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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Sorry if it came across as an attack on your personal RPing, I take your comments as being general, and my 'you' was aimed at whomever RPs in this purely utilitarian and unrealistic manner. I do consider that sort of RP to be poor though! However it's also super common and we have all done plenty of it.

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.

I think real actual humans don't behave like that for the most part. Maybe in a very clear and immediate situation, but not otherwise.

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.

First this whole idea of danger is one you conjured. Why should a GM interested in a good experience frame things that way? Even if they did, I can think of several ways off the top of my head to avoid this problem. Again it seems quite strained reasoning aimed at proving a point rather than a serious general argument against a whole class of play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Obviously there are many points of view on this, but you were around in the 'edition war' days when a CONSTANT drumbeat against 4e was exactly that it eschewed systematizing things like NPCs, powers, effects, etc. Anathema! they all cried. My how the clock has turned!

 

[Maxperson]

With regard to the oddities of Middle Earth being inconsistencies. They aren't. They are actually a consistency of the setting. Tolkien loved one offs. One Ring to rule them all. One offspring of maia and a "mortal" race. One person allowed to go to Aman to petition the Valar. One victim of the One Ring's influence. One person to get Mandos to relent and be allowed to return from death. One person capable of crafting the Silmirils and Palantiri. One set of trees to light the world and no others possible. One being like Tom. And on and on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, I feel like there's a tendency for world building in RPGs to lead to this place where the builder is unable to hear other voices, so to speak. I mean maybe they're a genius and just playing at the edge of it is fine, but speaking for myself I need all the help I can get. I need a kick now and then out of the box.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’m curious… how would people view it if the GM proposed the setting where magic was gone from the world, and the players were all on board with the premise, and then after play begins, the GM introduces an NPC who has magic?

Would this be rejecting the premise or otherwise problematic?

 

[Pedantic]

Obviously there are many points of view on this, but you were around in the 'edition war' days when a CONSTANT drumbeat against 4e was exactly that it eschewed systematizing things like NPCs, powers, effects, etc. Anathema! they all cried. My how the clock has turned!

Has it? I don't think that trend was any different in the 3.x years, it was just assumed you'd be building on top of the existing systems. There wasn't much point in homebrewing a special abberation if you weren't going to give it a few neat (Su) and/or (Ex) abilities, on top of the feats, creature type traits, and so on the existing systems prescribed for it.

The complaints were generally about the amount of work it would take to implement something using all those systems, not that those systems limited the creative space.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Obviously there are many points of view on this, but you were around in the 'edition war' days when a CONSTANT drumbeat against 4e was exactly that it eschewed systematizing things like NPCs, powers, effects, etc. Anathema! they all cried. My how the clock has turned!

We probably don’t need to Delite gate those fights. They were years ago and 6E is around the corner. I think that is one thing 4E got right and I am not a fan of 4e. keep in mind many of us who didn’t like 4E still wanted to see changes with 3E. I understand why some people like the symmetry of npcs, pcs, and monsters operating on the same playing field, but I find that approach too constraining for Gm creativity (I agree with the assessment that it can make things feel sterile). To me setting consistency doesn’t mean system

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Has it? I don't think that trend was any different in the 3.x years, it was just assumed you'd be building on top of the existing systems. There wasn't much point in homebrewing a special abberation if you weren't going to give it a few neat (Su) and/or (Ex) abilities, on top of the feats, creature type traits, and so on the existing systems prescribed for it.

The complaints were generally about the amount of work it would take to implement something using all those systems, not that those systems limited the creative space.

I'm not sure I follow you. The objections back in 4e days amounted to a lack of things like monsters built using the same rules as PCs and who's powers were spells or specific types of abilities was vital, otherwise nothing can be 'exolained'. If I thought some ability, say a certain sort of attack, used by a 4e monster is cool there's no rule I can use to get that

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure I follow you. The objections back in 4e days amounted to a lack of things like monsters built using the same rules as PCs and who's powers were spells or specific types of abilities was vital, otherwise nothing can be 'exolained'. If I thought some ability, say a certain sort of attack, used by a 4e monster is cool there's no rule I can use to get that

I think you're substantially misremembering on the issue of things PCs couldn't get. As Pedantic points out, there are tons of monster abilities a PC can't get. What a lot of people complained about were NPCs with abilities a PC couldn't get.
As far as complaining about monster stats, there were complaints about monster abilities varying based on meta game concerns (minion status being probably the biggest complaint) rather than some in-world explanation. That's the "what can't be explained" argument I remember.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m curious… how would people view it if the GM proposed the setting where magic was gone from the world, and the players were all on board with the premise, and then after play begins, the GM introduces an NPC who has magic?

Would this be rejecting the premise or otherwise problematic?

That would depend. Magic is gone from the world and now it's returning? That's exciting if the players can help bring magic back and acquire some along the way. If it's just that the DM felt like throwing a wizard at us, that would violate things in a pretty big way. The story is not progressing(magic is returning) and therefore it's a complete violation of the premise in a way that a gradual return of magic is not.