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

[hawkeyefan]

So either way, you ignored the salient part that directly addressed the point you brought up.

Alzrius... I don't know what to tell you. I'm not ignoring what you're saying. I am offering an alternative approach, based on the ideas in the OP.

Your argument seems to be "But that's not how I do it"; which is perfectly fine, but I'm simply saying that the prevailing method need not be the way it goes. I'm not going to limit my comments to your experience. Why would I?

We don't need to be beholden to setting conventions if we don't want to be.

Then you're having a different conversation.

I've been clearly stating that I'm talking about a collaborative effort in nearly every post I've made.

I don't see why you'd want to blame me. If we're having different conversations, then I suppose it's on both of us, no?

In my experience, the GM does the majority of the world-building ahead of time (pre-fab campaigns notwithstanding...or at least, mostly notwithstanding, since they'll sometimes tweak those), and while there's usually a discussion among the group as to what kind of campaign will be played, the salient details tend to be the purview of the GM, while the players will try to work within those boundaries. If someone wants to push said boundaries, that's all well and good, but I'd say that requires a compelling reason why such an idea should be greenlit, since it tends to require more work on the GM's part to make fit (and can overshadow the rest of the party), while the same benefits can almost always be gotten via some method of working within the campaign's context.

I'm well aware of the primary way that this is all handled. I have played and run plenty of games with that paradigm. I've also run many that did things differently. Based on that experience... which I'm willing to bet is likely greater than yours... I am saying that your concerns don't really come up. Are they possible? Sure... but not really problematic in any persistent way as you're stating.

And that's fine, but I'm of the opinion that this leads to a lot of slow-down, at the very least, as the GM tends to need to figure out what's going on and how to integrate it into everything. Quite often, it requires some time between sessions to iron out. And that's the best-case scenario, which is why I find it easier to have things worked out ahead of time.

Why are you of this opinion? It seems more like a supposition.

"Discovery writing" can be a lot of fun when writing, but that's why writing a story and playing an RPG aren't the same thing.

You can discuss that if you want, though as noted above, a movie (like most scripted fiction) isn't a very good point of comparison for a group RPG.

Well, I tend to think of "main character" more as something that comes up in films and books... and you introduced that idea to the conversation. I don't think RPGs tend to have main characters. Even one like the last mage. Yes, they may take the spotlight a times. But that doesn't mean that there's any reason for that to dominate play as you've described.

I'll also add that it would be perfectly possible for mishandling the spotlight to happen in any game.

Those have already been decided before the game began, but quite frankly, yes. If the GM has put forward a campaign idea where there is none of X thing, and later on a player decides they want to play X thing, then to my mind they're the one who has to make a case to the GM (and the rest of the group) why the consistency of the setting should be altered just for them.

Sure. That sounds like collaboration. Which is what I've been advocating for.

What do you mean "we"?

I mean us. You and me. Like if I said "we're not in Kansas anymore".

I made an actual caricature, and am pointing it out so that you can compare it to my previous comment and see the difference.

I think that's a reductivist way of looking at the problem. If one party member can flatly overturn what everyone in the setting regards as an inviolable law of nature (i.e. there is no magic, and they can use magic), then it's going to be hard to demonstrate why the surrounding NPCs should find the other party members "just as" interesting as that. Even if you can, you're going to have to put in effort to get them to that status, whereas the special PC gets that status just by being what they are.

There are no inviolable laws of nature. It's all made up. We can make anything we want to be the case.

I'm honestly shocked that anyone would interpret that as serious "math" and not as a figurative expression.

I was pointing out that it was nonsense.

Which is certainly the ideal, but as presented it seems to presume that there's some sort of happy middle ground, where everyone should get what they want. Quite often, that doesn't happen, not because someone's being stubborn or refusing to give in, but simply because some ideas can't be worked into the campaign organically (or require more work than the GM or other players are willing to put in), at which point a decision needs to be made. And I'd argue that unless there's some particularly compelling reason, that decision is probably best as a "no."

Of course, if the player could find another way to make an interesting character without having to turn some convention of the setting on its head, that wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

There's a reason why that's the main paradigm in so many games. And I don't think that the reason the GM is so often caught flat-footed is because they haven't "invented" everything, but because the PCs have introduced large-scale changes within the context of the campaign, rather than outside of said context. Assassinating a friendly king can change the entire tenor of the game, but it alters nothing about how the world functions.

