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

[Bedrockgames]

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".

Presumably established and agreed upon by the group. I am going by MGibster's language

 

[Bedrockgames]

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".

It means a proposal has been agreed upon but he gaming group. I agree. They are not synonyms. But again going by what @MGibster was saying, this is about something people have settled on for a premise

 

[Laurefindel]

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.

By that I meant that they are nevertheless consistent with the story and the setting, but I may just be arguing about a definition of "coherence" that doesn't agree with yours, rather than disagreeing about the premise of your OP.

I get what you mean about setting and story being separate and potentially different concepts however, and what is considered coherent and consistent about the story (and characters) can differ from what is considered the norm for that setting. In RPG however, the setting often comes before the story (rather than creating a setting that serves the story), or else a setting is chosen by the type of story wanted.

So for me, it depends. If the DM proposes a setting without magic because they want to make a story without magic, then a player insisting on playing a magic-user is counterproductive. If the intention is to provide a background world tapestry that doesn't involve magic, then a magic-user PC can work and prove very exciting. But this choice should still be coherent with the setting however. For example, most people shouldn't have much protection against magic, and spells might produce results for which adversaries don't have immediate contingencies ready. Everybody being able to counter every spell from the PC would be incoherent.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Both. They recognized the established rules prevented transporting through shields, but they came up with a clever and plausible way to get around it. And then they just forgot about it in later episodes. There were times they forgot about it altogether. In the episode "Relics," they beam Scotty aboard even though his little ship has its shields up and don't provide us with any explanation. Sometimes writers just drop the ball sometimes.

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.

The "Jewels of Gwahlur," starts out with Conan scaling some cliffs as he's trying to find his way to the lost city of Alkmeenon. If Conan suddenly sprouts wings later in the story and flies away from Alkmeenon we need an explanation for why he didn't just fly there in the first place. Yes, Howard made it up, but since he wasn't a hack writer he tried to keep Conan's character rather consistent.

In The Dark Crystal, we find out rather surprisingly that Gelfling girls have wings. This makes sense within the context of the setting because there there are only two Gelflings left, the male had never met another member of his species, and it's not unreasonable that he didn't realize they had wings. If the characters didn't have that unique background, it wouldn't have made sense for anyone to forget that Gelfling girls had wings. It would have been bad writing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

2 things:

I said it depends, and the scenario was not described specifically as someone going back on something they agreed to. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Even if it was agreed, people can always suggest something different, you don't have to instantly accuse them of asshattery, that's a bad kind of default assumption where I come from.

Given the LONG and illustrious tradition of treating any sort of ideas of this sort by players in an ungenerous way I feel perfectly good about pushing back a bit. Everyone can afford to treat each other as constructive contributors by default, but sadly there's too little of that in our world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

2 things:

I said it depends, and the scenario was not described specifically as someone going back on something they agreed to. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Even if it was agreed, people can always suggest something different, you don't have to instantly accuse them of asshattery, that's a bad kind of default assumption where I come from.

Given the LONG and illustrious tradition of treating any sort of ideas of this sort by players in an ungenerous way I feel perfectly good about pushing back a bit. Everyone can afford to treat each other as constructive contributors by default, but sadly there's too little of that in our world.

You are right, it does depend. How it is done will certainly matter. But there is also a tendency in these threads I think to treat anything that is established by group as subject to this kind of negotiation. And most of us are just going from that one guy who tends to push boundaries in the game in this way (i.e. we agreed upon no player versus player conflict, tries to negotiate it for some reason, we agree this is a no magic setting, but the person tries to negotiate with the GM to have their character be an exception----and that may arise from a really well thought out idea, but it still is counter to what the group agreed they wanted. I guess for me the reason I tend to assume a little more of a problem player here is I haven't ever seen it any other way at an actual table. I have seen all kinds of styles and methods of handling stuff like world creation. But I rarely see anyone try to countermand what was agreed upon unless they are trying to manipulate the group into a direction it doesn't want to go

 

[pemerton]

The "Jewels of Gwahlur," starts out with Conan scaling some cliffs as he's trying to find his way to the lost city of Alkmeenon. If Conan suddenly sprouts wings later in the story and flies away from Alkmeenon we need an explanation for why he didn't just fly there in the first place. Yes, Howard made it up, but since he wasn't a hack writer he tried to keep Conan's character rather consistent.

In A Witch Shall Be Born, Conan survives crucifixion in the desert.

REH has Conan do and endure whatever works for the story. The consistency is post hoc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Sure, as I said, it is all quite situational. Everyone should be willing to listen to each other and have an open mind about it. The other players would certainly fit in there as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You are right, it does depend. How it is done will certainly matter. But there is also a tendency in these threads I think to treat anything that is established by group as subject to this kind of negotiation. And most of us are just going from that one guy who tends to push boundaries in the game in this way (i.e. we agreed upon no player versus player conflict, tries to negotiate it for some reason, we agree this is a no magic setting, but the person tries to negotiate with the GM to have their character be an exception----and that may arise from a really well thought out idea, but it still is counter to what the group agreed they wanted. I guess for me the reason I tend to assume a little more of a problem player here is I haven't ever seen it any other way at an actual table. I have seen all kinds of styles and methods of handling stuff like world creation. But I rarely see anyone try to countermand what was agreed upon unless they are trying to manipulate the group into a direction it doesn't want to go

Yeah if I agree to something and then insist on changing my mind and it's a big deal, etc then I am probably being an ass. I've seen the sort of player who seems to relish that too. They're usually found in teen age groups IME. I have run into a very few others, though it mostly manifests in other ways. TBH I have seen FAR more dubious GM than player behavior over the years.

 

[niklinna]

It means a proposal has been agreed upon but he gaming group. I agree. They are not synonyms. But again going by what @MGibster was saying, this is about something people have settled on for a premise

In @pemerton's example, something had been proposed, but not yet agreed to or settled; that seems to have been assumed by respondents to that post (perhaps because it's assumed that what the GM says must be blindly accepted as established?). A participant partially countering a proposal does not constitute a jerk move. A participant directly contradicting what everybody else at the table has agreed to is definitely a jerk move. Even then it can depend on how the contradiction is presented: "Okay no magic but I'mma play a wizard anyhow!" vs. "Hey gang I think I'm not comfortable with the no-magic thing, can we revisit that? Like maybe magic's gone but it might be out there to find? Maybe my character found a magic thing and fancies himself the last of the wizards?" It's still a big ask to go back over previously-negotiated stuff, but that's a much more reasonable way to go about it.