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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

This is true. That's what I've said... we have to examine the reasons for all these things, and then consider their impact on play. Is the reason for no magic more compelling than the idea of the last mage? Which are the participants more excited by? Which will help propel play and give the players interesting things to do? And so on.

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

Except that the narrator didn't really view it as contrarian... he viewed it as a good thing!

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.

Sure... my expectation based on the OP and the fact that it's from Burning Wheel is that the GM isn't necessarily coming to the character creation step with a fully fleshed out world. That at this point, everything is still to be finalized.

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.

Well, what's the difference between becoming the next mage or being the last mage? It sounds effectively the same for the play experience.

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.

Sure, I think that's largely in agreement with the OP. That exceptions help show the "rules" of a setting. There's no need to default to adhering to them just because.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

I'm not going to speak to the "not viable" part of it, as I've already explained repeatedly that was never a statement of objective fact, and that anyone who reads it that way was mistaken from the get-go; I'll refer you to those earlier posts in the thread.

As for my experiences, I've already relayed them to you. Repeatedly. I've said over and over that they've led to problems with players wanting to be the most special, wanting the game to revolve around them, that the benefits of overturning convention can be achieved without overturning convention, etc. What you seem to want are specifics regarding who did what with what system, even though I've explained at length that none of those details matter; that way lies pointless "you were doing it wrong" or "here's what you should have done" arguments, which establish nothing.

Far better for you to offer your own experiences than to critique that of others.

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?

Because you've already said that you think the experiences of others can be valid points of criticism, and I strongly disagree. You can't tell someone that their experience was somehow less valid than your own, which is what criticism in that regard functions as. By that same token, I can point out that your own experiences can be criticized, and so aren't really worth anything, even though you put forward that they give you standing to criticize others.

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.

Again, I've spoken to my experiences. You've elected not to validate them, for reasons that you haven't elucidated, and seem to think that it's okay for you to criticize others. It's not. If you believe that it is, then you should put forward your own experiences (much like I've done) and invite others to criticize them. Maybe you'll learn something about why so many people seem to dislike collaborative design, and that their reasons have nothing to do with fear or being uninformed (perhaps being uninformed of its problems is why you actually prefer collaborative design)?

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.

By what metric do you consider that "wide"? By what criteria have you engaged with these games "enough" to say that you have a competent understanding of how their collaborative designs work? You need to put forward these details in greater amount so that they can be opened to criticism in case your opinions are based on fear or being underinformed. After all, we know you have experiences with them, but how do we know if you have "enough" experience? Maybe there are others with more experience who can teach you something.

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.

So you've offered a couple of paragraphs, very light on personal experiences, and which seem to be more like blurbs from the sales pages. You need to give us more so that we can properly determine if you have sufficient experience with these systems, and then we can criticize them properly to make sure you aren't just saying those things because of fear.

Actually, I do get to decide.

No, you really don't.

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.

Leaving aside that the entire reason I keep speaking to my own experience is that I'm not saying what's true for me is "universally true" (how do you not understand that yet?), I can't "make" you revise your opinion. That's up to you, though quite frankly having an opinion about whether or not someone else's experiences deserve to be treated as something valid rather than something to be criticized is extremely lacking in consideration.

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

And yet you think you can criticize other people if what they've decided for themselves doesn't have sufficient experience for you.

 

[Lanefan]

Who's talking about "at our leisure"? I'm talking about before play begins... when the setting and the characters are being created.

Even before play begins, for me there's a sequential process: the setting is created, the players are told about that setting and invited to play in it, then those who accept said invitations create their characters.

I mean, sure, you can start quite well with nothing more than a town and a dungeon and then build out the setting as (quite literally!) the characters expand their horizons; but trial and error has told me that having a bigger and more cohesive setting in place first ends up being far more stable in the long run.

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.

Given what I've learned from my current campaign, I can't overstate the importance of worldbuilding (on your own) before play begins. I spent about a year designing my setting - pantheons, history, maps, etc.; with lots of blank space to add things in later - before inviting anyone to play in it.

That year was 2007-8. Session 1034 in that same setting - and more-or-less linked series of many parties and characters - was last Sunday.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

while i mostly agree with your statement this one line i bolded specifically sticks out to me, in that it somewhat implies that the pitch is what should always be the thing reconsidered, i mean yes, accomodate the whole group as best you can but does this means if one player doesn't want a particular type of game the entire rest of the table doesn't get to have it either?

That's unanswerable except by those people! Nobody can answer for you what you find acceptable or tolerable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think that's certainly a nice idea, but in my experience it doesn't live up to the reality, at least for most GMs who haven't been actively working for a notable length of time to develop their skills. Being thrown a curveball, and needing to respond to it immediately, strikes me as being a learned skill, which means that the baseline is that you don't have that skill.

So you have many examples of this inability, or is this an opinion?

 

[CreamCloud0]

That's unanswerable except by those people! Nobody can answer for you what you find acceptable or tolerable.

what you find acceptable or tolerable isn't the question being asked, the question is should the rest of the table be denied a playstyle/theme because a single player doesn't want to engage with it, who's desire is more important, the table's or an individuals?

