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

[Alzrius]

I'm responding to one post, and what it appears to say, in and of itself.

To quote yourself: Context matters. If you're commenting on one part of an ongoing conversation, then it should be expected that you're not going to take salient details into account.

I made a point based on statistical relevance, and how none of us really have it. That isn't about my personal experience, it is about what math tells us about data.

Which goes back to what I was saying about how this isn't about "experience" at all, where that's used to mean how much someone has played/run/engaged in particular types of games. There is no "math" in that, insofar as people liking what they like, and disliking what they dislike.

My argument is largely that the idea of opinions based in personal experience "carrying more/less weight" is faulty in the context of a broad discussion of playstyles.

Which, again, is what I've repeatedly said. Someone claiming to have "more experience" (which is itself a mass of ill-defined implications) with a particular system than someone else doesn't mean that their opinion carries more weight. If you agree, you might want to express that sentiment to the people suggesting otherwise.

Of course, if you are having a discussion limited to what you do at your own table, then the personal experiences of the people at that table carry weight, and those of folks not at the table ought to carry less. But when speaking about whether a style is viable in general, personal experience is, by basic statistics, not a solid foundation.

We might gain some understanding from digging down into why each person had those personal experiences, but even that won't generalize on its own.

Which really should be the end of the conversation, and yet you don't have to look very far to see people in this thread talking about how they can "infer" that other people simply don't understand other playstyles very well, and so should listen to the people who've played them more (usually in the context of those people explaining why their opinion should be deferred to).

 

[Alzrius]

I literally am asking you to share your experience. I said that perhaps I'm wrong, and you're a guru of collaborative world building. If so, please elaborate.

And I have, in that I've spoken at length about how in my experience it's led to problems and the benefits that it's offered can be obtained with relative ease through other methods of engagement that are less problematic. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

Those posts don't shed much light on what we're talking about. One appears to be about a spotlight-hungry player and the second is about a player who was interested in a setting element.

Which shed a great deal of light on what I was talking about re: the potential pitfalls of the collaborative world-building experience that you're championing, and how the benefits of it are (again, in my experience) ultimately less tangible than other modes of engagement.

I'm asking you what is your experience with collaborative world building? What games have you played that involve it? How did they promote it? How did it work? How did it not?

You're not answering these questions. Those examples don't address these questions.

Again, the examples do answer the questions involved; you just don't seem to like the answers. I suppose I could list off every single RPG that I've played, and how every session for each and every one went, but the fact that you seem to think that I need to in order for my experiences to somehow be credible to you quite frankly smacks of gatekeeping.

If you want to purport that experience is so important, and that only the people who have enough of it with the right kind of systems ought to speak on it, then perhaps you should offer your own instead of pushing for other people to offer theirs. You want to hold yourself up as an expert on this topic? Okay, but then you have to demonstrate why you are.

I think the amount you can work on world building on your own is a bit overstated. While true, I think that the primary way to learn if you've built an interesting/dynamic setting for an RPG is to see it in play.

People who enjoy a particular line of work, in my experience, never tend to think that it's much work. It's the people for whom it doesn't come easily that do, and that's leaving aside that "seeing it in play" is something you can only do, well, in play; if you can't find a group, or the group wants to do something else, etc., then your opportunities for developing that particular skill are limited.

I'm not ignoring it at all. Yes, people will gravitate toward different games or styles for a variety of reasons.

Some of which will be that a particular style/approach/type of game doesn't work for them, in that it's not fun. It's not a question of not having enough experience, and is why people with more aren't really qualified to lecture them about it.

There are many reasons. Setting aside things like brand recognition, market presence, and popularity... I've commented on some of them myself. Personal preference is of course a significant one. So is inertia and familiarity. So is comfort. So is fear.

Another big one is false impressions based on underinformed assumptions made by others. The idea that a given style is difficult, hard to learn, or not viable.

