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

[Alzrius]

Everything? That would be silly.

What I’m suggesting doesn’t preclude developments in-play. Having some details provided by backstory isn’t granting them everything they want right from the get go. I don’t see why anyone would make that comparison.

Do the characters in your game not have background details? No home or family or connections to the world?

"Background details" and "home or family or connections" are not issues of overturning convention. When the character is presented as the last mage in a world that has lost all magic, that's not "having some details in the backstory," that's their backstory saying why they're special right from the get-go, and recognition as such is warranted (often repeatedly) over the course of play. If we presume that one of the things characters want to achieve is recognition, impact on the game world, or basically anything beyond mechanical rewards, then they're starting out with that, rather than earning it over the course of the campaign.

Now, I'll certainly stipulate that such things can be further earned. But a character whose backstory is "I can do the impossible" is giving themselves a massive leg up on that front.

This strikes me as more of a concern along the level progression and game balance lines, which are pretty specific to D&D. There are other games that handle this perfectly fine.

I mean, even in D&D, it’s possible that regardless of premise, one player could select wizard as a class, while the remaining players select non-casters. Such a game would appear to have the same issue… one player character with access to spells. If this is really problematic, I’m not sure it really has anything to do with the setting.

This ignores the issue of presentation in the context of the game world, which is what I noted before. If you're a character class in a party that has no other members of that class, you're not overturning the conventions of the game world. If you're the last mage in a world where everyone in the world knows that magic is gone, and you can demonstrate otherwise, then you're going to necessarily make a bigger impact on how NPCs react to you; at that point, you effectively have the same reputation as a high-level character, because you're wielding a power that no one else has (or is supposed to be able to have, for that matter). It's not a question of "balance," but rather making the last mage character become the most important person in the party by default, since their presence becomes outsized.

Good. I like characters that are unique.

The rest of the party might not, when your character's uniqueness consistently outshines them. That's kind of the central point that people keep raising.

Having said that, as a GM, if I can’t come up with compelling obstacles and situations for the character, I’m not really doing my job. My take on the last mage is that it’d be much more of a burden than a blessing. I don’t think it would encourage the player to have the character going around flaunting their power.

Which could conceivably work, if everyone's okay with that idea (but then again, if everyone's okay with a proposition, then there isn't really any problem to begin with). But even then, that can be a burden on the group, in terms of the character drawing in more problems than they'd otherwise have. If the last mage character is pursued by mage hunters everywhere they go, is a pariah that causes people to flee and shopkeepers to close their doors, and causes notoriety to fall on their party, etc., that can also cause issues that the rest of the PCs have to deal with.

Now, none of that is necessarily an issue of overturning convention per se; you can have famous, notorious, or hunted characters just fine...but if that's all you want, why do you have to overturn convention to get those things? There are other ways to do so without having to say that you can do the impossible.

Sure… I don’t think the GM must agree. I just think that when this is all being discussed they should be considering the game. Not just their proposed setting idea in isolation… but as a part of the whole experience. The game includes the setting, but it also includes… more importantly, I’d say… the characters.

So we as GMs need to consider the characters and their place in the setting and how that will inform play. Will the proposed idea of the last mage create interesting conflict? Will it allow for dynamic play? Does it inspire the players?

Simply looking at it and saying “no… there’s no arcane magic, I already said that” … basing the decision solely on the consistency of the setting… seems to me to be too simplistic.

I'd say the simplicity goes the other way more often than not. My impression is that, for the last two decades or so, there's been a growing tendency towards a player attitude of "my character is entirety mine to make, and no one has the right to say otherwise," which like so many other things is fine in moderation but becomes a problem when taken to an extreme. The GM saying "your character concept doesn't really work for this campaign" is not being overbearing, particularly when the conventions of the campaign have been laid down ahead of time.

Players should, I think, consider the group's fun and cohesion when making their characters. While it's entirely possible for them to think that it's benign to come up with a character concept that's different from what would normally work in a given context, they should also be ready to abandon that idea if others express reservations about them...and that includes the GM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure I am not arguing Tolkein wasn't writing a novel. And my understanding is the Hobbit was later revised to conform more with Lord of the Rings. Also I am not enough of a Tolkien fan to really dig in on that subject. My point is simply it doesn't appear to be a violation of setting consistency at all to me

And that is because 'setting consistency', which IMHO is monkey poo, is a totally post-hoc thing, ALWAYS. I'm not saying people don't come up with, at times, certain ideas. Like say, 'hobbits normally live about as long as humans, maybe slightly longer' etc. Sure they do, but if, for some reason a character concept (or in a novel a plot device) requires some exception to that, then it is generated fully post-hoc and nobody can say it is or is not so! The whole idea that some detail someone comes up with is going to undermine your whole concept and ruin everything is just silly.