The reason that is the main paradigm of so many games is inertia. That's how many learned to play RPGs, that's the most prevalent method, and clearly folks have a hard time even imagining a different approach.

I think it was fairly pointless, and somewhat tone-deaf. Repeating someone's argument back at them with no changes except to transpose two of their points is needlessly confrontative...kind of like a player who makes a character that they know specifically breaks the rules of the setting. So maybe you demonstrated a good point after all, albeit not the one you meant.

If my comment was pointless, I think the same would apply to yours. All I'm saying is that the GM's ideas and wants for the game should be as subject to group review as the players'. It's really not that hard to understand.

I think we're at an impasse though. I'm not going to go line by line in response to you anymore. If you have any questions or something new to add... please go ahead. But this back and forth has otherwise gone about as far as it can, I'd say.

 

[Alzrius]

I continue to be baffled by your combatative tone and motives for posting in this thread. It has been pointed out several times that the discussion is not limited to "your experience" or the trad playstyle, generally. The entire premise of the OP is in demonstration of different ways of thinking about consistency than that presumed by many adherents of the trad playstyle and its limitations on who is able to contribute creatively in what capacity and to what extent.

I'm likewise very confused that you find my tone "combative" because I'm speaking from my own experience and not treating my opinions as facts. Most people tend to be upset when someone acts like their pronouncements are undeniable truths; you're the first person I've ever met who was upset because someone was clearly prefacing what they're saying was their own personal take on things.

The fact that the discussion isn't limited to anyone's own experience is something I've acknowledged many times. But by that same token, personal experience is also therefore an allowable point for expressing different opinions on the topic in question. But if you don't like that, I'll go ahead and state it as a declarative: there are very good reasons for being suspicious of the idea of overturning consistency for the sake of one player, and that limitations have a purpose which make the game more enjoyable for all involved.

 

[Alzrius]

Alzrius... I don't know what to tell you. I'm not ignoring what you're saying. I am offering an alternative approach, based on the ideas in the OP.

And I've responded as to why I don't think that approach is viable, likewise with regard to the ideas in the OP. It's not like I'm the only one in this thread to do so, so I'm hardly a lone voice in this regard.

Your argument seems to be "But that's not how I do it"; which is perfectly fine, but I'm simply saying that the prevailing method need not be the way it goes. I'm not going to limit my comments to your experience. Why would I?

Literally everyone's arguments in this thread come down to "but that's not how I (would) do it." There's no other argument to make; personal preference is all this is, and while there are a few people who seem to want to say that their insight is Truth-with-a-capital-T and that people who disagree are ignoring/misunderstanding what they're saying, the simple fact of the matter is that people disagree because they understand just fine, but have their own opinion which is different. No, the "prevailing" method need not be how it goes...but it can be, and that's okay.

We don't need to be beholden to setting conventions if we don't want to be.

No one "needs" to be "beholden" to anything in a game of imagination. But there are very good reasons to stick to setting conventions, and likewise reasons not to be enthusiastic (or even supportive) of players in your group who don't want to. That deserves to be reiterated, since we shouldn't take it as a given that conventions and limitations are necessarily bad things.

I've been clearly stating that I'm talking about a collaborative effort in nearly every post I've made.

So have I. I've repeatedly supported the idea that the GM should talk to players and vice versa, and that a consensus being reached is the ideal. But there's a conversation to be had about what if that can't be reached, and why someone can reasonably make a case not to be supportive of overturning setting conventions.

I don't see why you'd want to blame me. If we're having different conversations, then I suppose it's on both of us, no?

I don't recall issuing "blame" at all. I'm pointing out that if that's what you're talking about, then we're talking past each other.

I'm well aware of the primary way that this is all handled. I have played and run plenty of games with that paradigm. I've also run many that did things differently. Based on that experience... which I'm willing to bet is likely greater than yours... I am saying that your concerns don't really come up. Are they possible? Sure... but not really problematic in any persistent way as you're stating.

