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

[Old Fezziwig]

I think BG brought a lot of trouble on its own head with the “And they have a plan” line...

I didn't put that together until reading your post just now. That's hilarious.

 

[Lanefan]

I make the same point as to @Crimson Longinus - D&D does not permit a PC to start the game owning a castle, an army, Plate Mail +3, etc; whereas some NPCs (kings, dukes, etc) enjoy those things.

Sure D&D permits that. A campaign starting at 8th level might see its characters each owning far more than that before the puck even drops.

I don't see why this is gated behind a roll. Do players also have to roll to have their fighter be proficient in the (relatively uncommon) greatsword compared to the (relatively ubiquitous) polearm?

Weapon proficiencies are by choice; and greatswords aren't all that uncommon in the setting.

And what happens if the player now decides to enter "the field" wearing their inherited +3 plate mail, accompanied by a small army, etc? I mean, that would completely disrupt most 1st level D&D play as I'm familiar with it.

It would, at that.

But only for a while. Why? Because if nothing else that monarch or noble is almost certainly going to have duties, responsibilities, etc. that will call it away from adventuring for perhaps extended periods of time.

Or, as happened in my game once, despite all those extras the noble still dies shortly after taking to the field.

 

[Bedrockgames]

We agree so far...

...and here, if that in-setting reason is both a) airtight and b) somehow discoverable by the players if they so desire.

Otherwise, you're wide open to the question: "If that NPC Dwarf Fighter can have a stat that high, why can't my PC Dwarf Fighter have the same?", to which there really is no acceptable answer.

For me personally, I would want the reason to be airtight and discoverable, but I don't think it has to be. Generally speaking, I am totally fine with PCs and NPCs operating on different principles because PCs are just a slice of what is possible in the world.

Also I disagree strongly on your second point. Your PC can't be lots of things that exist in the setting because it is a PC. The ranges for stats I think can both be said to express general ranges that are reasonable in most settings but also ranges that are balanced for PCs. With an NPC if he was born with a blessing from the dwarven god to be incredibly strong, that totally works. It would be more dicey to allow something like that for a PC (though some GMs may do so).

Here I disagree, in that for consistency reasons I think the GM should be constrained by the established parameters of the setting, just like the players are. And yet this still allows the GM to create a Gollum-like NPC, becasue on examination that NPC is a) fully explainable within the setting's parameters and b) theoretically replicate-able by a PC if the same steps are followed (i.e. be a Hobbit and possess the One Ring for several centuries).

Muy point wasn't about setting parameters though. Whether a GM ought to be constrained by that I think depends on GM style, group style, etc. Generally I agree, the GM ought to not violate the setting. However this about the GM being constrained by the character creation system and by the system more broadly. What I am talking about is the GM being able to whole cloth take a halfling and turn it into a golem character (without having to find some mechcanic in the game to justify it (whether that be something done during character creation or after---like a monster template). Now whether putting on that ring affects PCs the way it affects Golum, that depends on the ring, the PC and a lot of other factors. I would generally expect such a ring to play out in a similar way, but I also wouldn't say there should be a mechanical frame work to constrain the GMs choices here too much

On this we agree, but only if the resultng NPC falls within the roll-able limits for a PC. You don't need everything every time; you just have to know that if you for some reason suddenly do need something, it'll fall within PC-achievable limits.

We agree in part then. I think a GM could have all kinds of good reasons to go beyond or under the rollable limits, that have more to do with setting (those limits don't do a good job of catching things like outliers)

That's a difference, then: I do see classes as being very real things within the setting. A Magic-User is a Magic-User, distinctive both in- and out-of-game from an Illusionist or a Thief or a Fighter. And thus, if that Vampire is a MU it's going to have a spellbook somewhere*, and the spells it casts are going to work the same as if a PC was casting them. But a lich, for example, who has some spell-like abilities that aren't spells, doesn't need to use the MU mechanics for such. The same is true of a Vampire's innate charming ability; it's not a spell, therefore doesn't need to follow the spellcasting mechanics.

The spells and spell book exist in the setting, just like pick pocketing exists in the setting and swinging a sword exist in the setting. I think classes though are broad simplifications of how these things might be obtained in the setting and they also don't reflect every possibility in the setting (they are choices tailored for players). But there are so many more possibilities in a typical fantasy milieu that isn't going to be available to to a PC (for balance reasons, for fun reasons, for issues with playability).