I already granted that there were some other reasons for why that particular style of play is the most popular, but by turn you can't necessarily say it has nothing to do with the style of play either. If you're willing to point at someone else and say that they're overcome with "inertia" or fear, that's judgmentalism. It's not for you to say, or infer, why someone else does or doesn't prefer to engage with a particular style; certainly, it's not for you to say that they don't have "enough" experience, or that their impressions are false, or that they're underinformed. It's for them and them alone to decide.

 

[Umbran]

To quote yourself: Context matters. If you're commenting on one part of an ongoing conversation, then it should be expected that you're not going to take salient details into account.

Right, but I can't read minds. If you appear to say one thing at one time, and another thing at another time, I cannot resolve the inconsistency myself. I cannot even assume that it was intended to be consistent - people often aren't entirely consistent, after all. I can merely point out what is said, and what that appears to mean, which is what I did.

"Well, before I have said X," doesn't in and of itself resolve the inconsistency. For me, it highlights it - if before you have said X, then how come you appear to say Y here?

How is what you said in the post I responded to equivalent to those previous statements?

Which goes back to what I was saying about how this isn't about "experience" at all, where that's used to mean how much someone has played/run/engaged in particular types of games. There is no "math" in that, insofar as people liking what they like, and disliking what they dislike.

Sure. But then we are still left with what pemerton pointed out:

I find very curious this turn in language, from I don't like it (a statement of preference) or even I haven't successfully done it (an autobiographical statement about attainment) to It isn't viable.

You used to a phrasing that implied a generalization, rather than a particular issue for a particular table. Internet conversations often elide that way. Pemerton and I are both simply noting it.

If you didn't intend that connotation (perhaps it was a shortening of "It isn't viable for some people" or somesuch), how about you just tell us that?

If you did intend it, you're going to have to supply different support for that before we accept the point, because the only other support the point seems to have had was personal experience, which we are all agreeing should not be grounds for a generalization.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And I have, in that I've spoken at length about how in my experience it's led to problems and the benefits that it's offered can be obtained with relative ease through other methods of engagement that are less problematic. I'm not sure what else you're looking for.

Which shed a great deal of light on what I was talking about re: the potential pitfalls of the collaborative world-building experience that you're championing, and how the benefits of it are (again, in my experience) ultimately less tangible than other modes of engagement.

Again, the examples do answer the questions involved; you just don't seem to like the answers. I suppose I could list off every single RPG that I've played, and how every session for each and every one went, but the fact that you seem to think that I need to in order for my experiences to somehow be credible to you quite frankly smacks of gatekeeping.

If you want to purport that experience is so important, and that only the people who have enough of it with the right kind of systems ought to speak on it, then perhaps you should offer your own instead of pushing for other people to offer theirs. You want to hold yourself up as an expert on this topic? Okay, but then you have to demonstrate why you are.

People who enjoy a particular line of work, in my experience, never tend to think that it's much work. It's the people for whom it doesn't come easily that do, and that's leaving aside that "seeing it in play" is something you can only do, well, in play; if you can't find a group, or the group wants to do something else, etc., then your opportunities for developing that particular skill are limited.

Some of which will be that a particular style/approach/type of game doesn't work for them, in that it's not fun. It's not a question of not having enough experience, and is why people with more aren't really qualified to lecture them about it.

I already granted that there were some other reasons for why that particular style of play is the most popular, but by turn you can't necessarily say it has nothing to do with the style of play either. If you're willing to point at someone else and say that they're overcome with "inertia" or fear, that's judgmentalism. It's not for you to say, or infer, why someone else does or doesn't prefer to engage with a particular style; certainly, it's not for you to say that they don't have "enough" experience, or that their impressions are false, or that they're underinformed. It's for them and them alone to decide.

I don’t think that adding “in my experience” is a shield from criticism. Your claims seem to be backed by minimal experience with games that actually work well or are designed to allow for collaborative world building.

As someone with seemingly more experience with such games, these criticisms don’t ring true. They seem more like the suppositions of someone under informed about that kind of game. Or someone who’s operating more on hunch than experience.

I’m not trying to convince you to change your stance. I’m countering your claims for anyone else who may be reading this who is curious about this type of play. The concerns you’ve expressed are not particularly valid, or at least, not specifically valid to games that allow for collaborative world building (spotlight hogs can be present in any game, for instance).

