Spells that "ruin" your campaign setting

GnomeWorks · Apr 22, 2014

Celebrim said:
But I don't want to 'cut' it.

Didn't say you had to. As I said, you came up with a solid story around it and figured out how it works in your setting. Good on you.

I didn't want to be bothered. IMO, it makes things like politics extraordinarily more complicated and has other ramifications on my setting that I don't approve of. So I just pitch it.

It's another tool in the tool box for creating good stories.

Heh. Well, if that's what you value, fair enough.

Among other things, it's a cushion against having the effects of bad luck wreck good ongoing stories and character development.

If you're talking about giving PCs the ability to bring back their fallen, I pointed out that I retain ways for PCs to do just that. Except it has a significantly tighter time limit. Bear in mind that that means that NPCs can utilize my preferred methods, as well - they're just harder to use, so less likely to impact the world in extreme ways.

it has a simulationist value because of the interest of thinking about how it impacts the social life of a world where magic is real and the dead coming back might be less than extraordinarily unusual.

It can have a simulationist value. On the flip side, striking Raise Dead from your setting also has simulationist value, so it's a wash. That's the beauty of being focused on sim: no matter the mechanics you're working with, the world winds up reflecting them.

That's not the systems fault.

Hmm. The implied setting of D&D rarely ever seems to take Raise Dead into account. There's a disconnect between the world the mechanics are telling us exist, and the fiction we're being sold on.

So, in a roundabout way, it is the system's fault.

Celebrim · Apr 22, 2014

Hmm. The implied setting of D&D rarely ever seems to take Raise Dead into account. There's a disconnect between the world the mechanics are telling us exist, and the fiction we're being sold on.

So, in a roundabout way, it is the system's fault.

No, not at all. The success of your average mindless action packed summer blockbuster or of a setting like Forgotten Realms shows that most people don't give a flying fart about internal consistancy and logic. They are too busy having visceral fun to care about tangental intellectual integrity and those settings are meeting the needs they actually have in a way they approve of. And that's pretty much how it should be. We would be nothing less than pretentious to demand a setting prioritize internal consistancy when 95% of the settings audience doesn't care and in fact would probably enjoy it less if it did provoke that sort of thought. It's only worth demanding internal consistancy when the person himself has said, "I wish things were more internally consistant." Yeah, me too.

But it's not the systems fault if that doesn't happen. The EnWorld forums are visited by some of the most creative minds in gaming, demanding some of the highest artistic standards in gaming. So if the setting isn't what you like and your posting around here, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

GnomeWorks said:
Didn't say you had to. As I said, you came up with a solid story around it and figured out how it works in your setting. Good on you.

I didn't want to be bothered.

See, it's that part that bothers me. On the one level you are (rightly) demanding that as an experienced gamer, things hang together at a deeper level than visceral fun because well, there is more that an RPG is capable of than that. You want them to bear scrutiny and to provoke further thought upon inspection. Great. But now you are saying, "I don't want to be bothered"? That I don't get at all.

IMO, it makes things like politics extraordinarily more complicated and has other ramifications on my setting that I don't approve of. So I just pitch it.

It's worth noting that most people feel internal consistancy is one of those things that they feel has ramifactions that they don't approve of and so just pitch it.

It can have a simulationist value. On the flip side, striking Raise Dead from your setting also has simulationist value, so it's a wash. That's the beauty of being focused on sim: no matter the mechanics you're working with, the world winds up reflecting them.

Which is true, but I don't agree that it is a wash. There is relatively little value in my opinion in speculative fiction that is striving for realism. The really interesting thing about simulationism is unreality. I admire the ability of speculation to hold up mirrors to our own world not by looking like imperfect copies of the world, but rather by highlighting the differences so we can better understand what makes this world like it is that we otherwise never think about.

A mythic world were the important people all come back from the dead doesn't strike me as internally consistant, but it's a lot more interesting than a mythic world where it happens so rarely that the implications of raising people from the dead aren't that different from this own. I'm not sure I believe your world were you can reliably raise people from the dead but only if you act quickly actually does hang together as being more like, rather than less like, the world we know. In fact, I would postulate shortening the duration made the role of raise dead and its social impact more extreme rather than less extreme. In such a world there would be no time for deliberation about the morality of doing it, and no safety net in place where people would know that, if found dead within a few days time (or even longer in some cases) they might be restored. Instead, the wealthy and powerful who wanted to hang on to their life would know without a shadow of a doubt that if they died in an untimely fashion, they'd require immediate intervention... and as a result its likely the wealthy and powerful who cared would arrange their entire life (and with it, all of society) around this fact.