 

[Alzrius]

So you have many examples of this inability, or is this an opinion?

The answer to both of those is yes.

Next is the part where you ask me to list the examples in detail, so you can find fault with how many there are, what systems they were for, the specifics of how things went down, etc. Because apparently a lot of people seem to think that the experiences of others are valid points of criticism, i.e. can be shown to be "wrong" or otherwise not reliable.

 

[Baron Opal II]

This is true. That's what I've said... we have to examine the reasons for all these things, and then consider their impact on play. Is the reason for no magic more compelling than the idea of the last mage? Which are the participants more excited by? Which will help propel play and give the players interesting things to do? And so on.

Except that the narrator didn't really view it as contrarian... he viewed it as a good thing!

Communication is key. It is assumed in the example that a contrarian position is complementary to the pitch and not oppositional, in that case. I think that particular example is a poor one for Luke's point. But, it's his book, not mine.

Mind you, I get the point. A strong collaboration is desired, even to the point that the foundational premises can be altered or discarded.

Sure... my expectation based on the OP and the fact that it's from Burning Wheel is that the GM isn't necessarily coming to the character creation step with a fully fleshed out world. That at this point, everything is still to be finalized.

Eh, that doesn't matter much. The part I bolded is more important.

Well, what's the difference between becoming the next mage or being the last mage? It sounds effectively the same for the play experience.

They are the mark of the campaign's completion. "We're going to rediscover magic!" "Here I am!" "Oh, well, okay then. Now what?" It obviates the premise I stated. Maybe I wasn't clear- The premise is a campaign without magic. There was magic at one time and we're going to focus on why it disappeared and maybe rediscover it. Your characters might become the next mage through play. No one starts out as the "next mage"; discovering it would be a focus of play. Having someone be the "last mage" obviates the setting. This is why context matters, why not every inconsistency is appropriate, and why communication is key.

 

[pemerton]

Which leads us to ask why you don't have it. Why haven't you worked to develop it? Why not put in the time and effort when people with more experience than you say it's rewarding?

I've often posted about this, for well over a decade: I don't particularly enjoy it.

I've never asserted that it's not viable. In fact, if you look through my ENworld posting history you'll often see me defending the reality and viability of Gygaxian/Pulsipherian dungeon-crawl play against those who attack it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because you've already said that you think the experiences of others can be valid points of criticism, and I strongly disagree. You can't tell someone that their experience was somehow less valid than your own, which is what criticism in that regard functions as. By that same token, I can point out that your own experiences can be criticized, and so aren't really worth anything, even though you put forward that they give you standing to criticize others.

It's not about validity. Your experience is valid to you. It's valid in and of itself. But when you start to claim or imply that your experience is likely to be typical, that's something that can be challenged.

I have no doubt that you experienced the things you experienced. I just don't think they should be taken by others as all that indicative of collaborative world building.

As for my experiences, feel free to criticize them all you like. I'm fully capable of defending them.

By what metric do you consider that "wide"? By what criteria have you engaged with these games "enough" to say that you have a competent understanding of how their collaborative designs work? You need to put forward these details in greater amount so that they can be opened to criticism in case your opinions are based on fear or being underinformed. After all, we know you have experiences with them, but how do we know if you have "enough" experience? Maybe there are others with more experience who can teach you something.

What questions do you have? I said... feel free to ask away. I am confident in my ability to discuss these games and how they work, and how they're similar to traditional play, and how they're different. And how none of the concerns you've expressed about collaborative world building have been very prevalent in them.

Of those listed, Dogs in the Vineyard and Mouse Guard are two that I'd say I'm not fully proficient with. I get how each works, and I've played enough to grasp them, but there are some details I may mistake or that I'm not 100% on. If you're very familiar with either of those games, I'd likely yield to that experience.

So you've offered a couple of paragraphs, very light on personal experiences, and which seem to be more like blurbs from the sales pages. You need to give us more so that we can properly determine if you have sufficient experience with these systems, and then we can criticize them properly to make sure you aren't just saying those things because of fear.

Yes, the blurb from Mothership talks about how one specific group decided to make their own setting despite the fact that the book largely tells the GM to do so.

Do you actually want to discuss the three examples I offered? Are you familiar with any of these three games? Do your experiences with them differ?

No, you really don't.

Who else would decide my opinion?

Leaving aside that the entire reason I keep speaking to my own experience is that I'm not saying what's true for me is "universally true" (how do you not understand that yet?),

Considering I'm not the only one that is taking that away from your posts, perhaps you're not being as clear as you think? Or perhaps despite all the "...in my experiences" you add, it doesn't change the vibe?

I mean, you've said how you feel about collaborative world building. I have no doubt that's how you feel, and I would expect that, based on those feelings, you'd avoid such play in the future. Or at least approach it cautiously.

I've said how I feel about collaborative world building. Do you accept that I feel the way I do about it, and that I will continue to enjoy such games and to seek them out? I would hope you do.

But if so, then what are we discussing? Why are we continuing this back and forth?

As I've said, I am only countering your concerns as being applicable to the game itself rather than to you and your group, and so anyone reading this exchange can know that collaborative world building need not be problematic in the ways you've expressed. Do you disagree with this?