Whether our comparative levels of experience matter is up to each person to decide.

 

[Alzrius]

Right, but I can't read minds. If you appear to say one thing at one time, and another thing at another time, I cannot resolve the inconsistency myself. I cannot even assume that it was intended to be consistent - people often aren't entirely consistent, after all. I can merely point out what is said, and what that appears to mean, which is what I did.

"Well, before I have said X," doesn't in and of itself resolve the inconsistency. For me, it highlights it - if before you have said X, when how come you appear to say Y here?

How is what you said in the post I responded to equivalent to those previous statements?

While I'll certainly agree that people are at times inconsistent – you yourself have been on multiple occasions – I would argue that any perceived inconsistency here has been resolved/explained or otherwise cleared up, and that if you read over the entire thread, that would become clear. For instance, below you point out:

Sure. But then we are still left with what pemerton pointed out:

Which suggests to me that you missed my response earlier in the thread. That wouldn't be the case if you looked things over and saw that I'd spoken to the point raised.

You used to a phrasing that implied a generalization, rather than a particular issue for a particular table. Internet conversations often elide that way. Pemerton and I are both simply noting it.

And I've already explained, and will do so again now, that the generalization is an attempt to put a label on how the issue doesn't work for some people. As in, a point of view has been put forward (and was the premise of the statement in question) that it's not viable. If that premise wasn't clear enough, then consider this me making it clearer, though I'll note again that I've done that before. Hopefully this time the message is received.

If you didn't intend that connotation (perhaps it was a shortening of "It isn't viable for some people" or somesuch), how about you just tell us that?

Or, you know, you could look back at the post where I already did.

If you did intend it, you're going to have to supply different support for that before we accept the point, because the only other support the point seems to have had was personal experience, which we are all agreeing should not be grounds for a generalization.

It strikes me as very odd that you'd think I was suddenly saying the opposite of what I've been saying for this entire thread instead of reading things in a more charitable light, particularly given the point of clarification previously noted (i.e. you don't need to be a mind-reader if you're a thread-reader). Hopefully this resolves your confusion.

 

[Alzrius]

I don’t think that adding “in my experience” is a shield from criticism.

So, to be clear, you think that other people's opinions as to what they find fun/not fun (and why) are subject to criticism? That's not really a good way to approach the topic, or at least not in my experience (see what I did there?).

Your claims seem to be backed by minimal experience with games that actually work well or are designed to allow for collaborative world building.

The operative word in that sentence is "seem." You've decided that you've done more and know better, and so your opinion is more valid than my own. I don't think that's a very constructive way to engage in a dialogue, at least where what's fun and what's not in concerned.

As someone with seemingly more experience with such games, these criticisms don’t ring true. They seem more like the suppositions of someone under informed about that kind of game. Or someone who’s operating more on hunch than experience.

Since experience is so important, can you demonstrate that you have as much as you say you have? Because so far you haven't really put forward anything to support the idea that you're the expert that you claim to be.

I’m not trying to convince you to change your stance. I’m countering your claims for anyone else who may be reading this who is curious about this type of play. The concerns you’ve expressed are not particularly valid, or at least, not specifically valid to games that allow for collaborative world building (spotlight hogs can be present in any game, for instance).

You don't get to decide what concerns are valid and what's not, at least not for anyone else. Which is really the issue here, since you seem to think you have some sort of authority on the subject.

Whether our comparative levels of experience matter is up to each person to decide.

Sure, but when you decide that it does, and so other people's opinions aren't valid (because they're underinformed or based on fear), that's not going to lead to any sort of useful dialogue, I'd wager.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I mean... the very first thing on the list is Goldmoon, the basis for the Dragonlance Chronicles, so clearly the idea has some legs, if you want to stretch them.

True, although "being the Chosen One" (or at least a Chosen One) is doing a lot of the lifting for Goldmoon, and, to be fair, "being the Chosen One" is a pretty foolproof means of defying other conventions.

 

[Manbearcat]

.Since experience is so important, can you demonstrate that you have as much as you say you have? Because so far you haven't really put forward anything to support the idea that you're the expert that you claim to be.