GnomeWorks · Apr 22, 2014

Celebrim said:
No, not at all.

That people manage to find ways to deal with it does not mean that it is not a problem at the system level. Mechanics have an impact on the implied setting; whether or not those are investigated by people playing in that implied setting is another question.

The success of your average mindless action packed summer blockbuster or of a setting like Forgotten Realms shows that most people don't give a flying fart about internal consistancy and logic. They are too busy having visceral fun to care about tangental intellectual integrity and those settings are meeting the needs they actually have in a way they approve of. And that's pretty much how it should be. We would be nothing less than pretentious to demand a setting prioritize internal consistancy when 95% of the settings audience doesn't care and in fact would probably enjoy it less if it did provoke that sort of thought. It's only worth demanding internal consistancy when the person himself has said, "I wish things were more internally consistant." Yeah, me too.

"Simulationism is irrelevant because most people don't care, and it's not fun to think about, and if you do you're just being pretentious."

I care about internal consistency. As a DM, it is literally the most important thing for me - if you do not have it, everything else is pretty much pointless.

As a player, it frustrates me to no end when something lacks internal consistency, and is one of the most effective ways to ruin my suspension of disbelief. And once it's lost due to a lack of internal consistency, it is incredibly difficult to get back.

But it's not the systems fault if that doesn't happen. The EnWorld forums are visited by some of the most creative minds in gaming, demanding some of the highest artistic standards in gaming. So if the setting isn't what you like and your posting around here, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

...what is this, I don't even.

I rarely even visit this place anymore, and post on even rarer occasion. There's a reason for that.

So I don't really see the point you're trying to make, here.

See, it's that part that bothers me. On the one level you are (rightly) demanding that as an experienced gamer, things hang together at a deeper level than visceral fun because well, there is more that an RPG is capable of than that. You want them to bear scrutiny and to provoke further thought upon inspection. Great. But now you are saying, "I don't want to be bothered"? That I don't get at all.

Yes. It's easier to simply remove the offending element than think through the ramifications of it, especially when I don't particularly enjoy that element and the resulting ramifications it would have.

I don't want it in my setting. I also don't want probably a bunch of other things. Should I include them, too, simply because you can think of ways that including them would make the world - in your opinion - a more interesting place? It's not just what is in a setting that helps define it, but also what is not.

It's worth noting that most people feel internal consistancy is one of those things that they feel has ramifactions that they don't approve of and so just pitch it.

Sure. I'm not promoting OTW, here.

There is relatively little value in my opinion in speculative fiction that is striving for realism. The really interesting thing about simulationism is unreality.

Cool for you, I guess?

In my mind, simulationism benefits significantly from having high correlation to the real world. It's difficult to evoke wonder when everything is alien to the players. If you want something to feel mysterious, that requires it to be sufficiently scarce that it comes across that way.

A mythic world were the important people all come back from the dead doesn't strike me as internally consistant, but it's a lot more interesting than a mythic world where it happens so rarely that the implications of raising people from the dead aren't that different from this own.

And the lack of internal consistency bothers me. End of story.

I'm not sure I believe your world were you can reliably raise people from the dead but only if you act quickly actually does hang together as being more like, rather than less like, the world we know.

That... sigh. It sounds to me like you're conflating "simulationism" with "realism," which is not - and never has been - the case.

I don't care if the imagined setting looks like the real world, though it is a benefit, as I mentioned above. I want internal consistency. Those are not the same thing.

pogre · Apr 22, 2014

Scorpio616 said:
I had a problem with some stuff, but after switching to WFRP 2E those issues were solved.

Those are the rules I am using in my current campaign. I love them. However, there are some aspects of D&D I do miss. Thus, leaning towards D&D next campaign and working on the campaign framework.

pogre · Apr 22, 2014

I am thinking about changes to help create a tone for my campaign - I am less concerned about the whole thing hanging together in a totally logical fabric.

