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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't agree that the analogy is an apt one. The topic is what we enjoy and why we enjoy it (and what we don't like and why), not an issue of developing skills.

Now, there are some tangential issues that are skill-related, such as the aforementioned ability of GMs to think on their feet when something unexpected happens. But those tangents are just that: tangents. That's not going to speak to whether or not someone's disposition toward some aspect of play deserves to be criticized.

It's because preference and experience aren't related that asking for the latter when the topic is the former is futile. When someone tells you that they don't like to eat meat, it's both pointless and rather rude to then insist that you have twenty years of experience as a butcher and have tried dozens of different kinds of meat in myriad different recipes, so you're qualified to criticize whatever experience led to them deciding not to eat meat.

I don't think that's an entirely fair characteriz of the discussion. Claims were made on the basis of experience, not taste. The OP makes certain observations about the premises which settings can be based on, and the discussion then immediately went to a very intense criticism of the notion that players have any business proposing anything and calling it toxic behavior!

 

[hawkeyefan]

We can mostly agree on the basic principles, I think, but we get lost in the weeds when it comes to what works for us and what doesn't; because what works great for me might look ludicrous to you, and vice-versa.

Sure. But I also think it helps to keep in mind that there are not just different styles within one game, but a whole variety of games that do things differently.

I have very little experience with GURPS, for example. I’ve played it and have an idea on how it works and so on… but I wouldn’t presume to be able to comment on the particulars of it, especially in conversation with someone who knows it well. The same goes for FATE, and plenty of other games.

Perhaps. The one big difference that leaps out is that the last-mage arc can't include the (perhaps lenghty) arc leading to the first mage discovering magic.

Sure, but this is what I mean by the play experience. This assumes that restoring magic is the goal. If so, will the player be happy playing a character who largely won’t have access to magic for most of the game? Do they want to play a wizard type who can’t use magic? Or will they be happy playing another class or playbook and then switching to a new one near the end? Or adding some kind of additional abilities or options that represent the newly discovered magic?

These are the kind of practical decisions that I’m considering as well, beyond the setting concept or consistency.

I would.

If I'm playing a character with even a shred of wisdom in a party that contains the last known mage in the world, there's no way in hell I'm letting that mage anywhere near anything risky; and "anything risky" most certainly includes field adventuring. I don't care if it's someone else's PC, there's not a chance it's going adventuring if I have anything to say about it.

That mage should be behind glass in the equivalent of a museum where others can study her, learn from her, maybe even try to replicate her.

This assumes a lot… that magic is benevolent and desired. That folks would welcome its return.

Also, why would anyone who felt that way just tuck them away and then go out adventuring? This makes no sense to me.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't think that's an entirely fair characteriz of the discussion. Claims were made on the basis of experience, not taste. The OP makes certain observations about the premises which settings can be based on, and the discussion then immediately went to a very intense criticism of the notion that players have any business proposing anything and calling it toxic behavior!

Personal experiences were relayed, certainly. But they were relayed as a "case," instead of being a matter of taste, which I think is part of the reason people had such a bad reaction to them. Again, whether or not personal experiences are instructive isn't up to the person relating the experience. They can certainly mean for it to be, but whether or not it's taken that way is up to everyone else.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps. The one big difference that leaps out is that the last-mage arc can't include the (perhaps lenghty) arc leading to the first mage discovering magic.

I would.

If I'm playing a character with even a shred of wisdom in a party that contains the last known mage in the world, there's no way in hell I'm letting that mage anywhere near anything risky; and "anything risky" most certainly includes field adventuring. I don't care if it's someone else's PC, there's not a chance it's going adventuring if I have anything to say about it.

That mage should be behind glass in the equivalent of a museum where others can study her, learn from her, maybe even try to replicate her.

Maybe. Or maybe the rediscovery of magic is a trial-balloon throw-in to some other story arc, maybe or maybe not leading to anything.

Let's say the campaign thus far has been about a group of Dwarves looking to take back their ancestral home (i.e. the Hobbit plot, but without magic); and somewhere along the way (the Barrow Downs? the troll cave?) someone finds an old yet still functional spellbook in a hoard. From here things can go in different directions: they can ignore the book and focus on the original arc, they can drop the original arc and focus on the book (thus leading to the return of magic once someone figures out the contents and how to use them), or they can do some of both.

I feel like you all 'doth protest too much' essentially. Why go to all these great lengths to try to rule out the OP's 'Last Mage' as a viable idea? It is totally cromulent, and in fact even back in the days before I understood the sort of play that was being evoked in the OP I would have lauded that idea, or others like it. It is just plain gold to have involved and engaged players who want to take the underlying ideas behind a game and REALLY engage them, test them, and make the thing their own.

