"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"

[Laurefindel]

I recently watched the Return of the King film with my family, and the (second-last) ending, where the "last ship" sails from the Grey Havens, prompted the thought that has led to this post.

JRRT is probably the most famous conceiver of a fantasy setting, and that setting - Middle Earth - is widely regarded as a high point for evocative, verisimilitudinous and thematically sophisticated world building.

So it's interesting to note how many "one offs", how much "ad hocery" there is in the setting:

I don’t know, many of the things listed strongly support the themes of LotR, at least the departure and fading of the « great », the rise of the « small », and what happens when they’re confronted to power, whether it’s one they have or one they must oppose. The weakest creatures finding the most powerful ring, or the ironic laughter of a desperate woman counterspelling the dread of the most powerful undead, the « new » child-like hobbit disturbing the tombs of an old, powerful kingdom that stood where the Shire now is, closing the story by the « small » being admitted among the « great » for baring their burden… They may be unique elements in the setting but they are very consistent (like, inter-dependent to the limits of over-thinking) with the themes of the story.

.

In the Burning Wheel Character Burner (Revised, p13), Luke Crane writes:

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last mage. And you know what? That's good.​

To me, it can be three things:

• the player is being a prick.
• the player is expressing a vote of non-confidence.
• the player is trying to open a conversation on the themes used. At the conclusion of that conversation, I hope either the DM will make a good use of the « last mage » in a consistent manner with the setting, or the player will find another concept that doesn’t go against those proposed for the game.

TL;DR: oddities and consistency are not in opposition. Good oddities are treated in a consistent manner with the setting.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We're talking about concepts that directly fly against the established parameters of a campaign rather than complaining about unique or thematically potent concepts. I remember when a friend of mine accounced that he was running a Star Wars (Fantasy Flight Game) campaign where we'd all be Scum & Villany type characters and he specifically excluded Force users as an option. Without missing a beat, one of the other players immediately came up with a character who used the Force. It's just obnoxious, boorish behavior on the part of the player.

I don't think that's automatically the case. Everything is potentially up for negotiation and there are a lot of ways to go from there. Sometimes your concept is improved by being challenged or slightly reworked. I don't think it's 'just' anything. I mean, sure maybe the person was deliberately being a jerk but that would surely be my LAST conclusion, not the default one.

 

[Deset Gled]

Everything is potentially up for negotiation

It really, really isn't.

 

[Krachek]

By essence Fantasy breaks some of real life rules, and once it’s done Fantasy breaks some of his own rules.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think that's automatically the case. Everything is potentially up for negotiation and there are a lot of ways to go from there. Sometimes your concept is improved by being challenged or slightly reworked. I don't think it's 'just' anything. I mean, sure maybe the person was deliberately being a jerk but that would surely be my LAST conclusion, not the default one.

But he is talking about the established parameters. These are matters about the campaign people have settled on. I get during the discussion phase of talking about a new campaign, a player might introduce this idea. But I really think McGibster is making a sound point here that often comes up in these discussions. A GM imposing his will on a group of players is one thing. But a player can also impose their will on the group this way. Based on what we are reading here, it very much looks like a potential problem player. The group having a dialogue initially is great. A player trying to 'negotiate' the parameters after that has been settled is someone who is likely to cause issues in a group

 

[Bedrockgames]

We're talking about concepts that directly fly against the established parameters of a campaign rather than complaining about unique or thematically potent concepts. I remember when a friend of mine accounced that he was running a Star Wars (Fantasy Flight Game) campaign where we'd all be Scum & Villany type characters and he specifically excluded Force users as an option. Without missing a beat, one of the other players immediately came up with a character who used the Force. It's just obnoxious, boorish behavior on the part of the player.

It is a little like doing this:

 

[pemerton]

I don’t know, many of the things listed strongly support the themes of LotR

Of course they do - I didn't say otherwise!

But they contradict, or at least sit in tension with, the "rules" of the setting. Non-Elves sailing the straight road is the most obvious example, I think, followed by Bombadil seeming to violate the established order of being.

 

[pemerton]

In the Burning Wheel Character Burner (Revised, p13), Luke Crane writes:

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last mage.​

If the GM and other players have signed on for a concept and one player effectively tries to undermine that concept, I don't think that is being a good player at all.

But he is talking about the established parameters. These are matters about the campaign people have settled on.

We're talking about concepts that directly fly against the established parameters of a campaign

Established by whom? And in what sense "established"? I mean, in my book at least "proposes" and "establishes" are not synonyms! And nor are "has been proposed" and "has been settled on".

This is a particular pet peeve of mine, so I don't consider it a good thing. To my ears, this is just a passive aggressive way for the player to tell me they don't want to play in this campaign. It's disrespectful. It's much more respectful for the player to be honest with the GM and tell him they don't want to play in a campaign without magic.

Well, in the example I posted the player does want to play in a world without magic, because the world is dying and must be renewed - as it turns out, by spilling the blood of the last mage . . .

 

[pemerton]

For any work of fantastical fiction, it's necessary to establish rules on how things work and stick with them. Let's take Star Trek and their transporters as an example. One of the established rules for the transporters are that you cannot transport someone through shields. i.e. If the Enterprise has their shields up nobody can beam off or on the ship. In the TNG episode "The Wounded," the Enterprise beams Miles O'Brien aboard the Federation ship Phoenix even though they have their shields up. They're able to beam O'Brien aboard because they know the exact frequency of the Phoenix's shield or some technobabbly like that. But now you've established a new rule. If they knew the frequency of Phoenix's shield then Enterprise must know their own shield frequencies just as well. Shouldn't this mean beaming crewmembers on and off the ship while they have their shields up is a thing?

In other words, you've got to know the rules to know how to break the rules.

I don't quite follow the last sentence. I thought that you were criticising the Star Trek writers for breaking their own rule. So I'm not sure what "knowing the rule" has to do with it.

I also don't think the first sentence is true in general. REH wrote fantastical fiction. What rules on how things worked had he established? I think in stories like The Phoenix on the Sword, or The Tower of the Elephant, he just made stuff up that seemed exciting and surprising.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think that's automatically the case. Everything is potentially up for negotiation and there are a lot of ways to go from there. Sometimes your concept is improved by being challenged or slightly reworked. I don't think it's 'just' anything. I mean, sure maybe the person was deliberately being a jerk but that would surely be my LAST conclusion, not the default one.

One of the difficulties of talking about general practices is there are so many variables when you consider all of us in the aggregate. There's the game we're playing, the campaign setting, individual group dynamics, and even our own individual points of view that need to be considered and few blanket statements will cover every situation. Everything might be potentially up for negotiation but that doesn't mean everything is in actuality.

My suggestion to players is this; If you're not onboard with the premise then speak about with the GM prior to introducing your character concept. If the GM tells you there won't be any Force users in the campaign, don't start by telling everybody you plan on making a Force user. The message it sends to the GM and the other players is your character is more important than the campaign everyone else wants to play. Talk first about the setting, then pitch your concept, and if the GM says no then gracefully accept it.