Without wagging a finger or denigrating anyone's comments - I am aware of the Forge adage "System Matters" - I'm not interested in that debate. Let's assume there are fun aspects of the system that make it worth my time to bend the system to my campaign.

This is by no means an attempt to curtail debate, even on "system matters" issues - I just wanted to clarify what I am looking at.

Celebrim · Apr 22, 2014

GnomeWorks said:
I care about internal consistency. As a DM, it is literally the most important thing for me...

You have affirmed otherwise elsewhere.

So I don't really see the point you're trying to make, here.

I'm saying you are in charge. The default setting, the marketable settings, the economicly viable settings have nothing to do with whether the system works. They aren't meant to be internally consistant, so the fact that they aren't internally inconsistant is no evidence at all of whether the system can hang together. When I make changes to the system, it's never out of a belief that an internally consistant setting couldn't be created from the rules, but either out of a desire for a slightly different setting, or out of a desire for a slightly different game.

Yes. It's easier to simply remove the offending element than think through the ramifications of it, especially when I don't particularly enjoy that element and the resulting ramifications it would have.

This argues against your claim that your highest priority is internal consistancy. In particular, you've modified the game world and in my opinion not thought through the consequences of that. Rather, what you've actually done is thought something like this, "I want the world to look much like our own. If people can be regularly raised from the dead, it probably wouldn't look much like our own. But if I made that resource more difficult to use in a world which looked a lot like our own, then in a world that looked much like our own it would have less impact." But what you haven't actually asked is, "Why does the world look much like our own in the first place." My feeling is that your change does nothing to enforce a world being superficially familiar to us. Rather, your change would likely have encouraged society to organize itself from the beginning in radically different ways so that the temporal limitations of being raised from the dead were mitigated. Now of course, you could argue that within the setting they didn't do because most people didn't want to return from the afterlife, or because of the social implications of bringing back the dead, but those arguments largely hang together without your changes to the time frame of hours or minutes versus days or years.

So your change doesn't really address internal consistancy at all, and in fact in my opinion undermines it. IMO, in that world - sans other explanation - the world would have been constructed architecturally, culturally and socially such that important people were never far from a revivifying source. Palaces and temples would likely be identical. Church and state with simply become closer and more entangled than ever. Revivifying sources would be placed in a sheltered position akin conceptually to a castles well, and be transported along with the priestly-king as part of his entourage - the revered shelterer of life. You claim to be prioritizing internal consistancy above everything, but in fact you've prioritized expediency. You've done what is easy, and what isn't easy, you don't want to think about.

I don't want it in my setting.

Fine, but you want it both ways - in your setting but without big impact on your setting. Either remove it so that it can't have impact, or deal with the big impact by creating the social structure and complexity that results from it.

I also don't want probably a bunch of other things. Should I include them, too, simply because you can think of ways that including them would make the world - in your opinion - a more interesting place? It's not just what is in a setting that helps define it, but also what is not.

Sure, but if what you really want is internal consistancy and "high correlation to the real world" the inescable result is complexity. You can't both say you want "high correlation to the real world" and also you don't "want to be bothered" with complicated politics and deep ramifications, and also claim to prioritize internal consistancy. You either need a world that is vastly more simple than the real world, or you must deal with the deep ramifications, or you must say "I can't be bothered". So when you see me going, "<complexity complexity complexity>", don't respond to me, "Or you just could cut it." particularly when you darn well haven't done that either. I'm embracing ludicrously detailed complexity, intricate politics, and complex and at times alien social structures precisely because I actually do prioritize internal consistancy over "I can't be bothered". I was bothered; THAT is the result.

Are there downsides? Sure, and a empathize with people who just say, "A pox on internal consistancy and all her children; I'm just trying to enjoy a bit of escapist entertainment." I get that. More power to them. A setting doesn't half to be internally consistant if that isn't part of your aesthetic goals of play.

Celebrim · Apr 22, 2014

pogre said:
I Without wagging a finger or denigrating anyone's comments - I am aware of the Forge adage "System Matters"

You mean the Forge Fallacy?

I'm not interested in that debate.

