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

[pemerton]

One is the goal of the campaign, and the other is oppositional to the point of obviation of the premise. You don't start with the goal, you work toward it.

Who sets the goal of the campaign?

In Burning Wheel, there is no "the goal of the campaign". There are goals of the PCs, and these are set by the players, riffing off one another and off the GM in the set-up phase and then as play unfolds.

 

[Umbran]

Who sets the goal of the campaign?

I expect the answer to that will vary. Some will say "The GM, and if you don't like that goal, find another game." Others will say, "The entire group collaboratively." Others will say it should be entirely player-driven. And there will be various admixtures.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I expect the answer to that will vary. Some will say "The GM, and if you don't like that goal, find another game." Others will say, "The entire group collaboratively." Others will say it should be entirely player-driven. And there will be various admixtures.

This is the key for me. I have no problem with different arrangements on who sets this. My only real criticism of the OP was about the setting consistency is overrated: to me setting consistency and how much it ought to matter varies by the needs of the campaign and group, and their preferences

 

[Campbell]

This is the key for me. I have no problem with different arrangements on who sets this. My only real criticism of the OP was about the setting consistency is overrated: to me setting consistency and how much it ought to matter varies by the needs of the campaign and group, and their preferences

Despite the name of the thread the actual thesis seems more like top-down setting extrapolation is overrated. That's a sentiment I can personally get behind. I find that often settings designed from a top-down approach with very little of the sort of novel (as in usual) elements that Tolkein's work is filled to the brim with feel sterile and lifeless. Particularly when it comes to more fantastic elements.

Such novel elements can actually make the game's setting feel more vibrant, more real while still being consistent with the whole of it.

@pemerton is welcome to correct me if my reading is wrong.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Despite the name of the thread the actual thesis seems more like top-down setting extrapolation is overrated.

I do agree that is more what the topic is about. But I also don't agree with this. I also probably wouldn't call it 'top down setting extrapolation' but that is a quibble and I get what you mean. I just think both approaches are totally fine. If you think people who might enjoy your approach if they had more exposure to it, that is fine too. But telling people it is overrated, I don't think that is likely to win folks over to your point of view. For example I like some games that do this. I have talked quite bit about my enjoyment of Hillfolk. But the laws book wasn't written in a way that antagonized people who preferred the 'top down' approach and the person who introduced me to the game was like "I think you would like the way this one does it, because it tries to respect immersion".

 

[clearstream]

Despite the name of the thread the actual thesis seems more like top-down setting extrapolation is overrated. That's a sentiment I can personally get behind. I find that often settings designed from a top-down approach with very little of the sort of novel (as in usual) elements that Tolkein's work is filled to the brim with feel sterile and lifeless. Particularly when it comes to more fantastic elements.

I'm just trying to parse that. Do you mean the bolded words to imply that - settings designed from a top-down approach with plenty of novel elements - are lively? That is to say, it is the absence of novel elements, and not the top-down orientation, that matters?

Or do you mean that only that combination matters - top-down and sterile - so that sterile is fine just so long as it's bottom-up? (I think you don't mean this, but just to confirm?)

 

[Campbell]

I'm just trying to parse that. Do you mean the bolded words to imply that - settings designed from a top-down approach with plenty of novel elements - are lively? That is to say, it is the absence of novel elements, and not the top-down orientation, that matters?

Or do you mean that only that combination matters - top-down and sterile - so that sterile is fine just so long as it's bottom-up? (I think you don't mean this, but just to confirm?)

I mean that for a setting to feel like a real lived place there needs to be some elements that come from novel creativity rather than just extrapolation. That's regardless of top down or bottom-up design. That exceptions to the norms should exist, especially when comes to the behavior of individual characters.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean that for a setting to feel like a real lived place there needs to be some elements that come from novel creativity rather than just extrapolation. That's regardless of top down or bottom-up design. That exceptions to the norms should exist, especially when comes to the behavior of individual characters.

One thing I would say here is even in the most 'living world' place you are still expected to use novel creativity. The only question is what purpose that creativity serves. Having a creature like Gollum would be totally fine in most such campaigns. Back in the day, it was pretty standard for the GM to make unique NPCs and monsters who didn't follow the established rules of the book for example based on these kinds of ideas

 

[Maxperson]

I think the premise of the thread is flawed. Oddities in some fantasy settings is not a case against consistency. It's just another way to do things. Choose which you like!

Some of the OPs listed oddities were not inconsistent with the Middle Earth setting.

 

[clearstream]

I mean that for a setting to feel like a real lived place there needs to be some elements that come from novel creativity rather than just extrapolation. That's regardless of top down or bottom-up design. That exceptions to the norms should exist, especially when comes to the behavior of individual characters.

I like your idea here. It does seem difficult to me to identify what is and is not extrapolation. Generally, we want things that - somehow - follow. Gollum somehow makes sense in LotR (the corrupting influence of the ring, the durability of hobbits, the segue from an earlier idea to a later more sophisticated one).

Tom is indeed an oddity, and I've read arguments that the books would be as good without him. I'm not sure: to me he's extrapolated from the idea that there is a folkish force to resist the ring's temptations and corruption. I tend to interpret Sauron as the arch-industrialist, and the rings as a deceit - apparent workings of craft but serving the purposes of industry. Prefiguring the moral hazards of consumerism. That is to say, I tend to see Tom as an extrapolation from ideas that run right through LotR.

And so on. Exceptions to the norm are in their way extrapolation. Both acknowledging the norm and offering an authored contrast to it. But not just any contrast... it must make sense somehow.

As I said, I like your idea... "extrapolation" seems like the wrong thing to rule out. Rather I would say that we want the unexpected, even if it is reasonably extrapolated.