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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Yeah, what you and @bloodtide and @Alzrius et al have made apparent to me is that the ACTUAL objection, the root of where we differ, is purely an agenda thing. You all seem to be thinking of playing an RPG purely in terms of a sort of 'gauntlet', where everyone starts out with minimal (or even non-existent) privileges to violate the default rules of play, which are focused on some mix of sim and maybe gamist considerations, but are often cast in terms of regulating what fiction is allowed (IE you have to reduce the orc to 0 hit points and then you must describe it as dead). Benefits are earned strictly through a demonstration of skilled play. Now, that has been filtered through the more 'trad' 2e/5e kind of approaches that emphasize embedding story arcs in the prepped fiction and potentially some degree of GM management of outcomes for 'more fun' (and I'm not trying to fight with any of you about the degree or nature of exactly which things each group considers OK, it will vary).

The point is, you all object to the 'Last Mage' not because it breaks some hypothetical and probably undefinable 'consistency', but because it allocates some sort of perceived benefit to a given character, and thus it scans in this sort of post-Gygaxian concept of play as 'unfair'. Meanwhile I think I can speak for a number of posters here, at least myself, whom I have some familiarity with in saying that this sort of 'fairness', and the related concept of "every single thing you get to write on your sheet had to be earned from the GM" just doesn't apply in the way we think about play at all. Not to say I don't hold that the various PC's should probably all have equivalent 'plot power' and it would probably be an issue in most games if one player's character was the focus of play. However, I don't think players 'earn stuff', I think the reason why in, say, BitD, we start out with more limited abilities is mostly because it provides room for the story to evolve. If your crew was Tier 5 on day one, then where's the narrative going to go with that? I also grant that we willingly engage in a varying amount of gamist play and BitD DOES engage that, but I feel like that is at most only one of several considerations. Like, it isn't that important if one PC has a mechanism that can much more easily kill bad guys than another (Takeo kind of had that, I could ALMOST always defeat whatever the current bad guy was in a swordfight). However, being able to get into that fictional position is more important in BitD, and doing so without the GM unleashing catastrophic consequences, etc. For any given character type in that game there's always some way to get what you want.

We all will never really see things the same, as FUNDAMENTALLY different goals produce different value judgments on play and rules. So, this 'Last Mage' example, to me its just an interesting character concept. Yeah, by D&D rules that character might be a bit more effective than others, but that's normal for D&D! (despite its neo-Gygaxian elements, oddly enough).

 

[Alzrius]

But in the actual example, there are three PCs: the last mage; the cult priestess sworn to protect and then sacrifice him; and the Lord High Inquisitor who is the brother of the last mage. All are related. You can't say, from this description, that anyone is the "main character and the others "supporting cast".

No, I think you can. Both the latter two characters are defined by their relationship to the last mage character, whereas he's defined by his own characteristics. That strikes me as a pretty clear example of two supporting cast members and the main character. Now, again, the players might not care about that...but I've come across plenty who do, or who at least found it less and less fun to be repeatedly next to the spotlight rather than in it.

I think that @hawkeyefan has already made the point that all the PCs may be built - mechanically and in terms of backstory - such that all are central objects of attention during play.

Which I believe I responded to in turn, in that you can do that without having to discard consistency (and in fact, works better when you don't have one character who breaks consistency while the others don't).

 

[Laurefindel]

But in the actual example, there are three PCs: the last mage; the cult priestess sworn to protect and then sacrifice him; and the Lord High Inquisitor who is the brother of the last mage. All are related. You can't say, from this description, that anyone is the "main character and the others "supporting cast".

I think that @hawkeyefan has already made the point that all the PCs may be built - mechanically and in terms of backstory - such that all are central objects of attention during play.

This sounds all pretty consistent to me however. Non-conform, sure, but well integrated within the setting, the story, and between players.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I rather feel the value of coherent setting that makes sense and how "special" the characters are, are two separate things, even though we might be able to come up with examples where they intersect.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

This says that "though Elrond had departed [Rivendell], his sons long remained, together with some of the High-elven folk. It is said that Celeborn went to dwell there after the departure of Galadriel; but there is no record of the day when at last he sought the Grey Havens, and with him went the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-earth."

Well, at least we've established that Celeborn sailed West.

This doesn't tell us that Celeborn sailed with Cirdan; that they both took the Last Ship is inference.

Yes, but a reasonable inference - otherwise Cirdan would have remained, and Celeborn wouldn't have been the last living memory of the Elder Days in Middle-Earth. I suppose Cirdan might have sailed before him, and Celeborn built his own ship, like Legolas.

