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

[Alzrius]

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!

That hasn't been my experience. More than once, I've had a player insist on rearranging things because they wanted their character to be the most important character both in the party, and in the game world. They'd openly demonstrate how their PC was special, able to do things that everyone knew no one should be able to do, and sit back and wait for the GM to describe the awe, reverence, and even fear that NPCs would feel toward them. It was absolutely eye-rolling, and sucked a lot of fun out of things.

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

Again, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of having characters better able to interact with the world when they were interested in the hows and whys of the world.

My favorite example of this was a player whose character struck up a friendship with some barbarian NPCs that he'd met. After some time interacting with them, he wanted to know more about why they'd been pushed to the edges of civilization, noting that they had a relatively even spread of characters types and strengths compared to the people of the "civilized" lands. As it turned out, the barbarians had less magical equipment (i.e. magic items) due to using a different crafting process (which was actually slightly more efficient in costs, but far less efficient in terms of time spent), never having learned what the PCs thought was the "standard" way.

The player was very impressed with the entire setup (even though the campaign moved on shortly thereafter), and noted specifically that the fact that the two different ways of crafting magic items were expressed under the rules made it seem that much more impactful. There was a reason why things were the way they were, in terms of the rules reinforcing the conventions of the setting, and that really stuck out to him.

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.

I'll note again that there's nothing wrong with a character who overturns a particular convention, so long as how they do so is justified by convention itself. I think that the differences between views here can largely be summarized as the people who think that the preceding sentence is a contradiction in terms, and those who don't.

 

[pemerton]

@Alzrius

The reply you're received from @AbdulAlhazred pretty much sets out my view also.

 

[pemerton]

Again, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of having characters better able to interact with the world when they were interested in the hows and whys of the world.

My favorite example of this was a player whose character struck up a friendship with some barbarian NPCs that he'd met. After some time interacting with them, he wanted to know more about why they'd been pushed to the edges of civilization, noting that they had a relatively even spread of characters types and strengths compared to the people of the "civilized" lands. As it turned out, the barbarians had less magical equipment (i.e. magic items) due to using a different crafting process (which was actually slightly more efficient in costs, but far less efficient in terms of time spent), never having learned what the PCs thought was the "standard" way.

The player was very impressed with the entire setup (even though the campaign moved on shortly thereafter), and noted specifically that the fact that the two different ways of crafting magic items were expressed under the rules made it seem that much more impactful. There was a reason why things were the way they were, in terms of the rules reinforcing the conventions of the setting, and that really stuck out to him.

What you present as a matter of reason seems to me obviously a matter of the gameworld conforming to certain ideas the participants have about how human societies develop and interact.

So the only reason I can see is a type of "meta" one - the game conformed to certain ideological preconceptions of the participants.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That hasn't been my experience. More than once, I've had a player insist on rearranging things because they wanted their character to be the most important character both in the party, and in the game world. They'd openly demonstrate how their PC was special, able to do things that everyone knew no one should be able to do, and sit back and wait for the GM to describe the awe, reverence, and even fear that NPCs would feel toward them. It was absolutely eye-rolling, and sucked a lot of fun out of things.

I don't remember ever having that. I've seen a few cases where a player just wanted to mess with people. A few cases where a player just thought the GM was pompous and being absurd, and a number of cases where a player was overly in love with an idea that everyone else hated. Now, maybe WAY WAY back in the early days, like before 1979 or so, when we just basically played Gygaxian D&D you would get the 'munchkin', like the much vaunted guy in Dave's campaign that played a Vampire just so he could beat everyone else (and thus clerics were born). I have not personally encountered a 'primadonna' type player who thinks they have to be too special. I guess such COULD exist, I think they're rare and probably restricted to younger people who often try on various annoying personality traits for size.

Again, I've gotten a lot of mileage out of having characters better able to interact with the world when they were interested in the hows and whys of the world.

Yeah, I'm just not sure how not being allowed to contribute to that in any way will make it so you know better how to interact. I'm thinking of the 'Last Mage' here, why is that detrimental to understanding the setting?

My favorite example of this was a player whose character struck up a friendship with some barbarian NPCs that he'd met. After some time interacting with them, he wanted to know more about why they'd been pushed to the edges of civilization, noting that they had a relatively even spread of characters types and strengths compared to the people of the "civilized" lands. As it turned out, the barbarians had less magical equipment (i.e. magic items) due to using a different crafting process (which was actually slightly more efficient in costs, but far less efficient in terms of time spent), never having learned what the PCs thought was the "standard" way.

The player was very impressed with the entire setup (even though the campaign moved on shortly thereafter), and noted specifically that the fact that the two different ways of crafting magic items were expressed under the rules made it seem that much more impactful. There was a reason why things were the way they were, in terms of the rules reinforcing the conventions of the setting, and that really stuck out to him.