You have no reasonable basis for suggesting that your experiences are "greater" than mine (whatever that means), and likewise, I think that your concerns are the ones that might be theoretically possible, but carry little-to-no practical weight at the game table (and, I'd wager, as most game tables). Mine, to me, seem both more germane and more notable.

As such, maybe it's a better idea to talk about the ideas at hand, and not get into pointless contests of who has the "greater" experience.

Why are you of this opinion? It seems more like a supposition.

It seems more like a self-evident truth to me. Most GMs that I've known can't turn on a dime when a major change happens during the course of play, and require some time to figure out how things will shake out from a huge curveball happening. Are you saying you've only ever played under GMs who were able to adapt to major alterations in the course of the game without missing a beat? Because that doesn't seem like a very common experience at most tables.

Well, I tend to think of "main character" more as something that comes up in films and books... and you introduced that idea to the conversation. I don't think RPGs tend to have main characters. Even one like the last mage. Yes, they may take the spotlight a times. But that doesn't mean that there's any reason for that to dominate play as you've described.

I'll also add that it would be perfectly possible for mishandling the spotlight to happen in any game.

Again, the issue is that such a background lends itself to that type of problem very easily. It doesn't have to come up, but by its very nature it makes it easier for it to. Recall how, of the three characters mentioned in the context of the "last mage" campaign, the other two (the inquisitor and the protector/sacrificer) were defined by their role toward the last mage. That means that their characters are defined by him, but the same isn't true (or at least, is far less true) going the other way. Can they still make an impact? Sure, but if the last mage's player decides to do something like suddenly go to another continent, they'd be expected to drop what they're doing and go also, or otherwise react to the major change somehow. The problem is one of the impact of one character's actions having an outsized effect compared to (or on) the others.

Sure. That sounds like collaboration. Which is what I've been advocating for.

So have I, which is why I'm glad to see you acknowledge that here. But collaboration will not always (and shouldn't necessarily be presumed to) lead to the player who wants to overturn convention being allowed to do so. "Collaboration" all too often seems to be shorthand for "find a way to give the player what they want."

I mean us. You and me. Like if I said "we're not in Kansas anymore".

And yet, I'm not one of the people engaging in caricature.

I made an actual caricature, and am pointing it out so that you can compare it to my previous comment and see the difference.

You said that "we" are starting to get into caricature. I'm pointing out that while you might be, I'm not. So it's not "we," it's "you."

There are no inviolable laws of nature. It's all made up. We can make anything we want to be the case.

Which runs counter to what I said previously about imbuing the game world with a sense of immutability to better abet engagement and immersion. Yes, that immutability is illusory, but putting that aside is part of the process of role-playing.

I was pointing out that it was nonsense.

Literally analyzing an idiom is a poor way to do that. Also, I disagree with your opinion; if you have to overturn convention in order to make a particular type of character, that is indeed doing extra work for something you could almost always acquire without going that far.

The reason that is the main paradigm of so many games is inertia. That's how many learned to play RPGs, that's the most prevalent method, and clearly folks have a hard time even imagining a different approach.

No, I don't think that the main paradigm of many games is "inertia" at all. Quite the opposite, really. That seems to assume that most people playing the game are simply uncreative, unimaginative, and otherwise unable to fully appreciate the nature of playing an imaginative fantasy game. It assumes the worst about other people, and with no particular reason for doing so.

If my comment was pointless, I think the same would apply to yours.

You'd be wrong. Simply repeating someone else's paragraph back to them with two parts transposed is flippant, rather than insightful.

All I'm saying is that the GM's ideas and wants for the game should be as subject to group review as the players'. It's really not that hard to understand.

I agree that it's not hard to understand. I just don't subscribe to the same belief. It's not like this particular debate is at all new in RPG circles.

I think we're at an impasse though. I'm not going to go line by line in response to you anymore. If you have any questions or something new to add... please go ahead. But this back and forth has otherwise gone about as far as it can, I'd say.

Actually, I think this has gone fairly well for how this type of exchange tends to go. While not without some bumps in the proverbial road, this has been a fairly measured exchange.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, obviously, that's a dialog with the person proposing the game. Deciding that you want to play a magic-user in a world without magic comes across as more being stubborn than engaging in a creative team-based process. There may be very good reasons for that base concept and it should be talked about rather than ignored.

