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

[Lanefan]

I'm going to go further, and this is a fine jumping off point. I hear a whole lot about 'consistency', but none of them talk about the consistency of depiction of character. If all we can have is some sort of 'generic character' that is 'made in its first 3 levels' (so to speak) where is the consistency?

If by this you mean both short- and long-term consistency of personality depiction and so forth by the player of a character, the only mechanical enforcement I can think of that's ever looked at this is 1e D&D's alignment rules.

But yes, if a character is depicted/played quite differently from one session to the next for no obvious reason, I'd say the others at the table have just cause to at least raise an eyebrow.

Oh, sure, the GM gets to rule over 'his campaign' like some petty tyrant, but as a player? I'm left with nothing. What you get are cartoon characters in cartoon situations.

Bit hyperbolic, hm?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Barring an unusual campaign or setting premise, even if there's just one caster in the PC party there's assumed to be other casters out there in the setting, and that magic is a known and-or generally-accepted fact of life; and that there's a caster here isn't anything out of the ordinary.

This is very different from magic not being known and-or generally accepted and the PC caster being the only one of its kind.

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.

That depends, too. In a higher-lethality game, or a years-long one where players regularly cycle characters in and out (and players come and go as real-life dictates), the setting becomes the constant reliable element underneath it all.

 

[Lanefan]

There are any number of possibilities around the last mage. (As @hawkeyefan notes.)

And suppose that local events do revolve around them. What is objectionable about that?

If it\s a solo campaign with just the GM and the last mage's player, there's no problem.

Once you add other players to the mix, however, those players have to work that much harder to not end up as supporting cast (or even just spectators) when everything keeps revolving around the last-mage character.

The fact that Thurgon is a knight of the Iron Tower, and (in some sense at least) the last knight, colours just about everything that happens to him.

Am I misremembering, or was that game just you and the GM? 'Cause if it was, as noted above there's no table-level concern or issues with everything revolving around Thurgon.

 

[bloodtide]

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).

I'm not so sure.

Your side is the confusing side of any player can "just say" their character has ultimate cosmic power to ruin the game at will. And oddly, you not only think that is the greatest thing ever. But you also think every game should be like that to be "better".

And, as always, I never get the: The Dm sits there and a player comes over and says something and the Dm just bows and says "yes player" to everything.

It's not like I never have a 'Last Mage' in a game, but only for the very rare good player.

 

[hawkeyefan]

"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.

What convention? Why is the GM not considered to be overturning convention with the no magic thing?

Again, your view seems to rely on the GM deciding the world elements ahead of time and then the players are meant to make characters within that setting, per the GM’s dictates.

But that’s not how it must be done.

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.

Who says they won’t? If a PC has some kind of unique aspect to them, why does that somehow make them more accomplished than others? I don’t agree with this at all.

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.

Leg up on what? I don’t get this competitive angle you’re going with.

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.

Meh. There are background options in5e that give similar benefits. There are any number of things you can come up with for characters to have a reputation or to be renowned in some way.

Again, if all of this is done together, why would you expect a problem?

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.

So maybe they should work to make their characters as interesting as the last mage? Maybe the GM should work with them to give them opportunities for that to happen?

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.

This all sounds terribly dramatic and interesting!

SHOOT IT DOWN!!!

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.

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.

Two decades only? It’s been going on way longer than that.

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.

GM’s should, I think, consider the group’s fun and cohesion when making their setting. While it's entirely possible for them to think that it's benign to come up with a setting 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 players.

Barring an unusual campaign or setting premise, even if there's just one caster in the PC party there's assumed to be other casters out there in the setting, and that magic is a known and-or generally-accepted fact of life; and that there's a caster here isn't anything out of the ordinary.

This is very different from magic not being known and-or generally accepted and the PC caster being the only one of its kind.

Listen… one mage is closer to zero mages than it is to many mages. It’s simple.

That depends, too. In a higher-lethality game, or a years-long one where players regularly cycle characters in and out (and players come and go as real-life dictates), the setting becomes the constant reliable element underneath it all.

This is like saying the point of dinner is the table.

I'm not so sure.

Your side is the confusing side of any player can "just say" their character has ultimate cosmic power to ruin the game at will. And oddly, you not only think that is the greatest thing ever. But you also think every game should be like that to be "better".

And, as always, I never get the: The Dm sits there and a player comes over and says something and the Dm just bows and says "yes player" to everything.

It's not like I never have a 'Last Mage' in a game, but only for the very rare good player.

Your decision to caricature the games of others says more about your own game than it does theirs.

 

[Alzrius]

What convention? Why is the GM not considered to be overturning convention with the no magic thing?

Again, your view seems to rely on the GM deciding the world elements ahead of time and then the players are meant to make characters within that setting, per the GM’s dictates.

But that’s not how it must be done.

There is no "must" to any of this, and no one is saying otherwise. I'm pointing out that I've run into this idea of "the player has an idea for their character that overturns some aspect of the setting" before, and in my experience it's been more of a drawback than an asset. I'm sure that it can be made to work (almost anything can be, if everyone's on board and willing to put in the effort), but I don't see it as being worthwhile for the effort involved, especially when the bulk of the benefits can be reaped in other ways that are less prone to causing problems.

The GM isn't overturning convention because the GM is (to make a major generalization) the one who figures out what the conventions of the setting are in the first place. World generation, in my experience, isn't a collaborative process. While a good GM will typically have a conversation with the players ahead of time about certain aspects of it, they're ultimately the ones who have to do most of the work ahead of time. If they're the ones who ultimately arbitrate, then they're not overturning anything, unless it's some aspect of a pre-fab campaign that they're altering.