* - a creative way of preventing the PCs from taking home a Vampire's spellbook: instead of being written on paper, the spells be carved into the inside of his coffin and-or into the walls of the chamber said coffin is in. Yes, I can be a nasty DM sometimes.

Sure, but I guess what I am saying here is you can use the spells if that is what the vampire is doing without fully starting out the vampire's spell casting by the levels.

 

[Autumnal]

I live to serve.

 

[Lanefan]

For me personally, I would want the reason to be airtight and discoverable, but I don't think it has to be. Generally speaking, I am totally fine with PCs and NPCs operating on different principles because PCs are just a slice of what is possible in the world.

Also I disagree strongly on your second point. Your PC can't be lots of things that exist in the setting because it is a PC. The ranges for stats I think can both be said to express general ranges that are reasonable in most settings but also ranges that are balanced for PCs.

Where I see the outer ends of the stat ranges as being the achievable extremes for normal members of that species' population, absent odd magical effects, one-off divine blessings, and so forth.

Muy point wasn't about setting parameters though. Whether a GM ought to be constrained by that I think depends on GM style, group style, etc. Generally I agree, the GM ought to not violate the setting. However this about the GM being constrained by the character creation system and by the system more broadly.

And the character creation system is in part what sets the parameters for characters in that setting.

If the char-gen system specifies that strength for Hobbits has a range of 3-16 then that also sets the parameters for what Hobbit strength can be among the greater population; which means that if the GM then turns around and says that NPC Hobbits run on a 3-18 range there's something gone adrift, as the GM is (or should be!) constrained by the char-gen rules.

We agree in part then. I think a GM could have all kinds of good reasons to go beyond or under the rollable limits, that have more to do with setting (those limits don't do a good job of catching things like outliers)

To me those limits already include the population's outliers.

If the bell curve runs from 3-18 then any 3 or 4 or 5 is already an outlier, as is any 16, 17 or 18. Most stats for most people would be in the 8-13 range. The char-gen methods for D&D have always* skewed the bell curve toward the higher end, making those 16s 17s and 18s far more commonly seen in play than they are in the general population, but to me that's no different than, say, the intelligence range of those at a high-end university skewing higher than the general populace,

* - the one exception being straight 3d6 rolls, which IMO makes for an unrealistically flat bell curve that I'm willing to live with.

The spells and spell book exist in the setting, just like pick pocketing exists in the setting and swinging a sword exist in the setting. I think classes though are broad simplifications of how these things might be obtained in the setting and they also don't reflect every possibility in the setting (they are choices tailored for players). But there are so many more possibilities in a typical fantasy milieu that isn't going to be available to to a PC (for balance reasons, for fun reasons, for issues with playability).

And its those same reasons that tell me they shouldn't be available to NPCs either, because if an NPC can do it a PC should also be able to do it.

 

[pemerton]

I agree! But it’s a readily observable thing, and more so in past decades. There’s a lot of planning idolatry in fandoms.

Upthread you mentioned How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. I remember seeing ads for that back in the day, but have never read it. But somewhere along the way I learned that the "Marvel Way" meant (roughly) issue outline => drawings => script; and I guess it always seemed fairly clear that a publishing house churning out that many titles per month can't be spending a whole lot of time on advance planning! I mean, that's part of what the "no prize" was in recognition of.

The basic logic of cash flow for serial fiction tells us that it's not going to be all planned or written in advance.

 

[pemerton]

Sure D&D permits that. A campaign starting at 8th level might see its characters each owning far more than that before the puck even drops.

I took it to be obvious, from context and my other posts, that I'm talking about 1st level PCs.

D&D, at least in the versions I'm familiar with, doesn't permit 1st level PCs to start with the wealth of a kingdom. Whereas the settings of D&D often include quite wealthy but low- or zero-level NPCs.

This is a playability/balance issue.

Weapon proficiencies are by choice; and greatswords aren't all that uncommon in the setting.

In what sense are weapon proficiencies by choice? If I grow up in an area with no greatsword masters, how do I become proficient in the greatsword?