 

[bloodtide]

The whole idea that some detail someone comes up with is going to undermine your whole concept and ruin everything is just silly.

I guess it depends what we are talking about: meaningless fluff or mechanical game abilities.

If a player wants to say their super special halfling character ate a magic potato and has lived for 1000 years....with no mechanical game abilities....nearly all DM would be happy to let the player talk about their 1000 year old halfling all they want.

But as soon as the player is like "yuck yuck yuck, my 1000 year old halfling gets a +20 to all Lore checks", they DM is well with in their rights to say "Nope".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If a player wants to say their super special halfling character ate a magic potato and has lived for 1000 years....with no mechanical game abilities....nearly all DM would be happy to let the player talk about their 1000 year old halfling all they want.

I wouldn't. Silly lore bother me way more than overpowered mechanics. Though latter can of course still be an issue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And that is because 'setting consistency', which IMHO is monkey poo,

This really isn't helpful. I have no issue with a game style that doesn't prioritize it, or makes sure setting consistency isn't getting in the way of dramatic or thematic concerns (or player agency). If that is what people want, it is a reasonable thing to seek in gaming. But calling setting consistency monkey poo, doesn't drive the conversation anywhere productive

is a totally post-hoc thing, ALWAYS.

This seems like very shaky reasoning to me. Is it sometimes or often post hoc? Sure. It would depend on the situation, the medium, who is doing the work here. I know some things in RPG settings I am fine seeking post hoc explanations for, some things I am not, so I take steps to make sure setting consistency is playing out in those cases. I think extremes like always or never are just not that connected to the reality of gaming or a creative enterprise like writing a novel (different novelists all take very different approaches, from someone like Neil Gaiman who says the goal is to make it look like you had meant it to be that way the whole time, to someone like an Arthur C Clarke or Tolkien who certainly might be doing that but is also building ideas and concepts to write stories up in many cases. And most authors are probably a mix).

I'm not saying people don't come up with, at times, certain ideas. Like say, 'hobbits normally live about as long as humans, maybe slightly longer' etc. Sure they do, but if, for some reason a character concept (or in a novel a plot device) requires some exception to that, then it is generated fully post-hoc and nobody can say it is or is not so! The whole idea that some detail someone comes up with is going to undermine your whole concept and ruin everything is just silly.

Again, I don't particularly care if it is post hoc or not. The issue is whether setting consistency matters. But this sort of thing doesn't have to be post hoc at all. Because the moment you start thinking of a character like Gollum your brain is already thinking about how that could even be the case. And in a world where magic exists, the idea of a cursed hobbit, or a hobbit who acquires something like vampirism or undeath, are all perfectly plausible and readily available to the mind of the author.

What you seem to be talking about is the editing process of ideas as they emerge in a writers mind. Well we don't even know how to measure a thought in a persons brain. I don't think we have cracked the code on this. But what matters is not the steps you think through in your head before you write it down or throw it down at the table in the game. Me juggling ideas in my head, and one of those ideas coming first, then my mind explaining it, is not a post hoc explanation. A post hoc explanation would be me introducing the character then coming up with the explanation. In the case of Gollum I can't recall which was the case (and I know the Hobbit was revised to be more in line with Lord of the Rings, so no idea what the actual history of editions is in that respect). I don't think it is particularly relevant though because whether it was or was not in that particular case 1) it still doesn't violate setting consistency---which is the core issue at hand, and 2) It doesn't follow that if it was post hoc in the case of gollum such instances of characters are always post hoc (i.e. creating dracula doesn't require a post hoc explanation, creating a cursed figure in horror story or fantasy story doesn't require post hoc explanation: especially if those things are fully formed in concept when they hit the page)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Like say, 'hobbits normally live about as long as humans, maybe slightly longer' etc. Sure they do, but if, for some reason a character concept (or in a novel a plot device) requires some exception to that, then it is generated fully post-hoc and nobody can say it is or is not so! The whole idea that some detail someone comes up with is going to undermine your whole concept and ruin everything is just silly.