Sure, but my suspicion is that it would be VERY rare indeed for some player to randomly suggest (or insist, whatever) on some element for a character that is going to undermine a thing like that.

I'll note again that there's nothing wrong with a character who overturns a particular convention, so long as how they do so is justified by convention itself. I think that the differences between views here can largely be summarized as the people who think that the preceding sentence is a contradiction in terms, and those who don't.

Well, its not like I don't 'get' where "rules as a model of the game world" comes from. I have just always subscribed more to the "rules are just a convenient way to make the game work" camp in that sense. I don't MIND if some part of the world seems to be explainable in terms of some rules, I just don't NEED it.

 

[Alzrius]

What you present as a matter of reason seems to me obviously a matter of the gameworld conforming to certain ideas the participants have about how human societies develop and interact.

So the only reason I can see is a type of "meta" one - the game conformed to certain ideological preconceptions of the participants.

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.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't remember ever having that. I've seen a few cases where a player just wanted to mess with people. A few cases where a player just thought the GM was pompous and being absurd, and a number of cases where a player was overly in love with an idea that everyone else hated. Now, maybe WAY WAY back in the early days, like before 1979 or so, when we just basically played Gygaxian D&D you would get the 'munchkin', like the much vaunted guy in Dave's campaign that played a Vampire just so he could beat everyone else (and thus clerics were born). I have not personally encountered a 'primadonna' type player who thinks they have to be too special. I guess such COULD exist, I think they're rare and probably restricted to younger people who often try on various annoying personality traits for size.

I don't think most instances of this are the player outrightly trying to be a jerk. I think that they're just more focused on themselves than they are on the group as a whole, with no way to manage a happy medium between doing what they want to do and doing what's fun for everyone. It's an instance of them not being able to have fun unless they can make things all about them all (or at least most) of the time.

Now, that's far from the only way that someone can be disruptive at the table. But in my experience it's a problem that very often dovetails with the "let's overturn a convention" idea, as it very often seems to be another way of saying "my character is the most special of all."

Yeah, I'm just not sure how not being allowed to contribute to that in any way will make it so you know better how to interact. I'm thinking of the 'Last Mage' here, why is that detrimental to understanding the setting?

I'm honestly not sure why anyone would think that "not being allowed to overturn convention" can at all be equated to "not being allowed to contribute." The "contribution" comes not through defining how the setting works, but through what your character does in the course of play. Do you really have to be the last mage in the entire world to have a fun time? To leave your mark on the game world? To be a hero of the ages? If you already have a vast world with myriad adventures waiting, secrets to be uncovered, enemies to fight, and treasures to be won, why is the only way you can "contribute" to be to rewrite the underlying truths that the world is based on?

Sure, but my suspicion is that it would be VERY rare indeed for some player to randomly suggest (or insist, whatever) on some element for a character that is going to undermine a thing like that.

I disagree with your suspicion, as it conflicts with what I've personally experienced and heard from others. If someone wants to overturn convention by having their character be some sort of "chosen one," that's a big red flag for me.

Well, its not like I don't 'get' where "rules as a model of the game world" comes from. I have just always subscribed more to the "rules are just a convenient way to make the game work" camp in that sense. I don't MIND if some part of the world seems to be explainable in terms of some rules, I just don't NEED it.

Which is fine. Seriously, that's a perfectly cromulent method of play. But to me, the conventions of the settings (and their expressions under the game rules) are like a big bucket of legos: the more I have, the more things I can make, and it helps that the legos all interact in a uniform manner. Overturning convention is like disassembling pieces of the game world that's been built with those legos, though, which can range from being aesthetically unpleasant to possibly causing the entire thing to topple over.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I used to call this kind of player a special snowflake, before snowflake somehow became a politicized term, because their requests would fundamentally change the campaign to make it all about their character.

Interesting. I call worlds where the GM is the sole creative force Snowflake Worlds! Because everything has to revolve around the GM’s ideas!

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

That’d never work. I mean… it’s established right away that the gods are gone.

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!

Personally, I think it’s a character concept that directly engages with the proposed premise of the game. In fact, the premise is what allows for that character concept.

I love when players take the setting and come up with cool ideas of their own that are connected to it. Might those ideas potentially change the setting? Yes… and that’s a good thing.

Who wants a static setting?

That inherent possibility… the idea that the PCs can actively impact the world they inhabit… seems fundamental to RPGs. Having that kind of possibility limited? Seems like a bad idea to me.

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.

Personally, if there’s tension of some sort between character and setting, I’m generally going to fall on the character side. Likely not always… but definitely more often than not. If no one cares about the characters, then the setting isn’t going to really impress.

