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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'm not misremembering, but I don't think there's really a lot of disagreement here. The difference between a 'monster' and an 'npc' is tenuous at best, especially in 4e where there's absolutely no mechanical difference at all. I get the fictional distinction some people were making though.

As for minions and such, along with the malleability of interpretation of numbers, that's a little different from what I had in mind, but I agree it was seen in a similar light. I have slightly different responses to that, but it seems mostly off topic anyway.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Were I a player I'd be asking for an in-game explanation, you can bet on that. And that explanation better be good.

 

[Maxperson]

I find interesting the number of slightly different takes on what the OP actually means!

For me... if I were to restate the OP, it would be more along the line that we should question whether "consistency" should mean "general rules" or "incontrovertible rules". Many of the points about Tolkien are of this form, where in Middle Earth some things are generally true, but there are several exceptions to those general rules. Those exceptions are, not surprisingly, mostly focused on our main characters / PCs, and those exceptions don't break the overall feel of the setting.

I think that's a better way to state it. Fantasy games that I have played have all been exceptions based systems and/or run in the exceptions based Tolkien style. It's a lot of fun to both gain and run into exceptions to the general rules of the game.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not misremembering, but I don't think there's really a lot of disagreement here. The difference between a 'monster' and an 'npc' is tenuous at best, especially in 4e where there's absolutely no mechanical difference at all. I get the fictional distinction some people were making though.

The difference between a monster and an NPC is that a monster is a creature or species that cannot be played as a PC while an NPC is of a species that is PC-playable.

Monsters can be anything; they're not PC-playable and so there's no reason to stick to PC rules. NPCs, on the other hand, IMO absolutely do have to adhere to PC rules unless the PCs are being intentionally singled out as not being representative of their own species and-or classes.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The difference between a monster and an NPC is that a monster is a creature or species that cannot be played as a PC while an NPC is of a species that is PC-playable.

Monsters can be anything; they're not PC-playable and so there's no reason to stick to PC rules. NPCs, on the other hand, IMO absolutely do have to adhere to PC rules unless the PCs are being intentionally singled out as not being representative of their own species and-or classes.

Well, sure, if you believe that the game's rules are some kind of rules of physics or whatever. I just don't hold that to be the case, never did. Even your criteria is very fuzzy at best, and the line between playable and not is totally arbitrary.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, sure, if you believe that the game's rules are some kind of rules of physics or whatever.

Well, if a PC Elf and an NPC Elf are fundamentally different just because of the "PC" status then IMO there's a rather significant problem with consistency.

I just don't hold that to be the case, never did. Even your criteria is very fuzzy at best, and the line between playable and not is totally arbitrary.

Sure it's arbitrary: every GM decides* what species are PC-playable in that campaign or game, and that sets the line.

* - even if that decision consists of "whatever the book says" or "anything goes".

 

[Wolfpack48]

Well, sure, if you believe that the game's rules are some kind of rules of physics or whatever. I just don't hold that to be the case, never did. Even your criteria is very fuzzy at best, and the line between playable and not is totally arbitrary.

I will be playing a Demogorgon in your next game.

 

[billd91]

I'm not misremembering, but I don't think there's really a lot of disagreement here. The difference between a 'monster' and an 'npc' is tenuous at best, especially in 4e where there's absolutely no mechanical difference at all. I get the fictional distinction some people were making though.

The difference between monster and NPC is pretty well understood and I am pretty sure you know what I mean. I notice you specifically mention the lack of mechanical difference in 4e as if that weren’t at the very heart of the complaint. You know quite well that most NPCs in prior editions, aside from a few broad distinctions in the Monster Manual (like dervishes and berserkers) were based on leveled classes that PCs had the potential to also take. So it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest that difference between monster and NPC was ‘fictional’.

 

[Umbran]

NPCs, on the other hand, IMO absolutely do have to adhere to PC rules unless the PCs are being intentionally singled out as not being representative of their own species and-or classes.

What about NPCs that are of playable races, but not playable classes, or no class at all?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, if a PC Elf and an NPC Elf are fundamentally different just because of the "PC" status then IMO there's a rather significant problem with consistency.

I'm struck by the use of consistency here and wonder about how that might relate to the observation in the OP on setting (in)consistency.