Then I have to ask which is it. Does setting consistency matter or not. Because you seem to be saying here not that setting consistency doesn't matter, but that this isn't a threat to setting consistency, which I have been arguing. The issue of the Gollum character, as many people have pointed out, isn't a setting consistency issue: it is a fairness and balance issue. I.E. does the game allow such a character, is such a character overpowered in some way, does letting a player make such a character introduce any spotlight issues or other concerns. Nothing about Gollum upsets the setting consistency of middle earth. It is a world with hobbits, a world with magic and curses, so a hobbit cursed by a ring to live long and be a wretch, is entirely in keeping with it. To use my 24 example again, if we were doing a counter terrorism RPG and a player wanted to be a Special Agent in Charge who found a magic ring and was hundreds of years old, then yes, there you might have some setting concerns and that would be an appropriate place in many games for the GM to step in and say that violates setting consistency and genre too much.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think he was thinking that. This is pure speculation anyways. Honestly though most writers have an impulse to explain any decision in terms of consistency. It is pretty intuitive if you have a wretched creature like Gollum he has a backstory that is going to explain his condition. It isn't like you don't have characters like this in stories. I am sure Bram Stoker was not all "Oh no, this can never work, Dracula is a human and humans don't live hundreds of years." He was a human who became a vampire. Gollum was a hobbit who became Gollum. Maybe if the setting didn't have magic and cursed rings, sure, but it does so I just don't see how this introduces anything that contradicts setting consistency or how it is an argument for going against setting consistency.

Right, because there IS NO setting consistency! Not 'before the fact', it is all a post-hoc construct. I mean, sure, people make default assumptions about things, and it can be much easier and simpler to explain some things (IE Minas Tirith has streets and a gate, doesn't really need an explanation). But if there was a section of Minas Tirith which did NOT have streets, big deal! There's always some way to explain it, that area was hewn out of solid rock, it was built by pre-Gondorian people, its mostly inhabited by servants who usually only sleep there and work elsewhere, ancient tradition, whatever.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right, because there IS NO setting consistency! Not 'before the fact', it is all a post-hoc construct. I mean, sure, people make default assumptions about things, and it can be much easier and simpler to explain some things (IE Minas Tirith has streets and a gate, doesn't really need an explanation). But if there was a section of Minas Tirith which did NOT have streets, big deal! There's always some way to explain it, that area was hewn out of solid rock, it was built by pre-Gondorian people, its mostly inhabited by servants who usually only sleep there and work elsewhere, ancient tradition, whatever.

I already responded to your there is no setting consistency point and your point that it is all post hoc so won't repeat myself here but I will reiterate that a post hoc explanation doesn't make it not about setting consistency. Setting consistency is still being addressed, even if it is after the fact. And there are different levels of taking that seriously and trying to use those explanations going forward.

 

[grankless]

A TTRPG setting can be consistent but also anyone can change anything they want about it because they are made up and only exist for you to tell stories with your friends in.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again the reason a player can’t be gollum isn’t setting consistency. Most fantasy campaigns would assume a character like gollum to be a possibility. The reason players don’t get to be a creature like gollum in say a standard D&D campaign, out of fairness, people pick from an established list of abilities. Some groups, some games might allow this sort of thing. Which is fine. But where it isn’t permitted has to do with balance

Balance in D&D? I mean, sure, all level 1 PCs are pretty weak in most versions, but to say there's any substantive degree of balance between classes is, well, no, it just doesn't exist.

Now consistency could be an issue if you are playing a medieval fantasy campaign and someone wants to be the road warrior. Yes you could explain it after the fact but the consistency problem there is a clash with established premise, tone, genre etc. now if you want mad max to be able to show up in your game, fair enough. Kitchen sink gonzo campaigns can be fun. Trying to argue it should be allowed in a group that doesn’t want it or agreed to something else is where the problem gives in

I don't really see the central point of disagreement that I have with, say @Alzrius, to be this though. I mean, we all agree that some things will 'not fit' within any given game (gonzo just makes that a much looser proposition). Once we start debating THAT point, we're just debating where the line is, and that's going to be totally subject and totally situational. I think the substantive question is more one of process and creative role.