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

[Bedrockgames]

A player can't be Gollum...in what game? In Burning Wheel, it sounds to me like a player could totally be Gollum, or something very similar.

Also my point wasn't that there aren't games where Gollum isn't feasible. My point was gollum not being allowed isn't a setting consistency concern, it is usually more a concern about balance, spotlight, etc. My first thought if someone suggests a Gollum character in a game isn't "what about the setting", it's "is this fair to other players"

 

[Sepulchrave II]

But Appendix B says that "after the passing of Galadriel in a few years [after the War of the Ring] Celeborn grew weary of his realm and went to Imladris to dwell with the sons of Elrond." I can't find anything in Appendix B that talks about Celeborn taking ship, and I can't find this either in the section of Unfished Tales on Galadriel and Celeborn.

It’s in the Prologue: a Note on the Shire Record.

More generally, I’m using the term “consistent” to mean “systematic; logically coherent.” I have a fairly permissive view of “consistent.”

You’re using it to mean “a place for everything, and nothing out of place.” This seems quite rigid.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is all post hoc. Hobbit's are resilient, but all this suggests is that the Ring should take longer to destroy Gollum than it would a human. I mean, there's no suggestion that Pippin's mind could withstand being blasted by the Eye of Sauron, mediated via Palantir, for more than a small amount of time.

These are storytelling decisions, not extrapolations from some conception of what the setting is and what its consistency demands.

Personally I am not terribly concerned about the insetting explanation on this aspect of it. Again, not a massive lord of the rings fan, so I don't really know if there is an explanation for why it impacts Gollum in this way (and if something like Hobbit hardiness is a factor). But I see the ring doing this to him being more about the corruption of his soul by greed for the ring. To me it is consistent with the morality and magical nature of the setting. But I don't need a break down of Hobbit DNA (and I don't see Tolkien as that type of world builder).

When it comes to world building and Tolkien, the thing I like about him is 1) there is a sense of depth to the world in Lord of the Rings. How much was post hoc, and how much was done before pen hit the page I don't know. 2) The other thing is his idea that worlds are not created but discovered. And that he seemed to use linguistics as a bit of a creative prompt (at least I recall an interview or a book where I read this, that he would trace the etymology of a word to characterize something in the setting, like a hobbit for example). Not sure how accurate this is but I do like this idea, and I did something like it when I made a fantasy setting that made heavy use of arabic as an influence on name sounds (I would come up with a name, and use the three letter root to help me characterize the location). To me this was always an interesting creative prompt that also provided an interesting level of consistency 3) The silmarillion. I have tried to read this many times and only made it so far. I know there are people who enjoy reading it more. And while I am sure people overflow what it all really meant, my understanding is these are larger from stories and scraps he started writing before Lord of the Rings. And so it is an impressive piece of world building in that respect. I don't think something like this is necessary for fantasy and I don't think I have much interesting in reading a fantasy settings background material. But I believe this has quite a bit to do with point 1. I also understand the Silmarillion wasn't all written in 1914 or something. But that an author would pay this kind of attention to the details of his world, I find that impressive, because it suggests the setting mattered a great deal to him. Again, like I said earlier writers revise. Whether world consistency issues are because of a bedrock foundation or because of revisions and later imaginings to bring everything into a coherent and stable world, the end result is that setting consistency is evident in the final product and was important to that writer. But of course that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in writing a novel where other things will matter. One of the problems Tolkien has as an influence is world building for its own sake dominates a lot of fantasy literature. And a lot of fantasy writers aren't as good at making that kind of world as Tokien is. And plenty of fantasy have been written more episodically, without tremendous concern for a world, which is also fine. At the end of the day, world building is just a tool, not an obligation. And setting consistency is going to be more or less important to certain writers

 

[Bedrockgames]

More generally, I’m using the term “consistent” to mean “systematic; logically coherent.” I have a fairly permissive view of “consistent.”

You’re using it to mean “a place for everything, and nothing out of place.” This seems quite rigid.

