Worlds of Design: The Importance of Self-Consistency

Internal self-consistency, creating stories that fit together and make sense, is critical if you want your players to be immersed in your game.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Please Note: This article contains spoilers for John Carter.

“A Miracle Occurs”​

Today my topic is internal self-consistency, creating stories that don't have "plot holes big enough to drive a truck through", and don't change the rules of engagement as the story progresses. "Consumers" of stories, whether in writing, film, TV, play, oral, or something else, must suspend their disbelief as they listen to the story in order to be immersed in it, to play along with the storyteller. When a story isn't internally self-consistent, immersion may be broken.

To illustrate, I once saw a one-panel cartoon where a professorial/scientist type in a white coat is writing on a chalkboard as seated people watch. On left and right of the board are complex-looking calculations written small. In the middle of the board, connecting the two sets of writing, are the words "And a Miracle Occurs".

That miracle is what storytellers want to avoid, in the same way that they want to avoid Deus Ex Machina when they apply plot twists and avoid overuse of coincidence (even though it worked for Edgar Rice Burroughs). The storyteller doesn't want to give consumers excuses to break immersion, to fail to suspend their disbelief.

Part of self-consistency is not making mistakes, not turning someone who's right-handed into a lefty, not changing someone's favorite drink into something else, and so forth. But mistakes in other media are more an issue with editing, and for game masters playing a game in real time, mistakes are bound to happen. It's when those mistakes create anachronisms or miracles that consistency starts to break down and threaten immersion.

Anachronisms​

Anachronisms are an obvious form of lack of self-consistency. ("Anachronism: a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.") If a Colt .45 shows up in a setting that's quite medieval, participants will wonder how it got there. Another would be accurate clocks in a Dark Age setting. On the other hand, a bronze sword would also be out of place. These can have explanations in a fantasy world, but they're still jarring when first encountered by the consumer of the story.

What Constitutes a Miracle?​

Standards of what "miracles" are acceptable vary a lot. In television writing, the writers don't seem to care much, and all kinds of miracles commonly occur during a series even though most viewers don't recognize them as miracles.

Part of the reason for this lack of consistency: the massive desire of showrunners today to have "surprise reveals" in their stories. The disease has worked its way into film as well.

John Carter​

The writers of the movie "John Carter" had an outstanding story from Burroughs' A Princess of Mars, but changed it for the worse. One change was a big reveal about

Spoiler

Carter having been married, and finding his wife and child killed by bandits when he came home from the Civil War. It's poorly done: the movie makes much more sense on second viewing. (In the book, Carter had never had a wife or lover before appearing on Mars.) Another change was to make the opposition super-powerful, impossible to defeat in the long run. We can ask why the bad guys near the movie's end didn't simply kill Carter (as they had killed so many others), much simpler than sending him back to earth! What nonsense! The writers had written themselves into a hole, "and a miracle occurred."

On the other hand, many writers expect that most viewers will accept such miracles as a matter of course.

Internal Consistency in Your Campaign​

Even in the Lord of the Rings (LOTR), some people point to inconsistency because the giant eagles should have carried the Ringbearer directly to Mount Doom. Yet we can suppose that the eagles were frightened to take the chance, and that the Powers That Be thought the eagles were sure to be intercepted; but Tolkien didn't address the possibility. In general, LOTR is much more self-consistent than typical fiction today, despite its fantastic setting.

Similarly, because fantasy games tend to be fluid and evolve over time, it can be easy for game masters to contradict the events in their game from previous sessions. Whether or not players care about this likely depends on the group, how often they play, and how much internal consistency in the world is expected from the onset.

When these sorts of inconsistencies happen, it's up to the GM to figure out how to make it right (assuming that even matters to the players). Magical solutions and divine intervention abound; something television and movies have primed us for.

Your Turn: How much do you concern yourself with internal consistency?

 

[jasper]

In game with multiple players rotating through id does not matter. IF you have a stable group it does matter.

 

[Helldritch]

It is the most important thing after the fun factor. Even a one shot game still need a minimum of consistency to run effectively.

But this does not limit itself to the story, the rulings must be consistent too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I make a pretty strong effort to keep things consistent. If I make a mistake, I attempt to justify it, or use it. That is, if they've found an inconsistency, that's a strange thing the party has picked up on that needs an explanation, which can lead to whole adventures all on its own. I don't usually make mistakes of that kind, though, so damage control is usually unnecessary.