Who says they won’t? If a PC has some kind of unique aspect to them, why does that somehow make them more accomplished than others? I don’t agree with this at all.

It's not just being unique, it's being unique in a way that has them turning some aspect of how the world works on its head. When your character is a walking demonstration that how everyone thinks the world works is not in fact the case, they're much more likely to stand out, which makes their impact outsized compared to the other party members.

Leg up on what? I don’t get this competitive angle you’re going with.

It's not competitive, it's comparative. If you're close friends with the first and only space alien humanity has ever seen, you're pretty much going to be defined as "that one guy who's the space alien's friend" rather than whatever your name is.

Meh. There are background options in5e that give similar benefits. There are any number of things you can come up with for characters to have a reputation or to be renowned in some way.

Which is all the more reason why you don't need to overturn some aspect of the setting to achieve that. And I'm curious what background in 5E is explicitly predicated on you being the last mage in the world?

Again, if all of this is done together, why would you expect a problem?

I think I've been pretty clear about that. It's fine if no one in the group minds, but in my experience, being supporting cast members to another PC gets old, fast.

So maybe they should work to make their characters as interesting as the last mage? Maybe the GM should work with them to give them opportunities for that to happen?

Sure, they can do that. Or they can not have to do that extra work in the first place, because they're not being outshined by someone else from day one. I'm just sayin'.

This all sounds terribly dramatic and interesting!

SHOOT IT DOWN!!!

It might sound that way, but again, it's another thing to experience it over and over and over during the course of play.

Two decades only? It’s been going on way longer than that.

It probably has, but my impression is that it kicked into a higher gear right around the turn of the century. But that's just me.

GM’s should, I think, consider the group’s fun and cohesion when making their setting. While it's entirely possible for them to think that it's benign to come up with a setting 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 players.

No, I like my version better. But your decision to caricature the preferences of others says more about your own outlook than theirs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Of course they can, I'm talking about what PoV is being evinced in the discussion, not what people could do with any particular game, nor even specifically what any of you ARE doing. I mean, how can I comment on that?

 

[mamba]

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".

To me that still makes the other two more of a support. They are both there to help the mage fulfill their destiny.

That does not mean they are not important, depending on how the story unfolds, just that they are less so / derive their importance from the mage. If there were no mage, they would be irrelevant.

They then would be nobodies who through their actions become important, just like the ‘D&D side’ wants it.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've not read the thread so I may be putting out a pile of bullet points that no one cares about and/or aren't terribly applicable. But, I'm a sucker for saying things that no one cares about and aren't applicable, so here goes!

* There is TTRPG play where the question of "who is the lead (for whatever value of lead) protagonist" is a matter for aggressive play and application of system to settle, even when (or perhaps especially when) the preplay setup might either (a) generate a character whose "protagonist momentum" (lets call it) is actually greater than others (the Master in My Life With Master is intentionally set up this way) or (b) superficially it appears that way at the outset but its ultimately settled downrange of actual play.

* Personally as a GM? I'm always drawn toward/enamored with the stories of either (a) (so-called) "support characters" or (b) characters whose story tragically (and often violently) ends or just never turns out despite their best efforts. Honestly, I'm that same way with media (RIP Cormac McCarthy). Of the games I've GMed, I can absolutely point toward a host characters where the experience of witnessing their trajectory was deeply visceral and memorable to me precisely because aggressive play and application of system yielded a trajectory of distinct orientation to fulfilment (which might even include "lack of") or even decisive, defining failure.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So it doesn't seem this thread has much to do with setting consistency. (Examples in the OP aren't really inconsistencies either.)

Thurgon being the last knight of some order doesn't to me seem inconsistent with a typical medieval fantasy setting (Greyhawk?) Now if he was a last biker of a motorcycle club, it would. (Though of course as this fiction one could make this work too, but that would necessitate changing the setting significantly. It can be done, but also understandable if the GM doesn't want to.)

Last mage in the magic has faded world doesn't prima facie seems like an inconsistency either. Granted, we don't know the details of the "no magic" situation, so for some iterations it could be. But to me it looks more like the player riffing on the concept rather than ignoring it. It doesn't to me seem like same situation than discussed in several D&D threads, where some player insists on specific character concept regardless of the setting, or even before knowing what the setting is like.

But there has been quite a bit discussion about how "special" the characters should be, which actually seems to be mainly about how much their backstories should direct the course of the campaign. There is no right or wrong answer to this. In one hand it is good thing if the character backstories organically drive the campaign. They are the main characters in any case, so might as well tie everything to their backstories, right? The reason to not do this, is the same than the reason to have no overarching GM "main story." It is restrictive. The game will be about that, and there will be little breathing room for anything else. If you want to run more episodic or sand boxy campaign, this is a bad fit. On the other hand if you want an ongoing narrative where the characters are in the focus, it is probably a good idea.

Contrast Star Wars with Star Trek. Star Wars is about chosen ones and the epic struggle between light and dark which is directly linked to the main characters. Star Trek on the other hand (even the films) is more episodic. Enterprise is a great ship, and the characters some of the best officers in the fleet, but they aren't really that special in the context of the setting. And they face myriad of different situations, some that are more personal, some not. Both approaches work, both are great. But they're different. It just depends on what sort of stories you want to tell.