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

[doctorbadwolf]

I outright reject consistency as a goal or priority.

It is actively good that Tom Bombadil doesn’t move the plot forward or matter again after he is in the story, because he’s this odd little corner of a world full of more things than one story can contain.

The world is more lifelike and more interesting for it.

In TTRPGs, I love to include weird stuff, to let the player’s ideas build the world as they move through it, and to seek out asymmetry and messiness.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As opposed to what? All game worlds have to be based around some underlying ideas regarding how they function, otherwise there's no constancy to anything. The inherent mutability of an imagined world is a strength insofar as it allows for any ideas to be potentially utilized, but that's best expressed during the formation of such a world; yanking the proverbial rug out from under the players (whether by the GM or another player) by suddenly changing things up – which includes after the premise(s) have been laid out, and the players are making their characters – strikes me as being much more of a weakness than a strength, since it makes it harder for everyone else to have an idea of what the game will be like.

I'm a little skeptical. I just watched the 5 episodes on Netflix of 'Masters of the Universe: Revolution' and there is NO WAY that Eternia makes the slightest bit of sense, it just doesn't. It is NOTHING but a stage for epic conflict. I mean, there's a 'kingdom' and 'citizens' and a 'man-at-arms' and whatever, but it's all just as real as any Broadway set, it's all symbolic at best. Nobody sat down and said "there's such and thus an economy and it can therefor support a palace of such-and-such a size" or whatever you'd need to do to imbue it with even slight realism. Heck, the castle is most of the size of the town, and this one town seems to be the WHOLE PLANET. It makes exactly enough sense for 8 year olds, basically.

Lets imagine an RPG setting, Paranoia. Nothing in Paranoia makes any sense either. I mean, some of it COULD, maybe, and I don't remember enough details, if they even existed, of the setting. Still, nothing like "why don't the clones all just run away?" is addressed, at all. It's all just a convenient fiction that serves the purpose of the game. AND IT WORKS. Doskvol is equally ridiculous. I mean, they claim the people eat fungus and plants that grow in the dark, but we all know that's impossible. Everyone would starve. Well 'magic' is of course the answer, but we have no knowledge of what that's capable of, or how it works, it is just some handwavium, and yet the setting WORKS.

Now, I don't totally disagree with you, by all means provide some handwavium! Doskvol simply claims that magic does it, and you can invent stories around growing or stealing food, etc. and that's enough. But don't be fooled, I can go run my BitD game and invent anything regarding food that I care to, nobody can contradict it, and I can 'explain' why the world is how it is, because I can just say "it is so" effectively. Who can contradict me? Consistency in that sense is WAY overrated IMHO.

You need some consistency of physical effect, when you fall you get hurt, that sort of thing. And you need some consistency in terms of the place and role of people in society so that players can reason about fictional position. That's it.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm a little skeptical. I just watched the 5 episodes on Netflix of 'Masters of the Universe: Revolution' and there is NO WAY that Eternia makes the slightest bit of sense, it just doesn't. It is NOTHING but a stage for epic conflict. I mean, there's a 'kingdom' and 'citizens' and a 'man-at-arms' and whatever, but it's all just as real as any Broadway set, it's all symbolic at best. Nobody sat down and said "there's such and thus an economy and it can therefor support a palace of such-and-such a size" or whatever you'd need to do to imbue it with even slight realism. Heck, the castle is most of the size of the town, and this one town seems to be the WHOLE PLANET. It makes exactly enough sense for 8 year olds, basically.

Lets imagine an RPG setting, Paranoia. Nothing in Paranoia makes any sense either. I mean, some of it COULD, maybe, and I don't remember enough details, if they even existed, of the setting. Still, nothing like "why don't the clones all just run away?" is addressed, at all. It's all just a convenient fiction that serves the purpose of the game. AND IT WORKS. Doskvol is equally ridiculous. I mean, they claim the people eat fungus and plants that grow in the dark, but we all know that's impossible. Everyone would starve. Well 'magic' is of course the answer, but we have no knowledge of what that's capable of, or how it works, it is just some handwavium, and yet the setting WORKS.