I do think this is the heart of the issue. This is why I find the gollum example so strange. It doesn't violate consistency at all. But the definition he is using seems to make anything unusual in the setting, anything outside the norm, a setting consistency violation. And I am not sure why this even particularly matters. If the issue is someone is being told they can't make a character like Gollum, that is a system and play group issue, not a setting issue in most cases (unless they are playing in a setting genre where a creature like Gollum simply would not exist (for example a counter terrorism campaign modeled after 24).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I haven't seen anybody here arguing it should be allowed in a group that doesn't want it.

Let’s keep the OP point in mind. It is a general statement about setting consistency being overrated, with a very narrow range of consistency in mind (that honestly seems more about Gm and player authority over things like campaign set up and setting material). And it uses examples from Tolkien that don’t seem to violate setting consistency concerns unless you use the very specific definition of setting consistency used by the OP. So I think people are pishing back against that general statement. I.e. ‘setting consistency is overvalued and getting in the way’ versus ‘hey I value setting consistency and here is why it is important’. The post specifically invokes burning wheel but seems to be doing so to suggest broadly this is how games out to approach things. Also this is part of a an ongoing conversation by the OP. There are prior discussions people are weighing when they respond.

My opinion is Burning Wheel looks like it suits a lot of people. Groups should play whatever system they prefer and arrive at whatever arrangement around setting, character creation and Gm authority that works for them. But I think if the point is to promote burning wheel and to promote a style of player where players have more control of character concepts and where setting consistency isn’t a priority, the OP doesn’t do a good job of persuading people because it holds up these options by attacking a preference for world building and setting consistency and tries to undermine the role of setting consistency in Lord of the Rings.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't disagree; having such ideas be brought up before play begins is, and resolving the issue, is very much the ideal recourse. I'm just trying to point out why I believe there's (reasonable) reluctance on the part of some people to accommodate a character whose is designed specifically to run counter to the setting idea(s) that have been put forward. Even if we assume that there's no contrarianism or self-aggrandizement in play, it changes the nature of the proposed dynamic in ways that other players (and the GM) might not like, and that's okay.

Why is it self-aggrandizement when a player does it, but it is some sort of noble quest when it is the GM doing it? As for who 'might not like' something, let them decide for themselves what they do and do not like.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The last "fighting man" that I played in a FPRG was Thurgon.

Like any Burning Wheel PC, Thurgon was built using the lifepath system in the Character Burner. So he has a backstory as a result of that. I also spent build resource on establishing various reputations and affiliations, either directly or as a result of various traits.

The upshot was that Thurgon starts the game aged 29, with B3 Circles (not a bad starting rating), and the following Relationships, Affiliations and Reputations:

Xanthippe (Mother, on family estate)​

Aramina (sorceress companion)​

​

+1D aff von Pfizer family​

+1D aff Order of the Iron Tower​

+1D aff nobility​

​

+1D rep last Knight of the Iron Tower​

Because he is Sworn to the Order (a trait), Thurgon also has a fourth Belief (ie in addition to the standard three) that is related to or dictated by his membership of the Order of the Iron Tower.

This is fairly standard stuff for a BW PC. It is what informs the events of play: everything that Thurgon does, over the course of the campaign, is grounded in these elements of the character. The game would not be improved by stripping all this away and having Thurgon be a "generic" fighting man whose backstory is established in the first three levels of play (ignoring the fact that BW is not a level-based game).

I'm going to go further, and this is a fine jumping off point. I hear a whole lot about 'consistency', but none of them talk about the consistency of depiction of character. If all we can have is some sort of 'generic character' that is 'made in its first 3 levels' (so to speak) where is the consistency? Oh, sure, the GM gets to rule over 'his campaign' like some petty tyrant, but as a player? I'm left with nothing. What you get are cartoon characters in cartoon situations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I find it to be much easier (and ultimately more rewarding) to engage with elements that are found/developed over the course of play, rather than before the game begins. Working with what's there strikes me (and most of the players I've known) as being more rewarding than having most everything they want granted right from the get-go.

