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

[Manbearcat]

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.

There is some of that bolded bit above. But that isn't what is generating pushback/response. What you can find here in this thread, and plenty more elsewhere, is what I saw back in the late 80s through early 90s (which is why I brought up that particular angle...there are plenty of others I could have brought up by the Wandering Monsters and NPC Reaction Rolls and the attendant requirement of improvising backstory is related); declarative statements and then explicit or implicit condemnations. The declarative is "TTRPG systemization that requires improvised backstory (like Wandering Monsters + NPC Reaction Rolls) will invariably lead to Nonsense World TM or fubar continuity." The explicit or implied condemnation is "GMs that don't opt-out of such system architecture and/or games that promote/require it will lead to silly, incoherent play."

The dislike is fine. No big deal. Its the declarative and the explicit or implicit condemnation that rides with it which is the problem.

You can sub in other things as well; "if x, then y." Like "systemitized, collaborative content generation will lead to Nonsense World TM, fubar continuity, and, therefore, silly incoherent play." Or even "TTRPG procedures that allow the table-at-large to develop, systemitized antagonism for PCs and then the GM plays that roster/budget of enemies as hard as they can to foil PC goals will nonetheless invariably lead to degenerate challenge-based play."

I not only don't agree with any of those, I'm certain they're not true (and that last "if x, then y" isn't just untrue for TTRPGs, but its untrue for all manner of challenge-based play including martial combat, situational ball sports, climbing, etc) because of an extremely large dataset of confounders to those hypotheses. But I'm totally cool with someone merely saying the uncontroversial "playing that way isn't intuitive to me and I don't want to invest the tradeoff of time so that it becomes intuitive" or "I don't like that form of play."

To that I would just say "cool, you keep doing your thing /hat-tip."

 

[Pedantic]

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.

That does seem to be the crux. We're seeing a lot of caricature of the how falling on one side or the other might play out at the extremes (a proposed genre gives way entirely to a player's specific character requests or a player is awarded no real ability to define their character's traits), but I think the divide still exists when everyone is acting in good faith.

Presumably in both scenarios the game begins with a reasonable conversation between all involved parties about the assumed tone/structure of the game, genre conventions, setting details and so on. The argument really seems to be what's the more likely outcome of that conversation, assuming character concepts and the genre/setting details are both malleable and change to some extent as a result of the discussion. Will a player emerge with a concept that's still outside the genre/setting constraints proposed (situation A), or will all of the players find a space for their characters within the proposed constraints (situation B). It seems like the real debate is whether or not A or B happens more often, and which one should norms be addressing as a result.

 

[Alzrius]

There is some of that bolded bit above. But that isn't what is generating pushback/response.

I would respectfully suggest otherwise, as my take on things is the opposite of yours (i.e. I've noticed a trend of looking down on "trad" RPG styles and games as being outdated relics which have wrongfully ignored new advances in RPG design/theory, and which have maintained a place of prominence that their type of play doesn't warrant).

But I suspect that this is one of those things where we're both right.

 

[Umbran]

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

It is, however, a clarification of the scope of the statement.

"That form of play is not viable," is explicitly different in semantic content from, "In my experience, that form of play falls apart, and is not viable."

Leaving off the "IME" or the like changes the base meaning of the assertion. We cannot usually argue that someone else's experience didn't happen, unless we were present at the same event. We can only note that it is not universal.

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

Heck, leaning on level of experience is, in terms of rhetoric, effectively leaning on an appeal to authority, which isn't great. The fact that different experiences exist is sufficient for many discussions.

"Oh, you had bad experiences? That stinks. I had really good ones and they worked out like this...." is probably more persuasive than butting heads over who is right.

 

[Baron Opal II]

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

Per the OP, we don't know why the foundational concept was put forward. There could be a good, or at least interesting reason for it. It could be that the players keep picking all magic using parties and the referee this time wants something different. Having someone play the "last mage" could derail the campaign rather than spur interesting stories. We don't know.

From our limited perspective the stance appears contrarian rather than collaborative.

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.

Presumably it already has, since a significant thematic section of fantasy gaming has been obviated by a starting premise. I would think that it in of itself would generate some discussion prior to character creation.

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

Again, communication is key. Why are we thinking about exploring a magicless campaign? We don't have that information. The story could be about becoming the next mage rediscovering magic, so having a last mage character ends the campaign before it begins. Contrarianism alone is not innovation.

This is more of a tangent, however. With a discussion of setting consistency and the utility thereof, I think that it is important to adhere to a significant degree of consistency until the lack becomes useful. Inconsistencies should be present to highlight exceptions, provide clues, identify special characters and situations worthy of greater attention.

I will attempt to clarify with an Ars Magica anecdote when I have a moment.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Until we understand the motives of the player asking to be the last mage, there's not a lot that can be discussed.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think everyone here has table experience, and I don't get the impression anyone is lying about their table experience here. I think most of our disputes are around some key terms and style. But I don't doubt the posters I have been engaging with plays the game the way they say they do

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yep.
But you say that like it is a bad thing. To me, it is one reasonable result from a discussion...