I haven't watched any of the new MOTU, so I'm going off of the original series here, but I agree that there are some settings where the hows and whys are essentially changed up as the story progresses. Mortal Kombat is a notable example here, since even in the more recent multimedia entries into the franchise (which have had a tighter presentation than their earlier counterparts) seem to delight in changing things up on a massive scale every so often. And yet it remains entertaining.

The thing is that, in both of those examples, the setting doesn't so much "work" as it does "stay out of the way." Which is fine if you only care about a particular campaign world insofar as to how much it plays into what the characters are doing. And in my experience, there are plenty of TTRPG fans for whom that's their raison d'etre; the world revolves around the PCs and their exploits, and so it only matters in terms of how exciting the players find it.

But that ignores all of the other players for whom that excitement comes from having a world that isn't just window-dressing.

Being able to explore how a world works, and interact with it on its own terms, has been a source of a lot of fun for myself and a lot of other players that I've known over the years. Sure, if all we wanted was "fight the advancing evil" (which basically summarizes MOTU, Mortal Kombat, and a lot of other franchises), particularly where how the PCs fight relies entirely on their own powers and abilities, rather than needing to engage with powerful local forces (who are presumably dynamic characters who have their own vested interests, considerations, fears, and such, all of which are tied into aspects of the world they inhabit, rather than being static characters until the PCs interact with them), search for long-lost artifacts, recruit extraplanar/divine aid, carve out a power bloc of their own, etc., then yeah, the rest of the world doesn't really matter. You can be dungeons-delving murderhobos all the way to level 20+ and have a great time, not caring about anything else except buffing before facing the monster in the next room. But I prefer to think that the PCs are moving toward some sort of endgame that means doing more than killing things and taking their stuff, and that means engaging with the world as a world, which means recognizing its conventions as features, not bugs.

Now, I don't totally disagree with you, by all means provide some handwavium! Doskvol simply claims that magic does it, and you can invent stories around growing or stealing food, etc. and that's enough. But don't be fooled, I can go run my BitD game and invent anything regarding food that I care to, nobody can contradict it, and I can 'explain' why the world is how it is, because I can just say "it is so" effectively. Who can contradict me? Consistency in that sense is WAY overrated IMHO.

You need some consistency of physical effect, when you fall you get hurt, that sort of thing. And you need some consistency in terms of the place and role of people in society so that players can reason about fictional position. That's it.

"Need" is a poor term, when discussing recreational entertainment. You don't "need" such entertainment at all, let alone any particular aspect of it. But for me, TTRPGs aren't about what you need, but what you can aspire to, which is an immersive quality that comes from being able to role-play what your character would do in the situations they find themselves in, and having a greater awareness of their world abets that, or at least it always has for me. That requires giving the world a degree of immutability once its conventions are set, and while that immutability is entirely illusory (just like the entire role-playing experience), buying into it is what makes that illusion seem more immersive, akin to turning your cell phone off at the movie theater. The guy who insists on changing the conventions, by contrast, is the guy taking a call three rows over, even though the film is starting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Looking at the OP, I am a bit confused how a creature like gollum contradicts consistency of the setting

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd assume Nick is for whatever reason refusing the thus-far-only stated premise of the game, even if he's not being a jerk about it and thinks he's got a good idea.

Because despite your optimistic reading of the situation, Nick's idea is not based on the premise of the game but is in fact directly opposed to the premise of the game as stated.

It’s not. He would not have come up with the concept without the proposed setting.

What’s the point of the world without magic? Is it to prompt conflict for the players to bring to the game and to discover what happens? Or is it to limit what’s available?

Challenging the premise like this is synonymous with opposing it, I think. And if all the players thusly challenge the premise, be it in the same or different directions, then either there'll be a lot of disappointed players or there won't be much of that premise left.

That’s assuming anyone has a problem with it. But why would they?

None, if the last-mage's player is willing to accept that there are now no mages left at all and comes back with a different character concept for the replacement.

IME that would be highly unusual.

Why?