Nor does it tell us in what year either of them sailed, although again it seems to be implied that it is after Findegil complied the authoritative copy of the Red Book in FA(IV) 172.

Yes. This is what I wrote in post #140, above.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, what you and @bloodtide and @Alzrius et al have made apparent to me is that the ACTUAL objection, the root of where we differ, is purely an agenda thing. You all seem to be thinking of playing an RPG purely in terms of a sort of 'gauntlet', where everyone starts out with minimal (or even non-existent) privileges to violate the default rules of play, which are focused on some mix of sim and maybe gamist considerations, but are often cast in terms of regulating what fiction is allowed (IE you have to reduce the orc to 0 hit points and then you must describe it as dead). Benefits are earned strictly through a demonstration of skilled play. Now, that has been filtered through the more 'trad' 2e/5e kind of approaches that emphasize embedding story arcs in the prepped fiction and potentially some degree of GM management of outcomes for 'more fun' (and I'm not trying to fight with any of you about the degree or nature of exactly which things each group considers OK, it will vary).

Please read my posts. I think it is very apparent this isn't at all my point of view. I think RPGs can accommodate a range of play styles

 

[Bedrockgames]

The point is, you all object to the 'Last Mage' not because it breaks some hypothetical and probably undefinable 'consistency', but because it allocates some sort of perceived benefit to a given character, and thus it scans in this sort of post-Gygaxian concept of play as 'unfair'.

Again please read my posts. You are making so many assumptions and misreading almost everything I have posted

 

[Bedrockgames]

We all will never really see things the same, as FUNDAMENTALLY different goals produce different value judgments on play and rules. So, this 'Last Mage' example, to me its just an interesting character concept. Yeah, by D&D rules that character might be a bit more effective than others, but that's normal for D&D! (despite its neo-Gygaxian elements, oddly enough).

Again I think you should really read my posts again. Obviously we do have different points of view on gaming, we are unlikely to see things the same. But I don't think you understand the position I have taken here. I have no problem with the last mage. I believe I made this clear in most of my posts. My concern was around in what campaign and game it would be appropriate. There are going to be game groups and systems where it will present potential issues around balance, player expectations, spotlight, etc. There are going to be games and play groups where it is entirely in the spirit of the system and the style. The only thing I object to is any kind of sense that this how everyone ought to play or ought not to play. And the only reason I said the quote in the OP raised potential concerns was its use of a term like conflict.

The main point I was trying to make most of this thread is that 1) the gollum example doesn't present any kind of consistency issues, 2) there is nothing wrong with people wanting setting consistency

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, what you and @bloodtide and @Alzrius et al have made apparent to me is that the ACTUAL objection, the root of where we differ, is purely an agenda thing. You all seem to be thinking of playing an RPG purely in terms of a sort of 'gauntlet', where everyone starts out with minimal (or even non-existent) privileges to violate the default rules of play, which are focused on some mix of sim and maybe gamist considerations, but are often cast in terms of regulating what fiction is allowed (IE you have to reduce the orc to 0 hit points and then you must describe it as dead). Benefits are earned strictly through a demonstration of skilled play. Now, that has been filtered through the more 'trad' 2e/5e kind of approaches that emphasize embedding story arcs in the prepped fiction and potentially some degree of GM management of outcomes for 'more fun' (and I'm not trying to fight with any of you about the degree or nature of exactly which things each group considers OK, it will vary).

I play a lot of different kinds of games. Most of what I run at the moment is what I call drama sandbox and very character driven. I don't play 5E (have only played it like once or twice). And tend avoid things like character arcs in games (I am much more about the organic discovery and exploration of where characters go). But I play other types of games. I wouldn't confuse me making a point about a particular play style or consideration (such as setting consistency) as me saying that is the only way people should play, the best, or the only way I will engage RPGs

 

[Lanefan]

This is all post hoc. Hobbit's are resilient, but all this suggests is that the Ring should take longer to destroy Gollum than it would a human.

Much, much longer.

Bilbo had the Ring for 60 years and it was only starting to affect him. Run that out to 500 years and he might well have become Gollum II. And maybe not even then; Gollum (as Smeagol) didn't seem to have the same good heart that Bilbo did, and thus was more prone to being taken over by the Ring.

I mean, there's no suggestion that Pippin's mind could withstand being blasted by the Eye of Sauron, mediated via Palantir, for more than a small amount of time.

Different thing, for two reasons.

First, the Eye of Sauron is a different beast than is the Ring.

Second, remember that Saruman couldn't withstand the Eye even with all his angel-ness to back him up. Pippin - never the strongest-willed to begin with - would have been a pushover.