Actually, I'm not either. If I was, I'd hang out at The Forge. To say that I'm less than impressed by Forge Theory would be an understatement. I appreciate and value the effort that went into thinking about these sorts of things seriously, but I'm reminded most of Aristotle and his first attempts to catalog scientific rational understanding. He got almost everything 100% wrong.

You can assume, without really needing to investigate it at any depth, I hold the following positions:

a) System 'doesn't matter'. (At least not in the sense usually used at The Forge.)
b) No game worth playing more than a minute or two meets only a single aesthetic goal of play.

GnomeWorks · Apr 22, 2014

Celebrim said:
You have affirmed otherwise elsewhere.

Probably. *shrug*

Lots of things are important. The exact level of importance varies over time, or even with my mood at the moment. Considering I'm writing this post rather than work on a term paper due in a few hours, I may be a bit distracted.

I'm saying you are in charge. ... They aren't meant to be internally consistant, so the fact that they are internally inconsistant is no evidence at all of whether the system can hang together.

...Oberoni, I'm pretty sure.

This argues against your claim that your highest priority is internal consistancy.

So... deciding that I don't like a rule, changing it, and producing a setting based upon that modification to the rules, is somehow making the setting internally inconsistent?

In particular, you've modified the game world and in my opinion not thought through the consequences of that.

Assuming that I made that decision after the world is built.

My feeling is that your change does nothing to enforce a world being superficially familiar to us.

Probably not. I don't care. That wasn't the goal, and I'm confused as to why you think that was my goal... ah, I see, my comment about wanting to cleave to reality.

No, it probably doesn't. But it doesn't have to. That's a loose goal, one that isn't nearly as strict a purpose as keeping internal consistency. Priorities and such.

Rather, your change would likely have encouraged society to organize itself from the beginning in radically different ways so that the temporal limitations of being raised from the dead were mitigated.

Maybe. My setting has other weird crap going on, which I'm not really going to get into here, which interferes with this conclusion.

So your change doesn't really address internal consistancy at all, and in fact in my opinion undermines it.

You know... I think your argument really just boils down to the notion that you have a particular idea of how this change would impact a setting, and I have a different one, and you disagree with mine, so clearly I don't give two whits about internal consistency.

Good job on doing things your way, it does sound quite fascinating, but you're conflating a bunch of terms and making rampant assumptions. So I'm going to go do something productive now.

Celebrim · Apr 22, 2014

GnomeWorks said:
...Oberoni, I'm pretty sure.

No, and indeed, heck no.

If for no other obvious reason, because of the next sentence - the one you don't quote - specifically says that the RAW can be internally consistant to setting as well.

But also, because as part of the larger point, setting and system aren't the same thing and are only tightly coupled if we choose to couple them. The same system can produce multiple games and multiple settings depending on the many other inputs recieved to the game. Changing the dials on the setting doesn't necessarily change the system and changing the dials on the system doesn't necessarily change the setting.

I won't even get very deeply into the fact that you are misusing the Oberon Fallacy, which has to do with defending that the rules aren't bad because they can be changed, something that isn't even remotely what is being discussed here.

You also seem to be continually forgetting what you originally argued for that prompts my comments, so what's the point.

So I'm going to go do something productive now.

Have fun, and good luck with the paper.

Giltonio_Santos · Apr 22, 2014

I've weighted, at one side, the cool stories that we can tell about a world where magic can bring people back from the dead. At the other side, I've also weighted the cool stories we can tell about the fact that people, important or not, PC or NPC, sometimes simply die. Some of them die stupid deaths. Some of them die with destinies unfulfilled. The fact is that sometimes they simply die, and those who remain behind can't do anything about their deaths, they have to move on. After weighting on both possibilities, I have no doubt that I prefer to tell stories where death is the end.

In fact, thinking about this, I don't remember resurrection being a thing in any of my favorite fantasy settings. Even the world of Harry Potter, with its rampant magic, is made more interesting by enforcing the definitive nature of death. Maybe that's the reason why I can't stand resurrection magic in my homebrew worlds. Other disruptive magical resources are able to create shortcuts, such as the teleport magic that avoids a long journey or the divination magic that avoids an investigative work, but resurrection magic is able to create a solution for something that's not solvable otherwise. I prefer that the unavoidable consequences of some actions remain unavoidable.