If it’s alright I’ll interject to vouch here so you guys can get back to talking about something a little more interesting (to me at least!).
In the last 3+ years, hawkeyefan has been a player (an extraordinarily good one to boot) in the below games I’ve GMed:

• 6 session Blades game.
• 14 month or so (full) Blades game.
• 14 month or so (full) Stonetop game.
• Full Season Mouse Guard game.
• One-shot Lazers & Feelings game.
• 3 x Town (maybe 8 sessions?) Dogs in the Vineyard game.
• 7ish session Thousand Arrows game.
• Current (session…8?…tonight) The Between game.

So he’s got a huge amount and breadth of experience playing and he’s run Blades, Stonetop, Spire, Heart for his home group (maybe something else) in that same span.

So maybe you guys could talk about how your specific experiences inform your thoughts anecdotally, that might move the ball down the field in your conversation.

Like for instance, I wrote above about how the cultural pedagogy and inertia of the late 80s (started GMing in ‘84, but it wasn’t for a few years that I really started getting contact with the greater culture-at-large) would have really harmed my GMing if I would have buckled to it. My 10-13 year old self was routinely put down for using Wandering Monsters and ESPECIALLY for using and honoring every NPC Reaction Roll that came up because they would generate metaplot (which I didn’t use nor care about; yup, got ripped for that too!) or sense & setting-defying results which I would have to justify with what was cast as awkward or nonsensical impromptu backstory that couldn’t possibly fit.

If I would have buckled to those social pressures/exhortations/denouncements (rather than seeking those WMs and NPCRRs results as an exciting challenge to generate fun content off-the-cuff), it would have been a net harm to the play I was interested in and to the growth of my lateral thinking reservoir.

An analog to that would be interesting to hear.

 

[Alzrius]

So maybe you guys could talk about how your specific experiences inform your thoughts anecdotally, that might move the ball down the field in your conversation.

What I'm trying to say is that it's all anecdotal, though. Experience, insofar as what's fun and why, isn't something you can treat as a comparative in order to determine who's more "right." Listing out specifics, I'm willing to bet, will do nothing more than invite nitpicking about how a particular thing was done "wrong," or was anomalous, or will simply invite a "yes, but here's my opposite experience" response.

There is no telling someone why what they like is wrong, and that the reason they don't like other things is just because they don't have enough (of the right kind of) experience. A person can come to the conclusion that something's not for them after a single attempt at something, and that's entirely valid, since people are different.

Many posters in this thread have expressed a dislike of collaborative world-building and overturning setting consistency, to which it's been postulated that they don't have enough experience with those things, are underinformed about them, or are kept away by fear...all of which are just ways of discounting what they say. Getting into a contest of "whoever has the most number of anecdotes is the most right" in an attempt to legitimize discounting others is a dead end.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

As is often the case in discussing RPGing, it helps to distinguish the fiction from the table.

The fiction - the setting, the gameworld - has conventions, or norms, or general rules. I've given examples from JRRT's works, such as that only Elves can sail the straight road to Aman. Some things in the fiction break those conventions or generalities.

The table has conventions -eg We're playing Prince Valiant, so the genre is broadly Arthurian.

What is the relationship between the first set of conventions, and the second? The answer is: whatever people want it to be.

I guess this gets to the crux of it for me, as I'm not so confident that such a divide - between the table/genre and the fiction/gameworld - can be so starkly asserted. Maybe I view it as more of a lens with a variable focus, with increasing tightness and specificty, with the proviso that everyone will bring their own ideas about a given genre with them: In the Arthurian example (a good one, as it is such an expansive genre), different people might bring quite different expectations.

It seems that there will always be some measure of conflict - or at least tension - between genre fidelity (desirable) and player autonomy/agency (also desirable); the question then becomes how best to resolve that tension. Allowing the fiction to unfold without any prior constraints is a solution which seems a riskier proposition in terms of maintaining genre fidelity; a referee imposing limits sacrifices player autonomy in order to ensure (his or her vision of) genre fidelity.