All of this harping about spotlight and 'consistency' and on and on and on. Its all just strained. What you all are actually objecting to is blindingly obvious, a player getting to enact an original idea which has some actual narrative significance to the game.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I feel like you all 'doth protest too much' essentially. Why go to all these great lengths to try to rule out the OP's 'Last Mage' as a viable idea? It is totally cromulent, and in fact even back in the days before I understood the sort of play that was being evoked in the OP I would have lauded that idea, or others like it. It is just plain gold to have involved and engaged players who want to take the underlying ideas behind a game and REALLY engage them, test them, and make the thing their own.

All of this harping about spotlight and 'consistency' and on and on and on. Its all just strained. What you all are actually objecting to is blindingly obvious, a player getting to enact an original idea which has some actual narrative significance to the game.

I sure hope the rest of the players enjoy playing NPCs.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, but this is what I mean by the play experience. This assumes that restoring magic is the goal.

Yes, I've been assuming that; as if restoring magic is not the goal it's simply a no-magic campaign and that's that.

If so, will the player be happy playing a character who largely won’t have access to magic for most of the game? Do they want to play a wizard type who can’t use magic? Or will they be happy playing another class or playbook and then switching to a new one near the end? Or adding some kind of additional abilities or options that represent the newly discovered magic?

These are the kind of practical decisions that I’m considering as well, beyond the setting concept or consistency.

Fair enough. Here I'd say that if anyone's to become the "first mage" it should probably be an NPC, specifically in order to prevent one PC from being or becoming more important than the others (again, the exception here would be solo play).

This assumes a lot… that magic is benevolent and desired. That folks would welcome its return.

Good point. I have been assuming that, yes. But if magic isn't benevolent and-or desired and people are welcoming its demise then the player of the last mage is again not going to have much fun, as the rest of the party might well be justified in killing it as soon as they find out what it is.

Also, why would anyone who felt that way just tuck them away and then go out adventuring? This makes no sense to me.

If your intent is to keep something safe it's just a bit counterproductive to take it out and expose it to risk, hm? And unless the party want to spend their adventuring careers doing nothing but guard the last mage in her glass bubble, they're likely going to go off elsewhere and leave said guarding duties to stay-at-home guards.

Put another way, the player who wants to play the last mage probably hasn't thought the ramifications all the way through.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, I've been assuming that; as if restoring magic is not the goal it's simply a no-magic campaign and that's that.

I mean it depends on what everyone wants to do. Maybe the last mage just wants to live their life. Maybe they want to be rid of magic. There's a lot of possibilities.

Fair enough. Here I'd say that if anyone's to become the "first mage" it should probably be an NPC, specifically in order to prevent one PC from being or becoming more important than the others (again, the exception here would be solo play).

So the solution to making the players not feel like sidekicks is to make that central character an NPC?

Again, I don't view it along those lines... but that path doesn't seem like a solution. I'd rather just have the other PCs be equally interesting.

Good point. I have been assuming that, yes. But if magic isn't benevolent and-or desired and people are welcoming its demise then the player of the last mage is again not going to have much fun, as the rest of the party might well be justified in killing it as soon as they find out what it is.

Again, there are a lot of ways it could go. The OP suggests a few, which all seem pretty interesting.

If your intent is to keep something safe it's just a bit counterproductive to take it out and expose it to risk, hm? And unless the party want to spend their adventuring careers doing nothing but guard the last mage in her glass bubble, they're likely going to go off elsewhere and leave said guarding duties to stay-at-home guards.

Put another way, the player who wants to play the last mage probably hasn't thought the ramifications all the way through.

That the characters must have adventuring careers seems like an expectation. That seems odd to me in this kind of game. Why not find another motivation for them? Why must they either seek to hide the last mage away or be adventurers?

Again, look at the OP. That's got some dynamic situations going on. I'd take that over this suggestion every time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I sure hope the rest of the players enjoy playing NPCs.

Don't assume that I can't handle something just because you can't. It will be a perfectly fun game for everyone, or lets just say they won't fail to have fun based on spotlight etc.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes, I've been assuming that; as if restoring magic is not the goal it's simply a no-magic campaign and that's that.

Fair enough. Here I'd say that if anyone's to become the "first mage" it should probably be an NPC, specifically in order to prevent one PC from being or becoming more important than the others (again, the exception here would be solo play).

Good point. I have been assuming that, yes. But if magic isn't benevolent and-or desired and people are welcoming its demise then the player of the last mage is again not going to have much fun, as the rest of the party might well be justified in killing it as soon as they find out what it is.