I can certainly see building a character concept and goals around finding out why there's no magic (if such a thing can even be explained), or trying to bring magic back (if such can be done); as both of those examples start out by accepting the premise that there is no magic now. Wanting to play the last mage blows that premise away; even more so if the other players see this mage and say "Hey, I want one too!".

It doesn’t blow the premise away. The premise implies that there must have been a last mage. All it does is say “suppose that is one or more of the PCs”.

And if characters are created together, then suitable connections to the setting can be made for all.

Internal consistency. Middle Earth, despite the oddities pointed out in the OP, has a strong underlying internal consistency which goes a logn way toward making it believable enough that we can immerse ourselves in it.

Well, I think there’s plenty about Tolkien’s world that defies immersion and consistency… and I think many of the explanations that help maintain consistency have been applied after the fact. Again… it’s all made up.

In-character conflict, sure. But this seems more geared toward player-v-GM table conflict, which rarely if ever ends well.

Why is it player vs. GM? Again, this carries the expectation that the GM has some kind of agenda for the setting beyond prompting interesting ideas from the players.

I'm a fan of the Gygaxian notion that characters can be (with the GM's permission and at least a modicum of system compatibility) transferred between worlds/games/campaigns. Tying characters to a specific world plays against this idea.

Yeah, gladly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not sure why you're framing this as the GM not listening to the player. The GM can listen to a player, really consider what they're pitching, and still say no. Like I said, I've had players create characters that took campaigns in directions I hadn't considered before, but it's been a while since I've had a player who just flat out wouldn't make a character for the campaign we all agreed to play in.

If I’m framing it that way, then it’s only in response to others framing it as the player not listening.

I don’t see the proposed idea as being against the premise of the game. But as I said to @Lanefan I imagine it very much depends on what that premise is meant to do.

I'm going to agree with you that it's wrong to assume malice. If a player is behaving maliciously it's indicative of a deep seated problem that needs to be hashed in order to reach an amicable solution. Alternatively it might mean you need to just cut bait and run.

Yeah, I think once we set aside the idea of people being difficult just to be difficult, then it becomes a question of collaboration. What amount or level of collaboration is expected? What is to be gained by limiting the amount of collaboration?

In my group, we've established the premise of the game before character creation is even started. So if we've already established there is no magic in the world, and Nick shows up with a magician, he might not be acting out of malice, but he's being inconsiderate of what the other players and the GM wanted to play.

For me, this all happens if not simultaneously, then at least while all still in a state of flux.

I look at it all as what’s being proposed. I don’t really separate the world and the characters. I want them all to be connected.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is such a weird thread. I am not even sure what is the point, besides deriding people who care about world building. Consistent doesn't mean homogenous. It means that things make certain amount of sense both logically and thematically. And of course it is all made up, it is fiction. Doesn't mean you can make up anything and remain consistent.

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the topic of players having input in the campaign setting or campaign premise, for example the GM saying they want to run a no magic setting and the player proposing being the last mage, or a player proposing some kind of tweak to the concept itself....I think that is a preference thing. If people want that it is fine. I think it is just important to keep in mind for some groups, they want the GM to setting that stuff up (maybe with players saying what they like or asking questions but not expecting to shape the premise itself). There is a range of styles in between. I have no issue with the player doing something like that when it is something that peopel are on board with. I do have an issue with an argument that either says everyone really should do this, or that a player should push GMs and players who don't want it initially. One of the key terms mentioned in the OP, not by the OP but in a quoted section, that for me is a bit of a red flag is the word 'conflict'. Obviously that can mean different things. But I don't think conflict or debate are a good foundation for a functioning campaign personally. I, like a lot of people I think, game to relax. I don't game to have to fight for what I want at the table. This is why I think finding players and GMs who fit your style is important.

 

[niklinna]

Sure; and when that last mage gets crushed to pulp by an ogre three sessions in, then what?

Then the last mage dies and magic is now truly gone.

The "last mage" idea, unless it's a single-player game, really does risk turning the rest of the characters into a supporting cast - fine for a single adventure, maybe, but not so great for a whole campaign.