Player: "So, I wanna play a cleric."
GM: "Well, what about being a cleric is key for you? I'm trying for a thing where, in society, such powers are nearly non-existent, and what religious organizations exist in the culture don't have those powers. So, while we can work a character with a cleric class, you're going to be alone - no church/temple support, and you're going to stick out like a sore thumb when folks learn you have these powers. There are likely going to be consequences. Are you cool with that?"
Player: "Oh, so, I'd basically be like the Chosen One? Cool!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?).

No, not what they find fun or not. That's their opinion and it's fine. I don't mind that you don't like collaborative world building. What I'm disagreeing with, and why I've asked for your experience with such games, is the claims you've made about the style of play. You have attributed things to the style rather than to your ability or comfort when playing that way. I mean, you said it's not viable.

When you make these claims, you sometimes add "... in my experience" as a qualifier. I don't see how this doesn't make your experience directly relevant. You keep brining up your experience... why should I not ask about it?

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.

I've asked you to share your experiences. You've made some assertions and then backed them up with some examples that don't really seem all that relevant to collaborative world building. Until you offer some details on that, I don't think the conversation is going to become more constructive.

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.

Sure. I believe @Manbearcat already offered some of these details as I have played weekly with him for the past few years. But I also have a longstanding group that I play with in both a weekly online game, and a biweekly face to face game.

In that time I've played 5e D&D, Starfinder, Call of Cthulhu, Star Trek Adventures, Delta Green, Marvel Superheroes, Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, Dogs in the Vineyard, A Thousand Arrows, Mouse Guard, and The Between.

I've also run several games in that period: 5e D&D, Mothership, Blades in the Dark, Galaxies in Peril, Alien, Band of Blades, Spire, The 13th Fleet, Stonetop, and Heart.

Collectively these games run a pretty wide gamut of world building methods. In the case of Mothership, Galaxies in Peril, and Heart, collaborative world building was extremely high.

Mothership is an OSR flavored game with pretty traditional roles and authorities among the participants; there's nothing stopping a GM from being the sole source of world building, and I think the game largely defaults to that expectation. For our game, I wanted to see what we could come up with as a group by making characters with just the genre basics in mind. Once the characters were created, I took their background elements and ideas and then made that the setting, with a few bits of my own, and a couple of additional suggestions. This is an example of using collaborative world building in a game that doesn't really expect you to do so.

Galaxies in Peril comes with a pretty standard superhero setting... Mandela City... but I was playing with the playtest material that lacked setting details and just had the playbooks to work with. So we came up with our own setting. I had the players each come up with a faction for the world in addition to their characters. We then looked at everyone's origins and determined they were all connected in some way. Two of the factions the players offered became the major antagonists of the setting, and the third was an ally to the PCs. It all came together pretty organically, and I can say that I would not have come up with the setting the way it was on my own. This is an example of collaborative world building in a game that expects some level of it to happen, though in this case, we had to do a lot more than is typical.

Heart is different in that there is a default setting, but it's loosely defined and so the details are largely filled in during play by the entire group. This is similar to a lot of the games listed above (Blades in the Dark, Stonetop, and its sister game of Spire, most notably). Where Heart differs is that the game revolves around characters delving into a living tear in reality called the Heart. The best way to describe this is that it is a living dungeon that shapes itself based on the wants and needs of those who enter it... but it really doesn't understand people, and so things are twisted and off. What this means for play is that the players create their characters and then I create the locations and beings that they face in the Heart based on their wants and desires. The dungeon (such as it is) is shaped by the players' ideas. This is an example of a game that absolutely relies and thrives on collaborative world building.

So there's some examples, each a bit different than the other. I can comment on how it works for the other games listed, too, if you like. But I figured better to start off with a digestible amount.

If you have some questions, or similar examples to share, that'd be great.

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.

Actually, I do get to decide. In my opinion, your conclusions about collaborative world building seem underinformed and aren't as universally true as you have put forth. I'm willing to revise that opinion, but so far you've not offered anything to make me do so.

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.

I said I wanted others to decide for themselves. I've stated my position. I'm not speaking for anyone else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Forgive me if this has been asked before - and maybe point me in the direction of some discussion surrounding it; I don't normally participate in playstyle threads, although I might dip a toe occasionally.

If we consider:

• The referee proposes a Dragonlance game. One of the players wants to be a cleric.
• The referee proposes a Hobbit-centric game using The One Ring rules. One of the players wants to be a Noldo.
• The referee proposes a Foundation-esque Traveller game, set in a human-only far future. One of the players wants to be a Vargr
• The referee proposes a Call of Cthulhu game involving the gradual revelation of themes which are Best Left Unknown (TM). One of the players would like to start well-versed in the Cthulhu mythos.

You get the general idea. Is there any difference between these propositions (beside authorship, and the possibility that players are already familiar with the source material), and a conformity to a world/theme devised by the referee, or are these all accommodations which can/should be met?

I don't think one single definitive answer is possible. If someone suggests something very specific, then I see nothing inherently wrong with other people presented with that offering counterproposals. Nor is it wrong for the first guy to reject that proposal. It's a game, have fun. I think the main observation is simply try to be willing to work with others and show some flexibility. If you don't like an idea, say why and tell people what you're actually wanting.