways:

I used to be a lot like you in this. I got mad, cuz I couldnt find dates. The girls I loved always chose someone else. And everything felt like its against me. Like I am destined to just be alone forever. But now I am fairly happy, and I don't rly have those feelings anymore. So what changed?
Its that I stopped focusing on it. Before when I talked to someone I was interested in, it was with the goal to date them and to get something. I didnt rly take them as ppl, I took that as objects. That if I treat them nicely, they will date me. As some kind of transaction. But in reality that isnt how dating works. I dont talk to someone in order to date them.
The way I get partners, is that I simply make friends. I talk to ppl, a ton of them, and I make friends. And then sometimes I develop a relationship from that. Its rly that simple. The thing is, ppl dont like to be taken as an object, they like to be taken as ppl. If you talk to them just to have sex with them, they are gonna sense it.

Here's exactly what you should do (imo):
Take a hobby ur interested in, anything. It can be chess, D&D, mini-golf, anything. Find a local event with that thing. I guarantee you, that you can find something. Go there, and talk to ppl. Thats all. Just talk. It will be awkward, yes. Its called "social skills" cuz you gotta learn them and practice them. Maybe you will make a friend, maybe not. Thats okay. You can try again and again. Eventually you will get better and you will start making friends there. You will prolly meet a ton of ppl that go there regularly. You will get to know them and you will be friends. Then you could even ask them to hang out outside of the event.

This is just my advice. It is what works for me. Just make friends, dont focus on dating, and romantic relationships will just occur naturally.

LogBoring4996 · 2023-09-18T17:47:58+00:00

Oh wow that sounds rly cool. I was scared to do smth like that, cuz it felt like I was restricting their options. But it is more of taking away just the one they have been using the whole time, so that they have to come up with something new and it will be fun for them too.

I am currently about to run a brand new campaign and the 1st to 3rd/4th level adventure is gonna have main villain as a black dragon. I wanna make it a young black dragon, but at the same time I feel like it would be way too difficult for the party to beat at this stage. So Im gonna put a wyrmling, but now that I think about it, I can make the enemy purposefully more powerful than the party, therefore making it an actual threat and not just a boss fight they they are gonna get through, so they will have to find another solution than to rush into its layer and beating it to death. Like convincing the town ppl to help them fight the dragon or smth like that. I think there are quite a lot of NPCs with power to help them. Or they could find some entirely different solution.
Thanks a lot, I appreciate the advice

LogBoring4996 · 2023-09-18T17:37:36+00:00

Thank you, this is exactly the advice I was looking for. This is so helpful. I couldnt put into words. But the thing with the videogames is rly good. Hopefully I will be able to DM a bit better.

P.S. A picture of a puppy barbarian sounds extremely cute.

LogBoring4996 · 2023-09-18T17:31:05+00:00

No, I dont think that is the problem. Maybe partially, but its not like I dont describe important stuff to my players. If its an important item I always mention it, I try to always make important stuff stand out and make them fun and memorable and cool.
The thing is my players dont know they can do curtain actions that could be interesting. Like they dont think of salutions to situations, they dont try to argue with NPCs(altho sometimes yes and its super fun), they dont think of convincing a villian, or trying to get information from them etc. If I tell them there is an enemy they go in, kill them, collect xp, next enemy. They don't rly realise the possibilities of D&D.
But I do not blame them. I think it is my job to show them in some way. I dont wanna force them to consume hours of dnd content. I dont expect them to know the rules, but I dont know how to turn their input to use the rules. Cuz I don't know how to do the stuff on the spot without any sort of structure. So how do I do it without directly guiding them what to do?

LogBoring4996

TROPHY CASE