If your intent is to keep something safe it's just a bit counterproductive to take it out and expose it to risk, hm? And unless the party want to spend their adventuring careers doing nothing but guard the last mage in her glass bubble, they're likely going to go off elsewhere and leave said guarding duties to stay-at-home guards.

Put another way, the player who wants to play the last mage probably hasn't thought the ramifications all the way through.

I don't think PCs, like real humans, are robots who always do what is logical or even sensible. I mean, I can't stop you from roleplaying poorly, but IME when given a process of play which supports really immersing in the character, in taking on their point of view and giving some life to them, then things are much different. So, again, your assumptions are clearly that everyone is playing some sort of skill game where they want to optimize, get treasures, XP, loot, magic, whatever and that's their criteria for how they RP. So, sure, if that's basically what its about, then maybe being the last mage is a crap job, but it will be awesome fun to play! And the campaign will be richer for it.

 

[clearstream]

I recently watched the Return of the King film with my family, and the (second-last) ending, where the "last ship" sails from the Grey Havens, prompted the thought that has led to this post.

JRRT is probably the most famous conceiver of a fantasy setting, and that setting - Middle Earth - is widely regarded as a high point for evocative, verisimilitudinous and thematically sophisticated world building.

So it's interesting to note how many "one offs", how much "ad hocery" there is in the setting:

*Gollum is a unique adversary, with his ability to live in the dark eating only fish and Goblins, his toughness, resilience, and ability to strangle, his ability to relentlessly follow the Fellowship and Frodo;​

​

*Tom Bombadil - nuff said - but also Goldberry, and Old Man Willow on the borders of The Shire;​

​

*The Barrow Wights, and the Barrow Downs more generally - all this adventure on the way between The Shire and Bree, yet apparently undisturbed until the Ring-Bearer goes past; and the White Tower too, with its unique Palantir;​

​

*Gandalf's (one-time) knowledge of every spell, and the suggestion that the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer, yet the apparent lack of spell casting by anyone in the story but Gandalf and Saruman;​

​

*Boromir's journey across tracts of wilderness to find his way to Rivendell just in time for the great Council, in the same world where Gimli doesn't know that Balin and all his fellow-Dwarves lie dead i Moria;​

​

*And what I was reminded of the other day - Frodo and Bilbo, neither an Elf, both nevertheless travelling to the Undying Lands on a ship from the Havens; and despite Cirdan having sailed, Sam - by repute - later taking the same journey on the straight road; and later still, Gimli sailing with Legolas to the Undying Lands.​

Although there are things in Middle Earth that are typical, even "rules" - eg the difference in the "afterlife" of Elves and Men (and Hobbits sharing, one assumes, the Gift of the One to Men); and various orders of being - the story of LotR is full of contradictions of these.

In the Burning Wheel Character Burner (Revised, p13), Luke Crane writes:

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last mage. And you know what? That's good. Before the game has even started we have a spark of conflict - we have the player getting involved in shaping the situation. Discuss the situation of the game as you discuss your character concept. Tie them both together - a dying world without magic, the last mage, the quest to restore the land. In one volley of discussion you've got an epic in the making. Start mixing in the other character concepts - they should all be so tied to the background - and you have the makings of a game. The cult priestess sworn to aid the last mage - and then spill his blood so that the world can be reborn; the Lore High Inquisitor whose duty it is to hunt the Gifted, but whose own brother is the last hope. Now we're talking.​

I think consistency in a FRPG setting, in the sense of "a place for everything, and nothing out of place* is overrated. LotR is driven by departures from such consistency at just about every point.

Nice take. I've often felt that magic differs from science on the matter of consistency. To some extent, in narrative, it's deviation from baseline that one most notices.

I also notice that when folk say inconsistency, they ordinarily mean something well within their established norms. Bilbo isn't turned into a duck in honour of his feats. A Boeing doesn't crashland on Boromir. The Barrow Wight is not in a nuclear missile silo only recently breached.

a dying world without magic, the last mage, the quest to restore the land​

An epic in the making, but one along very normal lines. When thinking about consistency and inconsistency, I like ideas like "contrast", "unexpectedly", "contrary"... generally going against the expected, but still consistent with the overall fiction. Bilbo is granted access to a place we already know about - the Undying Lands - in generous fulfillment of his recognition as elf-friend, and following acts of tremendous significance to the elves. The barrow wights are vestiges from background lore regarding the petty, vindicative kings of a previous age. Even though these may be unexpected or even perverse, they have power in the fiction because they leverage consistency.