 

[pemerton]

In the real world, there are people who are the best in their field: mathematicians who prove the theorems that no one else has been able to prove; sprinters who can outrun anyone else in the world, except perhaps a handful of comparable individuals who have the chance of staging an upset at any given meet; boxers, and chess players, and so on of whom the same is true. Judges who are almost never overturned on appeal; and who, on a multi-member court, are almost never in dissent.

These individuals are statistical outliers. A system of PC generation that doesn't become more fine-grained than one-in-36, or one-in-216; or a resolution system in which success is determined by rolling a d20 and adding a number between 0 and 18; is not going to generate these sorts of cases.

Yet they are real phenomena in our real world.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where I see the outer ends of the stat ranges as being the achievable extremes for normal members of that species' population, absent odd magical effects, one-off divine blessings, and so forth.

I certainly understand this view, but again the example I gave of exceeding it was a dwarf born blessed by the god. I think also you can still have anomalies. Someone is going to exceed that range by 1, 2 maybe 3 points I would think in the world

And the character creation system is in part what sets the parameters for characters in that setting.

I don't see it this way at all. But I have explained why so I don't think there is much more we can do except to agree to disagree on this particular point.

If the char-gen system specifies that strength for Hobbits has a range of 3-16 then that also sets the parameters for what Hobbit strength can be among the greater population; which means that if the GM then turns around and says that NPC Hobbits run on a 3-18 range there's something gone adrift, as the GM is (or should be!) constrained by the char-gen rules.

Why? What if the GM conceives of a hobbit who is the Arnold of the hobbits in the setting. Surely it is manageable for a hobbit who is exceptional or trained harder than most other hobbits, to be a 17, maybe an 18. There are all kinds of reasons the GM might want to create edge cases like this, and they have to do with fidelity to setting. Character creation can only establish setting parameters so far before you start to run into issues where the game, at least to me, starts to feel more like a preprogrammed video game than an imagined world

To me those limits already include the population's outliers.

If the bell curve runs from 3-18 then any 3 or 4 or 5 is already an outlier, as is any 16, 17 or 18. Most stats for most people would be in the 8-13 range. The char-gen methods for D&D have always* skewed the bell curve toward the higher end, making those 16s 17s and 18s far more commonly seen in play than they are in the general population, but to me that's no different than, say, the intelligence range of those at a high-end university skewing higher than the general populace,

But you are still going to have exceptions to that because an 18 puts you in what, the 99.4 percentile? You are going to have people in the 99.9 percentile. And it is a fantasy setting so there are all kinds of reasons an individual character might have it. I do appreciate that the system strives to create believable ranges (I do recall one of the editions mentioning the present records for lifting, which it clearly considered). But I still think this is an artificial and narrow range of possibilities intended for player characters. There are always going to be things a GM can imagine in a setting that may need to exceed these kinds of limits

* - the one exception being straight 3d6 rolls, which IMO makes for an unrealistically flat bell curve that I'm willing to live with.

And its those same reasons that tell me they shouldn't be available to NPCs either, because if an NPC can do it a PC should also be able to do it.

Which method for rolling did you have in mind for the above?

I am not saying every NPC ought to break these ranges. I am just saying I don't see the ranges as absolute caps. If it feels appropriate that a given NPC should have a 20 STR, give them a 20 STR. That is all

 

[Lanefan]

I took it to be obvious, from context and my other posts, that I'm talking about 1st level PCs.

D&D, at least in the versions I'm familiar with, doesn't permit 1st level PCs to start with the wealth of a kingdom. Whereas the settings of D&D often include quite wealthy but low- or zero-level NPCs.

D&D also assumes starting characters have a certain degree of wealth to them - in 1e the range varied by class based on what that class was likely to need for equipment - and aren't starting out flat broke with no gear.

For me, I've expanded the char-gen parameters to include (even if rarely) a much wider range of character backgrounds at 1st level, along with the benefits and drawbacks each entails; and because of the possible disparities these backgrounds are gated behind a roll (you can always choose something basic but if you choose to oll, it's binding even if you don't like what you get).

In what sense are weapon proficiencies by choice? If I grow up in an area with no greatsword masters, how do I become proficient in the greatsword?

You might have grown up in an area where greatswords are unheard of but the odds are very high your party is forming in an area where greatswords are a known thing (otherwise I'd have whacked them off the list of available starting weapons); meaning you could have learned it sometime between leaving your homeland and the start of the campaign itself.