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

[Lanefan]

The point is that consistency is overrated. If the gods have abandoned the land, they can return. If the land has been drained of magic, there may be a last mage.

Sure; and when that last mage gets crushed to pulp by an ogre three sessions in, then what?

The "last mage" idea, unless it's a single-player game, really does risk turning the rest of the characters into a supporting cast - fine for a single adventure, maybe, but not so great for a whole campaign.

If you're saying that it is inconsistent with playing Dark Sun-style sword & planet that the gods should return, reiterate the earlier part of this post, and the OP: I think the notion of consistency is overrated, and is the enemy of interesting, engaging, dynamic imaginary worlds.

I think the key things are that a) the inconsistencies have to be explainable (even if neither the characters nor players will ever learn what it is) and b) there be an underlying rationality behind those explanations. 'Cause sure, we all want to encounter weird stuff in our in-game travels, right?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

You've posted this passage before, and every time I read the bolded bit all I see is a player refusing to engage with the game as presented. The GM is putting forth a game without magic, so bloody well play a non-magical character this time!

Why he praises this refusal to engage and the resulting conflict as being good things is beyond me.

Burning Wheel is both character-driven and a game about exploring and resolving (or not!) these types of tensions. The resulting conflict (between the characters and each other, between the characters and the setting and premise, etc.) is the entire point. I mean, the tag line is Fight for what you believe in!

And BW is also pretty collaborative in terms of setting up a game — it's definitely a conversation, so challenging, discussing, and refining the premise of the game is not poor manners. (Though, as with everything else, there are ways to be an absolute muppet about it.)

The other thing I'd mention is that this is what Luke Crane and the folks he plays with enjoy. BW is idiosyncratic, and they have a lot of patience for this type of play.

 

[Lanefan]

I totally disagree! I'm 100% behind the idea that the guy who came and said "well, I'd like to play the Last Mage" is ABSOLUTE GOLD. I want a table FILLED with that kind of player, that will be the best game ever!

You can have 'em. I'll trade you for the "It's what my character would do" gonzo types, as they IME can be the very best!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think setting some constraints makes the GM the sole creative force. Maybe I'm a bit old school here, but the GM is the one who is running the game. While they should consider what each of their players desires, ultimate it's the GM who decides what he wants to run. When I run a campaign, I generally pitch several ideas to my players and we collectively decide which one to play. When the players all agree to play a particular campaign, it is not unreasonable for me to expect them to make appropriate characters for the campaign they agreed to participate in.

I just don’t differentiate between a GM who doesn’t want to listen to the players or a player who doesn’t want to listen to the GM/other players.

I think that, as @grankless suggested, if we remove some kind of malice as a motive and assume participants of good faith, then I really don’t get the objection.

If I proposed the suggested game and a player said they wanted to play the last mage, I’d not assume “oh, Nick’s being a jerk”… I’d assume “Nick seems to have a strong idea based on the premise of the game”. And I’d want to discuss it and examine it.

It's a rare thing for me to have players who insists on running a character that doesn't fit the campaign. Sometimes they even make characters that take the campaign in interesting places I never would have considered on my own. But they're doing it with characters appropriate to the game they all agreed to play in.

I’d argue that the character does fit the campaign. Uniquely so. The character would not fit in a standard campaign.

You've posted this passage before, and every time I read the bolded bit all I see is a player refusing to engage with the game as presented. The GM is putting forth a game without magic, so bloody well play a non-magical character this time!

Why he praises this refusal to engage and the resulting conflict as being good things is beyond me.

Because the player isn’t refusing the premise. The player is challenging it… and doing so through their character concept. That’s an expression that engages directly with the premise and one that comes loaded with conflict.

That seems far more desirable for a game than generic, interchangeable characters.

Sure; and when that last mage gets crushed to pulp by an ogre three sessions in, then what?

Ummm… so be it? What’s the problem?

The "last mage" idea, unless it's a single-player game, really does risk turning the rest of the characters into a supporting cast - fine for a single adventure, maybe, but not so great for a whole campaign.

No, not really. It was suggested that all the characters be as connected to the central premise as this. That they all be uniquely tied to the setting… and one another… as possible. Most seem to be ignoring that suggestion in an attempt to paint the hypothetical player as problematic.

I think the key things are that a) the inconsistencies have to be explainable (even if neither the characters nor players will ever learn what it is) and b) there be an underlying rationality behind those explanations. 'Cause sure, we all want to encounter weird stuff in our in-game travels, right?

It’s all made up. We can come up with any rationalization for the inconsistencies as we like. Feeling beholden to them, though? That feels like maintaining the status quo simply to do so. What’s the point in that?

I’d much rather have characters and situation for play that are more rife with conflict. More unique to the point where this world and the characters are inseparable.

 

[Lanefan]

If I proposed the suggested game and a player said they wanted to play the last mage, I’d not assume “oh, Nick’s being a jerk”… I’d assume “Nick seems to have a strong idea based on the premise of the game”. And I’d want to discuss it and examine it.

I'd assume Nick is for whatever reason refusing the thus-far-only stated premise of the game, even if he's not being a jerk about it and thinks he's got a good idea.

Because despite your optimistic reading of the situation, Nick's idea is not based on the premise of the game but is in fact directly opposed to the premise of the game as stated.

Because the player isn’t refusing the premise. The player is challenging it… and doing so through their character concept. That’s an expression that engages directly with the premise and one that comes loaded with conflict.

Challenging the premise like this is synonymous with opposing it, I think. And if all the players thusly challenge the premise, be it in the same or different directions, then either there'll be a lot of disappointed players or there won't be much of that premise left.