I don't know. Per the OP, the idea occurs to the player when presented with the idea of a world without magic.

I mean, when an idea like that is put forth, I think one of the first natural responses is to imagine an exception to the idea. So the question to me, if this was a scenario where I was the GM, is that I have to consider this idea and what it would mean for play. And then weight the options. How attached am I or the other players to this no magic idea? Does it involve or inspire the players coming up with compelling ideas that somehow conflict with the last mage idea? Or does the last mage idea inspire more ideas, as suggested in the OP?

Adhering to setting fidelity just because... that's not something I think is the best idea.

 

[Argyle King]

The special things stand out because they are special against a backdrop of built-upon expectations.

Also, there is usually some (even if just a passing) explanation given for why something differs -so as to help with allowing expectations to be broken without suspension of disbelief being broken.

Starting from a place of shared expectations and verisimilitude helps to give life to the things that deviate from the norm. Reality enhances fantasy, it doesn't take away from it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You have no reasonable basis for suggesting that your experiences are "greater" than mine (whatever that means), and likewise, I think that your concerns are the ones that might be theoretically possible, but carry little-to-no practical weight at the game table (and, I'd wager, as most game tables). Mine, to me, seem both more germane and more notable.

As such, maybe it's a better idea to talk about the ideas at hand, and not get into pointless contests of who has the "greater" experience.

No, greater as in a measure of quantity. I meant specifically with the collaborative style of gaming found in the types of games mentioned in the OP and that I've been talking about. I expect I have more experience with such games than you do. I think this is obvious from both our comments.

Would you disagree with that?

It seems more like a self-evident truth to me. Most GMs that I've known can't turn on a dime when a major change happens during the course of play, and require some time to figure out how things will shake out from a huge curveball happening. Are you saying you've only ever played under GMs who were able to adapt to major alterations in the course of the game without missing a beat? Because that doesn't seem like a very common experience at most tables.

I think that it's just a shift in focus. But the idea that it's a self-evident truth is largely what I'm arguing against. This idea that there is a "true" way to do this.

Of course I've played with GMs who struggle with the unexpected. I've been that GM, as well. I absolutely understand it. But it's not a "self-evident truth" that it needs to be that way. That idea is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It's a skill that takes time and practice. Not everyone wants to spend that time to learn a new way. Lots of others don't even think it's possible, and so never even consider it. I know this because I was largely unaware of such games for the bulk of my RPG career.

Actually, I think this has gone fairly well for how this type of exchange tends to go. While not without some bumps in the proverbial road, this has been a fairly measured exchange.

Oh, I have no problem with the content or overall tone... I just don't see the need to go back and forth on every comment.

I agree that it's not hard to understand. I just don't subscribe to the same belief. It's not like this particular debate is at all new in RPG circles.

Describing it as a belief is the kind of thing that really comes across odd to me. I mean... it's true.

 

[Alzrius]

No, greater as in a measure of quantity. I meant specifically with the collaborative style of gaming found in the types of games mentioned in the OP and that I've been talking about. I expect I have more experience with such games than you do. I think this is obvious from both our comments.

Would you disagree with that?

Yes, both in terms of measuring (if I'm understanding you correctly) the number of hours engaged in that specific aspect of engaging with the game, and in the salience that you're ascribing to it. Does someone who's sunk one thousand hours of time into a particular course of play necessarily understand it better than someone who's only put in nine hundred? Or is that just pointless posturing that detracts from actually examining the substance of the issue in favor of yelling "I know better than you, and here's why"?

I think that it's just a shift in focus. But the idea that it's a self-evident truth is largely what I'm arguing against. This idea that there is a "true" way to do this.

Leaving aside that you yourself avail yourself of "but it's true" later in this same post, I want to reiterate that what I described as a self-evident truth is that it's harder for a GM to instantly and cohesively react to a major change that spontaneously arises during the course of play. I don't see that as being an issue of the philosophy of how to approach questions of world design, GM authority, player autonomy, or similar concerns; it's just acknowledging that big changes which come out of nowhere can catch people off-guard, and so are hard to react to. That's not a value judgment.

Of course I've played with GMs who struggle with the unexpected.

Which is all I was saying.

