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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I don’t know if that’s exactly how it went down.

And for the record, I don’t think either side is necessarily being inconsiderate.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

It very likely may have been when the thought first occurred to him. He could have stubbornly dismissed the idea as violating his consistency.

Ir he could find a way to make the idea work. And come up with something even better than had been there before.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It very likely may have been when the thought first occurred to him. He could have stubbornly dismissed the idea as violating his consistency.

I don’t see why this would be the case at all

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t see why this would be the case at all

He could have thought “Agh the timing doesn’t work… Smaegol is a hobbit, and they don’t live that long. I’ll need more ringbearer’s to bridge the gap between Isildur and Bilbo.”

Or he could take what seems to be an inconsistency, and he could find an explanation for why it could be. Because it’s all made up and cause and effect are just an illusion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

According to who? That’s not how any game I’m a part of works.

Offer up? No.

Provide a backdrop for? Yes.

So there’s not a lot of collaboration going on, huh?

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

Premise is a starting point.

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

Or perhaps the moment of inspiration that makes the campaign great?

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?

As I said, I wouldn’t really care. It’s not something I’d worry about as a GM. I’d say we stick to progression and gear earned in our campaign and whatever you want to do with the character outside of that is up to you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

He could have thought “Agh the timing doesn’t work… Smaegol is a hobbit, and they don’t live that long. I’ll need more ringbearer’s to bridge the gap between Isildur and Bilbo.”

I don't think he was thinking that. This is pure speculation anyways. Honestly though most writers have an impulse to explain any decision in terms of consistency. It is pretty intuitive if you have a wretched creature like Gollum he has a backstory that is going to explain his condition. It isn't like you don't have characters like this in stories. I am sure Bram Stoker was not all "Oh no, this can never work, Dracula is a human and humans don't live hundreds of years." He was a human who became a vampire. Gollum was a hobbit who became Gollum. Maybe if the setting didn't have magic and cursed rings, sure, but it does so I just don't see how this introduces anything that contradicts setting consistency or how it is an argument for going against setting consistency.

Or he could take what seems to be an inconsistency, and he could find an explanation for why it could be. Because it’s all made up and cause and effect are just an illusion.

Again, I don't think he would have even considered it an inconsistency when he did. Maybe. I suppose. But it seems very doubtful to me (just based on my own experience who I make things like this in a setting). It also doesn't show cause and effect are an illusion. It doesn't matter what order he invented things in. If Tolkien felt it was important enough to explain, that means he felt cause and effect mattered in the novels and in the world he was creating.

Now could he have started with one concept and worked backwards? Sure. But that isn't a violation of setting consistency. If I am planning on introducing something a little unusual, one of my first questions is, okay how do I connect this with the cosmology of this particular setting.

 

[pemerton]

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.

But suppose that he was twisted and corrupted by the ring - and so could chill mortals with a touch.

Or suppose that he was twisted and corrupted by the ring - and so had turned into a wraith, like the Nazgul, and able to demoralise and even freeze with a terrible shriek.

Or suppose that he was twisted and corrupted by the ring - and so had wasted away to nothing and died with in a year of acquiring it.

Anything can be written here that fits within the broad idea of being twisted and corrupted by a powerful artefact, and then justified post hoc.

EDIT: @hawkeyefan - or as he's sometimes known, Gollum - ninja'd me with his tricksy, slimy, strangulating fingers!

 

[pemerton]

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.

How much Burning Wheel experience do you have? I think that what you say here has little connection to how the BW books present the process of establishing a setting, a starting situation, the place of the PCs in it, etc.

 

[pemerton]

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

Why didn't its tremendous power wither him away, within weeks or months?

You're presenting a post hoc exercise of authorship as though it explains the authorial choice!

My point is simply it doesn't appear to be a violation of setting consistency at all to me

Nothing is, after the event. The issue is - at the point of proposed introduction of some idea or element, is setting "consistency" a constraint, or ought it to be?


EDIT: Gollum-@hawkeyefan, you've got to give those ninja'ing fingers a rest!

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I recently watched the Return of the King film with my family, and the (second-last) ending, where the "last ship" sails from the Grey Havens, prompted the thought that has led to this post.

Technically, the "Last Ship" is the one which Cirdan and Celeborn take some time in the Fourth Age. It must be after year FoA 171, as a note in the Thain's Book - transcribed from the Red Book of Westmarch says that Cirdan might still live at the Grey Havens. Arwen also has the opportunity to depart after Aragorn's death in FoA 120.

While there are some elements in Tolkien's evolving legendarium which are inconsistent with the overall lore, I don't think the examples you've picked fit the bill very well. It seems to me that the theme of exceptionalism is usually used purposely to illustrate deviation from what is normal, natural, the proper order of things and serves rather to strengthen the underlying motifs. This can be as the result of sorcery, the grace of the Valar, or Eru's personal intervention ("providence").

I think there's also a world of difference between "things we don't necessarily understand about Middle-Earth because they aren't made explicit" and "things which contradict established lore in Middle-Earth."

I think that Beorn, and the giants from The Hobbit are better illustrations.

*Gollum is a unique adversary, with his ability to live in the dark eating only fish and Goblins, his toughness, resilience, and ability to strangle, his ability to relentlessly follow the Fellowship and Frodo;​

These are functions of the corrupting influence of the Ring, and serve that motif.

​

*Tom Bombadil - nuff said - but also Goldberry, and Old Man Willow on the borders of The Shire;​

Bombadil might be Eru or the author inserting himself into the story; he is certainly an exception. Goldberry is a "not-known" but we might reasonably infer that she is a maia; Old Man Willow is consistent with the remains of the Primeval Forest, and the notion of "Ents becoming tree-ish/trees becoming ent-ish."

​

*The Barrow Wights,​

Again, illustrating the unnatural effects of sorcery.

the White Tower too, with its unique Palantir;​

I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Palantir of Minas Tirith or in the Tower Hills.

​

*Gandalf's (one-time) knowledge of every spell, and the suggestion that the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer, yet the apparent lack of spell casting by anyone in the story but Gandalf and Saruman;​

Well, the Witch-King, Galadriel and Sauron all "do magic," and I'm not sure that we're required to see the Mouth of Sauron do magic "on-screen" for his authenticity as a sorcerer to be confirmed.

​

*Boromir's journey across tracts of wilderness to find his way to Rivendell just in time for the great Council, in the same world where Gimli doesn't know that Balin and all his fellow-Dwarves lie dead i Moria;​

Boromir's journey is exceptional.

​

*And what I was reminded of the other day - Frodo and Bilbo, neither an Elf, both nevertheless travelling to the Undying Lands on a ship from the Havens; and despite Cirdan having sailed, Sam - by repute - later taking the same journey on the straight road; and later still, Gimli sailing with Legolas to the Undying Lands.​

See the note above regarding the date of the Last Ship. And the Gimli thing is definitely an "it is told" or an "if this be true" type thing; it is purposely placed in the region of speculation.

Although there are things in Middle Earth that are typical, even "rules" - eg the difference in the "afterlife" of Elves and Men (and Hobbits sharing, one assumes, the Gift of the One to Men); and various orders of being - the story of LotR is full of contradictions of these.

Yes, and they are a function of divine grace or they are unnatural; deviant; contrary to the proper order of things

I think consistency in a FRPG setting, in the sense of "a place for everything, and nothing out of place* is overrated. LotR is driven by departures from such consistency at just about every point.

I can't say I agree with your premise, or the examples you've used to illustrate it.