The rest of the time, I work to leave things open enough that I won't be sure where they're going, but settled enough that each new step naturally arises from the previous, even if the direction it ends up going is entirely extemporaneous. My players have expressly told me they value that this is the case--that if there's a mystery, there's usually a way to have seen the truth in advance, even if the players don't end up actually doing so.

In a pinch, you can resort to vagueness (stuff in the direction of the Barnum effect and cold reading), but I prefer to avoid that if I can. It can lead to a very fragile story. Instead, I prefer to be actually fairly specific, but scattershot and preliminary. The former means you don't have to worry overmuch if particular details fall by the wayside; either they end up not being all that important in the long run, or (as I prefer it) they come back to bite harder later because they were ignored. (I do not use this for gotchas though; it takes repeatedly ignoring something for it to become a Problem.) The latter means the players take the driver's seat in determining where the story actually leads, rather than simply following breadcrumbs from one point to the next.

 

[Alzrius]

One of my favorite bits of advice that I've come across as a Game Master is that, when the players catch you in a contradiction, you can buy yourself some time by simply smiling, giving them a knowing look, and saying something to the effect of "that is rather odd, isn't it?"

It won't solve whatever inconsistent element they caught, but it will at least give you some time to get to the end of the session, whereupon you'll have some time to try and figure out how to reconcile the inconsistency (presuming you don't want to just declare that you made an error and retcon things).

 

[Lyxen]

One of my favorite bits of advice that I've come across as a Game Master is that, when the players catch you in a contradiction, you can buy yourself some time by simply smiling, giving them a knowing look, and saying something to the effect of "that is rather odd, isn't it?"

It won't solve whatever inconsistent element they caught, but it will at least give you some time to get to the end of the session, whereupon you'll have some time to try and figure out how to reconcile the inconsistency (presuming you don't want to just declare that you made an error and retcon things).

It's good advice, also shutting up will allow silence to work for you as players will then get into trying to explain it themselves, and you can get good ideas about that, sometimes you can even pick and choose.

 

[HammerMan]

I disagree with the basic idea.

"And a Miracle Occurs" can still be consistent.

in star trek we have teleporters. it is consistent. However it was pointed out many times that the Heisenberg principle meant they can't work the way they say they do... the answer, in TNG we have geordi and O brian fixing 'Heisenberg compensators'

all a Heisenberg Compensator is, is a sci fi "And a Miracle Occurs".

we are playing a game full of magic... literally a Miracle could occur

also Anachronisms make no sense unless you are playing in earth history... because the game doesn't model anytime period but a general feel. Even then in a very real history you could have a cowboy, a Victorian detective, a samaras all fight a early predecessor to a tank... but it would FEEL anachronistic because we now put them in different genre.

 

[BookTenTiger]

One thing I really enjoy about using homebrewed settings is that the consistency grows with the game. I usually have some roughshod "truths" of the campaign world set out as Session 0, such as "the kingdom is ruled by vampires" or "there are powerful orders of knights."

But as the sessions happen, new truths will emerge, often as part of improvised dialogue of as the result of player ideas. For example, a player might wonder if the nobility are really vampires or if that's just a convenient rumor they have convinced the population of. I'll take note of that, and it might become a new truth!

I love the way a campaign world can grow and change due to changes in consistent truths!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One of my favorite bits of advice that I've come across as a Game Master is that, when the players catch you in a contradiction, you can buy yourself some time by simply smiling, giving them a knowing look, and saying something to the effect of "that is rather odd, isn't it?"

It won't solve whatever inconsistent element they caught, but it will at least give you some time to get to the end of the session, whereupon you'll have some time to try and figure out how to reconcile the inconsistency (presuming you don't want to just declare that you made an error and retcon things).

Indeed. The GM makes no mistakes, only occasional accidental genius foreshadowing!


As for the topic in general, to me the consistency of the game world is a high priority. It keeps the setting feeling real, allowing the players to immerse into it and make informed choices.

 

[Oofta]

I strive to be consistent, even for things that the majority of players have no clue about. I run a persistent campaign and have for decades, to me it's fun to keep things changing but consistent. That does make me a bit more conservative on a few things like what races I allow but to me it makes the world feel more real, like it's a real place with a real history.

So things can change. Something people thought was fact was in truth a false rumor spread maliciously. But like a house, the foundation is stable even if it gets additions added now and then.