I've been that GM, as well. I absolutely understand it. But it's not a "self-evident truth" that it needs to be that way. That idea is like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The idea of "needs to be" is one that you're introducing. As you said, GMs can struggle to react to the unexpected. Recognizing and accepting that is all there is to it; so let's take that as a self-evident truth and build on it, i.e. that some GMs (I'd say a lot of GMs) need time to figure out how to react to that, either pausing a session or suspending everything beyond the most immediate consequences, and then figuring out the rest later on.

It's a skill that takes time and practice. Not everyone wants to spend that time to learn a new way. Lots of others don't even think it's possible, and so never even consider it. I know this because I was largely unaware of such games for the bulk of my RPG career.

Again, being able to learn how to deal with this accepts the premise that it's something that has to be dealt with in the first place, and so is an issue. I think it's great if you have a GM who can handle such things without missing a beat, but not every GM can, and in my experience most can't. So maybe let's start the conversation under that presumption and go from there.

Oh, I have no problem with the content or overall tone... I just don't see the need to go back and forth on every comment.

Okay.

Describing it as a belief is the kind of thing that really comes across odd to me. I mean... it's true.

To be clear, when you say "it" you mean that the GMs ideas should be given the same level of consideration and oversight by the players as any individual player's are by the GM, right? Because that's a value judgment, and not one that's universal, let alone self-evidently true. It's an entirely legitimate school of thought that the GM is doing more work, and so gets more weight in making decisions. In fact, you don't even have to predicate that on them doing more work; the idea of a referee in a game, who makes a call and is the final arbiter of how things are decided, is one that predates tabletop RPGs altogether.

Now, obviously the ideal is that there's still some discussion that goes on and a consensus is reached. But the idea that the GM's input should be "as subject" (i.e. to the same degree) to review by the players as their input is to the GM's review, in terms of hashing out points of disagreement (let alone points where consensus cannot be reached), that's not one that I personally agree with. And I don't find that to be a fringe position.

 

[Umbran]

And I've responded as to why I don't think that approach is viable..

And for you, it may not be.

If not everyone has to play the same way, it rather follows that there are going to be ways to play that will be found viable and successful for some, that wouldn't be so for others. And that should be okay!

At which point, there is no cause to try to argue against anything, or try to present an approach as non-viable, or to try to argue that somehow it is a niche application that should be ignored, or the like. It would be more constructive to engage in trying to honestly and collaboratively determine when and how and for who and why is it viable, and when and how it would be unsuccessful.

As such, maybe it's a better idea to talk about the ideas at hand, and not get into pointless contests of who has the "greater" experience.

It seems more like a self-evident truth to me. Most GMs that I've known can't turn on a dime when a major change happens during the course of play, and require some time to figure out how things will shake out from a huge curveball happening. Are you saying you've only ever played under GMs who were able to adapt to major alterations in the course of the game without missing a beat? Because that doesn't seem like a very common experience at most tables.

So, you cannot validly try to discard who has greater experience, and then immediately base an argument on "most GMs you've known". GMs you've known is just another form of personal experience!

There are thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands of GMs out there. Our personal experiences aren't statistically relevant samples to use as bases for consideration. We don't have access to what "most GMs" are currently capable of, or could be capable of if they familiarized themselves with new techniques.

 

[pemerton]

I stubbornly put these forth as more than mere suggestion!

You need a custom background - Quixotic Hero!

 

[pemerton]

I am offering an alternative approach, based on the ideas in the OP.

And I've responded as to why I don't think that approach is viable, likewise with regard to the ideas in the OP.

How can they not be viable, if there are actual people actually RPGing - including some posting in this thread - who are using an approach close to, or the same as, @hawkeyefan's, and who are informed by ideas similar to those in the OP: collaborative world-building, treating ideas and "norms" of the world as jumping-off points rather than rigid constraints, etc.

It's not like I'm the only one in this thread to do so, so I'm hardly a lone voice in this regard.

If 100 people assert that something is not viable, but one or two others are actually doing it successfully and even to their benefit, than it follows that the 100 are wrong.

"Collaboration" all too often seems to be shorthand for "find a way to give the player what they want."

What's wrong with participants in a voluntary leisure activity getting what they want?