 

[grankless]

I'm amused at how most of the negative experiences in this thread seem to mostly be "we started a game where nobody had any kind of conversation about what characters they would play and then continued to not have a conversation after we felt like it had negative consequences". Truly, talking with your friends like a person solves 99% of table issues. Quit attributing malice to your friends.

 

[MGibster]

Interesting. I call worlds where the GM is the sole creative force Snowflake Worlds! Because everything has to revolve around the GM’s ideas!

I don't think setting some constraints makes the GM the sole creative force. Maybe I'm a bit old school here, but the GM is the one who is running the game. While they should consider what each of their players desires, ultimate it's the GM who decides what he wants to run. When I run a campaign, I generally pitch several ideas to my players and we collectively decide which one to play. When the players all agree to play a particular campaign, it is not unreasonable for me to expect them to make appropriate characters for the campaign they agreed to participate in.

It's a rare thing for me to have players who insists on running a character that doesn't fit the campaign. Sometimes they even make characters that take the campaign in interesting places I never would have considered on my own. But they're doing it with characters appropriate to the game they all agreed to play in.

 

[Lanefan]

I recently watched the Return of the King film with my family, and the (second-last) ending, where the "last ship" sails from the Grey Havens, prompted the thought that has led to this post.

JRRT is probably the most famous conceiver of a fantasy setting, and that setting - Middle Earth - is widely regarded as a high point for evocative, verisimilitudinous and thematically sophisticated world building.

So it's interesting to note how many "one offs", how much "ad hocery" there is in the setting:

*Gollum is a unique adversary, with his ability to live in the dark eating only fish and Goblins, his toughness, resilience, and ability to strangle, his ability to relentlessly follow the Fellowship and Frodo;​

​

*Tom Bombadil - nuff said - but also Goldberry, and Old Man Willow on the borders of The Shire;​

​

*The Barrow Wights, and the Barrow Downs more generally - all this adventure on the way between The Shire and Bree, yet apparently undisturbed until the Ring-Bearer goes past; and the White Tower too, with its unique Palantir;​

​

*Gandalf's (one-time) knowledge of every spell, and the suggestion that the Mouth of Sauron is a sorcerer, yet the apparent lack of spell casting by anyone in the story but Gandalf and Saruman;​

​

*Boromir's journey across tracts of wilderness to find his way to Rivendell just in time for the great Council, in the same world where Gimli doesn't know that Balin and all his fellow-Dwarves lie dead i Moria;​

​

*And what I was reminded of the other day - Frodo and Bilbo, neither an Elf, both nevertheless travelling to the Undying Lands on a ship from the Havens; and despite Cirdan having sailed, Sam - by repute - later taking the same journey on the straight road; and later still, Gimli sailing with Legolas to the Undying Lands.​

Although there are things in Middle Earth that are typical, even "rules" - eg the difference in the "afterlife" of Elves and Men (and Hobbits sharing, one assumes, the Gift of the One to Men); and various orders of being - the story of LotR is full of contradictions of these.

To an extent I agree with you here, but I'd also posit that at least some of those oddities are fairly easily explainable:

Gollum was obviously kept alive by the One Ring, as we know it has a powerful anti-aging effect even as it slowly consumes its wearer. And he was a Hobbit before, so was used to living underground. To me the oddity there is how well and how long he survives without the Ring after losing it to Bilbo.

The Ring, again, pulls Frodo to trouble on the Barrows, where the Wights would likely have remained undisturbed for ages otherwise.

Gandalf, Saruman, and Radagast (and the un-named other two) are angel-like beings, and in G and S's case are mostly there to pull strings.

Tom Bombadil etc. is an oddity for sure, but that whole sequence does a lot to help give the reader a sense early on that this is a very big and very old (and very strange) world.

In the Burning Wheel Character Burner (Revised, p13), Luke Crane writes:

If the GM proposes a game without magic, there's always that one player who's got to play the last mage. And you know what? That's good. Before the game has even started we have a spark of conflict - we have the player getting involved in shaping the situation. Discuss the situation of the game as you discuss your character concept. Tie them both together - a dying world without magic, the last mage, the quest to restore the land. In one volley of discussion you've got an epic in the making. Start mixing in the other character concepts - they should all be so tied to the background - and you have the makings of a game. The cult priestess sworn to aid the last mage - and then spill his blood so that the world can be reborn; the Lore High Inquisitor whose duty it is to hunt the Gifted, but whose own brother is the last hope. Now we're talking.​

I think consistency in a FRPG setting, in the sense of "a place for everything, and nothing out of place* is overrated. LotR is driven by departures from such consistency at just about every point.

You've posted this passage before, and every time I read the bolded bit all I see is a player refusing to engage with the game as presented. The GM is putting forth a game without magic, so bloody well play a non-magical character this time!

Why he praises this refusal to engage and the resulting conflict as being good things is beyond me.