Everything? That would be silly.

What I’m suggesting doesn’t preclude developments in-play. Having some details provided by backstory isn’t granting them everything they want right from the get go. I don’t see why anyone would make that comparison.

Do the characters in your game not have background details? No home or family or connections to the world?

Backstories might not be about accomplishment per se, but if you're starting off by being able to flout the conventions that everyone else has to work within, well...that's effectively the same thing. If you're the last mage in a setting with no magic, then in terms of your impact on the setting and the NPCs who inhabit it, you might as well be a high-level character. I mean, if no one could use magic, and suddenly someone came along who inarguably could, there's a case to be made that at least the local part of the game world would revolve around them to at least some degree, simply because of what they are.

This strikes me as more of a concern along the level progression and game balance lines, which are pretty specific to D&D. There are other games that handle this perfectly fine.

I mean, even in D&D, it’s possible that regardless of premise, one player could select wizard as a class, while the remaining players select non-casters. Such a game would appear to have the same issue… one player character with access to spells. If this is really problematic, I’m not sure it really has anything to do with the setting.

Which is, in my experience, why players want to overturn convention a lot of the time. Even if the GM doesn't decide to take their character's inherent qualities and turn them into the basis of the campaign, those same qualities are often things that mark their characters as being "above and beyond" everyone else, and the player tends to expect that to come up with regard to what they do. Said last mage is going to be able to show off that they're the last mage wherever they go, and will likely know that will color their interactions with every other character they encounter.

Good. I like characters that are unique.

Having said that, as a GM, if I can’t come up with compelling obstacles and situations for the character, I’m not really doing my job. My take on the last mage is that it’d be much more of a burden than a blessing. I don’t think it would encourage the player to have the character going around flaunting their power.

I do agree that these are things which should all be reconciled in the group before play starts. I just don't think that reconciliation necessarily means that the player should necessarily be given (some degree) of what they want. I know that there's a school of thought that GMs shouldn't say no (i.e. "yes or roll for it"), but it's not one that I subscribe to.

Sure… I don’t think the GM must agree. I just think that when this is all being discussed they should be considering the game. Not just their proposed setting idea in isolation… but as a part of the whole experience. The game includes the setting, but it also includes… more importantly, I’d say… the characters.

So we as GMs need to consider the characters and their place in the setting and how that will inform play. Will the proposed idea of the last mage create interesting conflict? Will it allow for dynamic play? Does it inspire the players?

Simply looking at it and saying “no… there’s no arcane magic, I already said that” … basing the decision solely on the consistency of the setting… seems to me to be too simplistic.

 

[Alzrius]

Why is it self-aggrandizement when a player does it, but it is some sort of noble quest when it is the GM doing it? As for who 'might not like' something, let them decide for themselves what they do and do not like.

You seem to have overlooked the part where I said "Even if we assume that there's no contrarianism or self-aggrandizement in play, it changes the nature of the proposed dynamic in ways that other players (and the GM) might not like." Which is to say, that if the player wants their character to overturn convention in terms of them being the only person in the world who can do something, then that can be self-aggrandizement in terms of them wanting a character who is not only recognized as special, but as special right out of the gate (i.e. for their backstory).

As for the GM, well, unless they're bringing in some kind of GMPC to overshadow the players, they're not really in a position to do any such thing. Which isn't to say you can't have all sorts of other ways in which GMs can suck the fun out of things; there's plenty of talk about GMs who try to force the players onto a railroad, want to present the world as though it were a novel, etc. But those aren't matters of using their character to overturn convention.

 

[Bedrockgames]

drawing hard lines in the sand around or because of these discussions is a mistake for all camps and styles. That is how you get overly rigid and non-fun campaigns. I am all for setting consistency, world building and Gm authority around world building, but there does need to be space gif players to create backstory elements, there are reasonable things they can suggest (which the gm can decline), the issue is more when a player pushes beyond that or tries to manipulate the group into gaming in a style they don’t want)