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

[AbdulAlhazred]

In A Witch Shall Be Born, Conan survives crucifixion in the desert.

REH has Conan do and endure whatever works for the story. The consistency is post hoc.

I think it is fair to say that REH has some sort of rule. I'd express it as making one bit of fiction follow from another, much like it will in an RPG, hopefully.

 

[pemerton]

"Okay no magic but I'mma play a wizard anyhow!" vs. "Hey gang I think I'm not comfortable with the no-magic thing, can we revisit that? Like maybe magic's gone but it might be out there to find? Maybe my character found a magic thing and fancies himself the last of the wizards?"

"The gods have abandoned the land, but maybe my character is destined to find the staff and discs that herald their return?"

 

[Laurefindel]

"The gods have abandoned the land, but maybe my character is destined to find the staff and discs that herald their return?"

Which is a great campaign pitch but an intrusive burden for DMs who already have a campaign in mind or at least, aimed for certain themes and concepts. Perhaps it goes well with the intended campaign and if so, great!

 

[Alzrius]

"The gods have abandoned the land, but maybe my character is destined to find the staff and discs that herald their return?"

"Dave, we all agreed to play Dark Sun, not Dragonlance."

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think it's not definitively a good thing or a bad thing. Too many factors play a role. Sometimes the player has a great idea that can enhance the setting consistencies, and sometimes it's best to go with the DMs world view. What's important is dialogue and everyone to be on the same page.

But yes exceptions to the norm are very much the thing...in literature and media.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think there's a very big difference between "This is a story in which magic is outlawed/wiped out" and "This is a story where one of the main characters is the last mage" because the latter brings the focus back to the magic wielding protagonist, whereas the former is designed to bring focus off of magic wielding protagonists.

 

[pemerton]

Which is a great campaign pitch but an intrusive burden for DMs who already have a campaign in mind or at least, aimed for certain themes and concepts. Perhaps it goes well with the intended campaign and if so, great!

The thread, or at least the OP, is not about who gets to decide what the game is about. I assume that this is something the group do together.

The point is that consistency is overrated. If the gods have abandoned the land, they can return. If the land has been drained of magic, there may be a last mage. If only Elves can sail the straight road, perhaps one of them can intercede on behalf of a Hobbit or a Dwarf. Etc.

"Dave, we all agreed to play Dark Sun, not Dragonlance."

Here is what the OP quoted:

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last mage.​

So I don't really see what your post has to do with it.

If you're saying that it is inconsistent with playing Dark Sun-style sword & planet that the gods should return, reiterate the earlier part of this post, and the OP: I think the notion of consistency is overrated, and is the enemy of interesting, engaging, dynamic imaginary worlds.

 

[MGibster]

The point is that consistency is overrated. If the gods have abandoned the land, they can return. If the land has been drained of magic, there may be a last mage. If only Elves can sail the straight road, perhaps one of them can intercede on behalf of a Hobbit or a Dwarf. Etc.

I'm not sure I know anyone who values consistency to the point where they are against any and all changes. Okay, maybe Warhammer 40k fans who don't want women to be Space Marines, but do you hear people complaining of gods coming back in a setting where they had abandoned the land?

 

[Alzrius]

So I don't really see what your post has to do with it.

It has to do with disagreeing with what the OP lays out. As several other posters have noted, the idea that "consistency stifles creativity" (which seems to be an accurate summary of what you're positing) has a flip-side to it, in that there's a correlation between characters that break the rules of the world/setting and problem players.

If you're saying that it is inconsistent with playing Dark Sun-style sword & planet that the gods should return, reiterate the earlier part of this post, and the OP: I think the notion of consistency is overrated, and is the enemy of interesting, engaging, dynamic imaginary worlds.

And I'm of the opinion that a setting having internal consistency that the players can engage with allows for a greater degree of enjoyable, interesting play in an imaginary world because it better defines the hows and whys of that world, abetting a greater sense of interaction between it and their characters.

By contrast, characters who break the setting's conventions with no (or weak) reasons for why they can tend to contravene that. If they want to do something outside of what the setting has established for reasons of "I'd just prefer to do it this way," not only is that an implicit insistence that major aspects of the game's premise(s) should be changed to suit their tastes, but it also weakens the dynamic nature of the imaginary world. The RPG mantra of "anything can be attempted" is not the same thing as "anything goes."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It has to do with disagreeing with what the OP lays out. As several other posters have noted, the idea that "consistency stifles creativity" (which seems to be an accurate summary of what you're positing) has a flip-side to it, in that there's a correlation between characters that break the rules of the world/setting and problem players.

I totally disagree! I'm 100% behind the idea that the guy who came and said "well, I'd like to play the Last Mage" is ABSOLUTE GOLD. I want a table FILLED with that kind of player, that will be the best game ever!

And I'm of the opinion that a setting having internal consistency that the players can engage with allows for a greater degree of enjoyable, interesting play in an imaginary world because it better defines the hows and whys of that world, abetting a greater sense of interaction between it and their characters.

I dispute that you will get any increase in 'internal consistency'.

By contrast, characters who break the setting's conventions with no (or weak) reasons for why they can tend to contravene that. If they want to do something outside of what the setting has established for reasons of "I'd just prefer to do it this way," not only is that an implicit insistence that everything should be changed to suit their tastes, but it also weakens the dynamic nature of the imaginary world. The RPG mantra of "anything can be attempted" is not the same thing as "anything goes."

We will have to profoundly, fundamentally, disagree. I mean, it IS possible, if you have a horribly narrow sort of world conception. There are games which RELY on that, Paranoia comes to mind. It would be ruined, certainly unrecognizably altered, by the appearance of a Magic User who can defy the Computer. I think there are some other possible strong objections, things that clash sharply with the genre or tone that exists in a game, etc. but 'consistency'? If it is that fragile, forget it.