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

[Bedrockgames]

It seems to me that if the GM can introduce unique entities - perhaps in part by establishing additional fictional elements to make them fit in (like Gollum is far too weird and long-lived to be a Hobbit, but this is the result of him having had the One Ring all that time)

Just to make one final point on this. Ultimately this is about NPC and PC creation and that is about preference. My preference here, at least in terms of a typical fantasy RPG (it certainly would change for certain systems of play and with certain groups I game with), is that the players have a set character creation method which wouldn't generally allow for this sort of thing, but that NPCs and Monsters wouldn't be expected to follow the same rules of creation as PCs all the time (certainly many NPCs would follow the same rules, but the GM needs more liberties in my opinion to make the campaign interesting and going the direction that 3E did, where there is a lot more parity between how PCs function and how monsters and NPCs function, was a pretty big headache in my opinion). But again that is just a matter of preference.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Often, it’s more about their place in the world. The people they know and love, the people they hate, the things they’ve seen.

This is more of a gray area for me. Letting players set up their place in the world in terms of family is a pretty standard norm (some people roll randomly for this stuff, sometimes I do, but if a player comes up with their family background and their characters place in the setting, that is a lot different than something like "I am the last of the timelords")

 

[hawkeyefan]

But he is a twisted creature corrupted by the ring. I feel like it doesn't violate setting consistency, he just isn't a normal hobbit.

Right… it’s got a plausible explanation.

I mean, the real reason is that Tolkien needed him to be that long-lived for the story.

Then he made him that way, and came up with an explanation.

He didn’t just rely on the consistency of his world to inform that decision. And, as an author, was free to revise and iterate his ideas many times prior to publication, assigning some sense of chronological causation… it’s just not relevant.

 

[pemerton]

And what consistencies of the setting did he overturn, since otherwise playing Thurgon would be abetting the enemy of interesting and dynamic imagined worlds?

Well, I made up the order, the noble family, and the fact that he is the Last Knight of the Iron Tower; and yet in a sense the order still exists, as he has an affiliation with it.

I didn't choose from a list of orders provided by the GM, nor from a list of noble families or estates. And the ambiguity around the status of the order, and Thurgon's role in the order, has to date been left ambiguous in play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right… it’s got a plausible explanation.

I mean, the real reason is that Tolkien needed him to be that long-lived for the story.

Then he made him that way, and came up with an explanation.

He didn’t just rely on the consistency of his world to inform that decision. And, as an author, was free to revise and iterate his ideas many times prior to publication, assigning some sense of chronological causation… it’s just not relevant.

Sure I am not arguing Tolkein wasn't writing a novel. And my understanding is the Hobbit was later revised to conform more with Lord of the Rings. Also I am not enough of a Tolkien fan to really dig in on that subject. My point is simply it doesn't appear to be a violation of setting consistency at all to me

 

[MGibster]

And isn’t that what the GM is doing by making all the decisions of what’s allowed ahead of time?

The role of the GM and the role of the player are not the same. The GM has asked if the players want to participate in this particular campaign where there is no magic, so every player who has agreed to participate should be fine with the setting. Showing up and asking to play the last mage is a jerk move. It's inconsiderate. I get it, you think the GM is being the unreasonable one here. We are simply not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

 

[Lanefan]

Is it really? Do people carry heavy loads in their arms, or on their heads? What sorts of houses (if any) do people live in? People are social beings, yet the real world (historically at least) is full of weirdo hermits, some of whom end up being revered. Great empires sometimes collapse with no one really expecting them to when they do so. It's almost February in Melbourne and I think we've had about two days over 30 degrees this summer.

And yet, underneath all that there's consistency. Winter will come and Melbourne will cool down, then summer will come and it'll warm up again, just like every year. People will still carry heavy loads around by whatever means they choose. People will, for the most part, live in dwellings that provide shelter even thouogh those dwellings vary widely in size, type, and design.

Etc, etc. I think the world has far more variation and unpredictability than the typical FRPG setting build around principles of "consistency".

I can only speak for my own setting, but I'd like to think it too has a fair bit of variability overlying its consistency. But I'd also be the first to admit my viewpoint might be a tad biased on that count.

Gollum is a Hobbit who is absurdly long-lived, can live without any sunlight on raw fish and Goblins, can strangle the latter to death with his bare hands, etc, etc.

He departs from all the norms of what Hobbits are established as being.

Carrying around the most powerful item in the known world for 500 years might have had a bit to do with that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The role of the GM and the role of the player are not the same. The GM has asked if the players want to participate in this particular campaign where there is no magic, so every player who has agreed to participate should be fine with the setting. Showing up and asking to play the last mage is a jerk move. It's inconsiderate. I get it, you think the GM is being the unreasonable one here. We are simply not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

Another factor here is GMing usually involves a lot of extra work. And most groups I am in tend to respect the GMs time in that respect. Typically in my groups what happens before a campaign is a GM announces to a group of potential players what game and premise is on the table, those interested say so, and a campaign starts. For me I am willing to buy into whatever the person running the game wants to do. If that includes us players contributing more to the concept, I am fine with it. But usually we just go with what the GM is most passionate about.

 

[bloodtide]

It seems to me that if the GM can introduce unique entities - perhaps in part by establishing additional fictional elements to make them fit in (like Gollum is far too weird and long-lived to be a Hobbit, but this is the result of him having had the One Ring all that time) - then in principle the players can too.

I guess this is a fair point. But DMs and players are not the same. Dms make things for the game for everyone, and players only make selfish things for themselves.

Though most games have the DM approve characters to be in the DMs game. So I player is free to come over with a unique character and the DM can always say "nope, not in my game".

 

[Lanefan]

To what purpose?

Why does it matter? If the GM wants to impose a limitation for whatever reason, the players can always vote with their feet if they don't like it. Otherwise, the assumption is they'll play within that limitation rather than immediately try to overturn it as in the example given.

Again, what is the purpose of this setting?

For me, the purpose of any setting is to offer up dynamic play. That’s the primary function… anything else is secondary at best.

Offer up? No.

Provide a backdrop for? Yes.

So I want any ideas I come up with to be invitations to the players to take them and make them their own. I think this is the main thrust of the OP, and I think the vast majority of fantasy fiction supports this idea.

It seems to be premise as endpoint rather than premise as starting point.

Yes, premise - as in, campaign parameter - as end point.

I mean, if the reason the GM designed the setting that way was because they didn’t want to deal with magic, then why not just say that? Why leave any room for ambiguity by hiding the motive behind a setting element?

I’d be much more sympathetic to someone saying “I really just don’t want to have to manage spells and magic for once” than I would someone offering up a concept that makes my wheels turn and then they shoot down the concept that I came up with.

That those wheels turned in direct opposition to the concept is a bit of a red flag.

It’s a total non-factor in my decision making. I don’t really care.

But I definitey lean more towards wanting to play Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, not Luke Skywalker in Flash Gordon. Luke’s only interesting in his own story.

I don’t really want characters and setting to be so unrelated in that way.

If I've got Lanefan the Fighter in Joe's campaign and want to port him over to Maria's campaign (assuming compatibility), why shouldn't I be able to?