Ummm… so be it? What’s the problem?

None, if the last-mage's player is willing to accept that there are now no mages left at all and comes back with a different character concept for the replacement.

IME that would be highly unusual.

No, not really. It was suggested that all the characters be as connected to the central premise as this. That they all be uniquely tied to the setting… and one another… as possible. Most seem to be ignoring that suggestion in an attempt to paint the hypothetical player as problematic.

I can certainly see building a character concept and goals around finding out why there's no magic (if such a thing can even be explained), or trying to bring magic back (if such can be done); as both of those examples start out by accepting the premise that there is no magic now. Wanting to play the last mage blows that premise away; even more so if the other players see this mage and say "Hey, I want one too!".

It’s all made up. We can come up with any rationalization for the inconsistencies as we like. Feeling beholden to them, though? That feels like maintaining the status quo simply to do so. What’s the point in that?

Internal consistency. Middle Earth, despite the oddities pointed out in the OP, has a strong underlying internal consistency which goes a logn way toward making it believable enough that we can immerse ourselves in it.

I’d much rather have characters and situation for play that are more rife with conflict.

In-character conflict, sure. But this seems more geared toward player-v-GM table conflict, which rarely if ever ends well.

More unique to the point where this world and the characters are inseparable.

I'm a fan of the Gygaxian notion that characters can be (with the GM's permission and at least a modicum of system compatibility) transferred between worlds/games/campaigns. Tying characters to a specific world plays against this idea.

 

[MGibster]

I just don’t differentiate between a GM who doesn’t want to listen to the players or a player who doesn’t want to listen to the GM/other players.

I'm not sure why you're framing this as the GM not listening to the player. The GM can listen to a player, really consider what they're pitching, and still say no. Like I said, I've had players create characters that took campaigns in directions I hadn't considered before, but it's been a while since I've had a player who just flat out wouldn't make a character for the campaign we all agreed to play in.

I think that, as @grankless suggested, if we remove some kind of malice as a motive and assume participants of good faith, then I really don’t get the objection.

I'm going to agree with you that it's wrong to assume malice. If a player is behaving maliciously it's indicative of a deep seated problem that needs to be hashed in order to reach an amicable solution. Alternatively it might mean you need to just cut bait and run.

If I proposed the suggested game and a player said they wanted to play the last mage, I’d not assume “oh, Nick’s being a jerk”… I’d assume “Nick seems to have a strong idea based on the premise of the game”. And I’d want to discuss it and examine it.

In my group, we've established the premise of the game before character creation is even started. So if we've already established there is no magic in the world, and Nick shows up with a magician, he might not be acting out of malice, but he's being inconsiderate of what the other players and the GM wanted to play.

 

[pemerton]

Sure; and when that last mage gets crushed to pulp by an ogre three sessions in, then what?

This thread is in General, not D&D.

And the actual example is from Burning Wheel.

In that context, I would expect the last mage to have the will to live.

 

[pemerton]

Middle Earth, despite the oddities pointed out in the OP, has a strong underlying internal consistency which goes a logn way toward making it believable enough that we can immerse ourselves in it.

To an extent I agree with you here, but I'd also posit that at least some of those oddities are fairly easily explainable:

Gollum was obviously kept alive by the One Ring, as we know it has a powerful anti-aging effect even as it slowly consumes its wearer. And he was a Hobbit before, so was used to living underground. To me the oddity there is how well and how long he survives without the Ring after losing it to Bilbo.

The Ring, again, pulls Frodo to trouble on the Barrows, where the Wights would likely have remained undisturbed for ages otherwise.

Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast (and the un-named other two) are angel-like beings, and in G and S's case are mostly there to pull strings.

Tom Bombadil etc. is an oddity for sure, but that whole sequence does a lot to help give the reader a sense early on that this is a very big and very old (and very strange) world.

I don't see how we can have it both ways - I mean It's consistent except when it's not is just another way of saying When it comes to the crunch it's not all that consistent.

The player wants to play the last mage - how is that different, in terms of structural relationship to the setting, from Gollum being the oldest Hobbit ever due to the ring?

A player wants to play a Minotaur (or whatever) - this shows that it's a big and strange world.

Etc, etc. All these post hoc rationalisations are available at any time, to accommodate whatever weirdness, or departure from the "rules" of the setting, floats someone's boat.

 

[Lanefan]

This thread is in General, not D&D.

And the actual example is from Burning Wheel.

In that context, I would expect the last mage to have the will to live.

Said mage can have all the will to live he likes but bad luck is bad luck...assuming characters can die due to bad luck in BW.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't see how we can have it both ways - I mean It's consistent except when it's not is just another way of saying When it comes to the crunch it's not all that consistent.

There's many oddities in the real world but the whole thing is still fairly consistent.

The player wants to play the last mage - how is that different, in terms of structural relationship to the setting, from Gollum being the oldest Hobbit ever due to the ring?

Well, for one thing Gollum ain't exactly player-character material. He's a plot-device NPC who gets drafted into a party somewhat against his will and then does nothing but cause conflict there.

A player wants to play a Minotaur (or whatever) - this shows that it's a big and strange world.

Etc, etc. All these post hoc rationalisations are available at any time, to accommodate whatever weirdness, or departure from the "rules" of the setting, floats someone's boat.

To a point, I get this; but there also comes a point where the underlying premise of the setting can get buried beneath said weirdness - "Well, it was supposed to be a no-magic setting, but now everyone's either playing a mage or wants to" - which kinda defeats the idea of settings having much by way of underlying premises.