Not if all the other player characters have similar unique things and burning drives. The group will work that out, and there's totally room for other players to be supporting cast if they want to anyhow.

I'd assume Nick is for whatever reason refusing the thus-far-only stated premise of the game, even if he's not being a jerk about it and thinks he's got a good idea.

It is not the stated premise of the game, it is the proposed, and therefore suggested and tentative, premise of the game, which is open to twists and even outright rejection. Nick could have said "Nothing doing, I want to play in a world with magic", and the table would discuss that. The player accepting the essence of the (rather vanilla) proposition and putting a genuinely interesting twist on it should be cause for excitement and interest. Even if further discussion comes back around to "no magic at all".

Because despite your optimistic reading of the situation, Nick's idea is not based on the premise of the game but is in fact directly opposed to the premise of the game as stated.

See above.

Challenging the premise like this is synonymous with opposing it, I think. And if all the players thusly challenge the premise, be it in the same or different directions, then either there'll be a lot of disappointed players or there won't be much of that premise left.

No, there will be discussion to come to mutual agreement about what everyone will find enjoyable. It's not like the GM has already written (or purchased) hundreds of pages of adventure material. Burning Wheel is not that kind of game.

None, if the last-mage's player is willing to accept that there are now no mages left at all and comes back with a different character concept for the replacement.

There was no problem to begin with.

I can certainly see building a character concept and goals around finding out why there's no magic (if such a thing can even be explained), or trying to bring magic back (if such can be done); as both of those examples start out by accepting the premise that there is no magic now.

Those sound like great avenues for discussion, once the suggested premise has in fact been accepted as fact by the whole table.

In-character conflict, sure. But this seems more geared toward player-v-GM table conflict, which rarely if ever ends well.

Again, it sounds to me like people have been taking "GM's proposed ideas" as "firm autocratic decisions to be accepted meekly" rather than as "laying out a beginning for a conversation".

Well, for one thing Gollum ain't exactly player-character material. He's a plot-device NPC who gets drafted into a party somewhat against his will and then does nothing but cause conflict there.

Gollum would be amazing player-character material. He has his own drives, huge challenges to overcome, and in-game conflict is, well, the point of that game! A dynamic between player characters where one hopes Gollum is redeemable and another views him as pure liability and Gollum feels torn between hope and despair sounds pretty dang awesome. Again, for that game. I can see how that would be a problem in other kinds of games.

To a point, I get this; but there also comes a point where the underlying premise of the setting can get buried beneath said weirdness - "Well, it was supposed to be a no-magic setting, but now everyone's either playing a mage or wants to" - which kinda defeats the idea of settings having much by way of underlying premises.

It was supposed to be a no-magic setting, for whom? Clearly the table's interests have wandered from the initial suggested, tentative, open-to-discussion proposal. That hypothetical situation isn't assuming an autocratic GM and players who are reactionary jerks, but a group of sociable adults having a discussion about what they'll all find fun to explore together.

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[niklinna]

On the topic of players having input in the campaign setting or campaign premise, for example the GM saying they want to run a no magic setting and the player proposing being the last mage, or a player proposing some kind of tweak to the concept itself....I think that is a preference thing. If people want that it is fine. I think it is just important to keep in mind for some groups, they want the GM to setting that stuff up (maybe with players saying what they like or asking questions but not expecting to shape the premise itself). There is a range of styles in between. I have no issue with the player doing something like that when it is something that peopel are on board with. I do have an issue with an argument that either says everyone really should do this, or that a player should push GMs and players who don't want it initially. One of the key terms mentioned in the OP, not by the OP but in a quoted section, that for me is a bit of a red flag is the word 'conflict'. Obviously that can mean different things. But I don't think conflict or debate are a good foundation for a functioning campaign personally. I, like a lot of people I think, game to relax. I don't game to have to fight for what I want at the table. This is why I think finding players and GMs who fit your style is important.

Yeah that's cool. If the players all want the GM to lay out how things are, and go along with that, that's totally cool—and the person saying they want to play a wizard in a no-magic world is being a jerk, in that context.