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

[clearstream]

I've often felt that magic differs from science on the matter of consistency.

To clarify my remarks, I believe the consistencies most at stake in our fiction (make believe) are symbolic and analogic, not scientific.

Were I therefore to look for consistency in our fiction, I would usually be examining the analogic and symbolic. Sometimes a work aims for scientific consistency in some particulars. That's an optional feature. So I would agree with an intuition that scientific consistency is optional: only included where it matters (and even then, hard to guarantee.)

As to the analogic and symbolic, I believe we treasure the unexpected, perverse, contrary, contrasting, deviant, transgressive and so on. Just as much as we find satisfaction in restoration, order, faithfulness and so on. The inconsistent in this way is often our inflection point: the question that must be answered. Our generator of story... as Luke Crane essentially observes.

Consider the story of Leda and the Swan. It's remarkable that the god takes on the shape of a swan. And that in time leads to the transgression against hospitality by Paris, running off with Helen. Which forces Menelaus to call upon Agammenon in fulfilment of Odysseus' pact, which in turn leads the king to sacrifice his own daughter to turn the wind. There's nothing scientific about the wind holding the fleet in harbour, or the sacrifice changing it. It is analogically and symbollically consistent, and it plays out in provocations and transgressions.

@pemerton so I agree with what I read to be the sense of your OP, while wanting to ensure that we're acknowledging that we weave our fictions with reference to (with play upon) analogic and symbollic consistencies - our stories are all about them (breaking them, restoring them, and so on) - while not being concerned with scientific consistency (predictability, repeatability, explicability etc).

I would put it that play upon analogic and symbolic consistency is powerful in weaving our fictions.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

The example is from the Burning Wheel rulebook. Burning Wheel does not have any "the story" that is pre-established or pre-loaded by the GM. (Nor by the players, although the explanation for this is a bit more complicated and involves elements of the game that haven't yet been discussed in this thread.)

 

[pemerton]

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

No one does, do they?

What I, at least, doubt is that a certain approach to play is not viable simply because some other poster (or me, for that matter) happens not to enjoy it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Mod Note:

You were fine up to this point. That kind of accusation of implied motives is a really good way to stir up unpleasantness. Let’s not do that, please.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Slight duly noted; and how is it poor roleplaying to just have my character do what it would do?

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.

My baseline assumption is that, with rare gonzo exceptions, players are playing their characters to have something of a survival instinct. After that, anything goes; and in this case safely locking up something as precious as the last mage in the world in order to keep it out of harm's way is just pure common sense.

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.

I can't see how it would be much fun to play a character in a game of danger and derring-do (which, let's face it, most are) where the character is being forced by circumstance into a life of safety and derring-don't.

Yes the campaign might be richer for it, but that's gonna be one bored player.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

how do you not understand that yet?

Mod Note:

Lets not tuck personal jabs into our posts, either.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No one does, do they?

What I, at least, doubt is that a certain approach to play is not viable simply because some other poster (or me, for that matter) happens not to enjoy it.

I saw a post back a bit where this seemed to be an issue and was responding to that

 

[Bedrockgames]

What I, at least, doubt is that a certain approach to play is not viable simply because some other poster (or me, for that matter) happens not to enjoy it.

I don't doubt that all of the approaches laid out in this thread are viable

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Hey, @Alzrius and @hawkeyefan ...

It is past time for you two to stop butting heads. There is a well-known, frequently-observed dynamic where folks lock horns and neither one can let go, neither one can allow the other as the last word.

I am giving you the opportunity to disengage without capitulating to the other guy. Please move on. Thanks.

 

[pemerton]

When the premise is that magic is gone (but wait: not quite gone, one PC still has it,) there's no clear journey, and the focus might very reasonably become one of keeping that last mage alive at all costs. Which would get pretty boring for the last mage's player when the rest of the party says "Yeah, you're far too valuable to risk - we're locking you in this padded bubble until we can figure out how to somehow generate more of you. And while you're in that bubble, your job is to teach as many people as you can how to do what you can do. Meanwhile, we'll be out here adventuring."

The example in the OP is from Burning Wheel. There is no "meanwhile, we'll be out here adventuring" in BW. The events of play, whatever they are, are "the adventure".

The example also posits 3 characters in relationships to one another: one, the cult priestess, is dedicated by bringing magic back to the world, by spilling the blood of the last mage. The situation is dynamic. In this way it differs from the static situation you suggest. Static situations pose a risk of being boring, but that is not a result of the "last mage" idea. Burning Wheel uses a range of methods to avoid static situations.