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

[Baron Opal II]

How so?

One is the goal of the campaign, and the other is oppositional to the point of obviation of the premise. You don't start with the goal, you work toward it.

 

[Alzrius]

If I have a NASCAR license and 100 races under my belt then I have a certain cred when talking about how things go at Daytona, right? Now maybe your 20 years of Sprint Bike racing is equally relevant when discussing racing culture or something, but we are each authorities on our thing. Don't you agree?

I don't agree that the analogy is an apt one. The topic is what we enjoy and why we enjoy it (and what we don't like and why), not an issue of developing skills.

Now, there are some tangential issues that are skill-related, such as the aforementioned ability of GMs to think on their feet when something unexpected happens. But those tangents are just that: tangents. That's not going to speak to whether or not someone's disposition toward some aspect of play deserves to be criticized.

Surely specific relevant experience counts for something. I don't see it as impertinent to try to get a read on that, especially when I hear common misconceptions about what I know about. Preference and experience are not related.

It's because preference and experience aren't related that asking for the latter when the topic is the former is futile. When someone tells you that they don't like to eat meat, it's both pointless and rather rude to then insist that you have twenty years of experience as a butcher and have tried dozens of different kinds of meat in myriad different recipes, so you're qualified to criticize whatever experience led to them deciding not to eat meat.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not really. There have been enough people posting similar comments in this thread that any such "challenge" is largely pointless. It's not unique to me, and after that, well, how much it is or is not representative of anything beyond that is essentially unfalsifiable (other than, I suppose, pointing out that the largest RPGs don't seem to lend themselves to collaborative world-building). To that end, asking for more details of personal experience is pointless anyway, so I'm not sure why you keep doing it.

Likewise, I don't believe that your experiences are instructive or noteworthy for anyone else. Quite the opposite, really.

...which completely misses my point of the futility of doing so. No one has to defend their experiences, as you yourself just stipulated to a few sentences prior.

At this point, my questions are largely why you think your experiences are at all instructive to anyone else, let alone give you some sort of basis for criticizing the experiences of others. You claim to have played a number of non-trad RPGs; okay, but have you played enough for that to be something that someone else should put any stock in? There are thousands of RPGs out there, and you seem to be acquainted with only a fraction of a percentage of them; why should we think that you have anything worth listening to if that's all you've tried? And of course, that's not even getting into the quality of those experiences in and of themselves (let alone how you measure quality).

All of which is to point out the futility of this entire endeavor. You can't simultaneously grant that someone's experiences are valid to them while also holding that you can criticize them. You can't even say that the points I'm bringing up are some sort of fringe, since there have been plenty of people here who have had experiences similar to my own. This attempt to say that your opinion is somehow more credible is entirely baseless.
That's not what you're imbuing yourself with the power to decide: it's the validity of my experiences, and that's up to me, not you.

Can you quantify "the vibe" in terms of why you think talking about personal experience doesn't change it?

Likewise.

Well, I can't tell you why you're posting what you're posting, but so far your stated reasons have been to try and suggest that you think you have standing to criticize the personal experiences of other people. I don't think you do.

Nothing "needs" to be anything in a game of imaginative fantasy, as I've said countless times by now. I disagree with the idea that someone who's had problems with the idea of overturning setting consistency is somehow "doing it wrong," which is what "criticizing your experiences" boils down to.

Alzrius... again, the fisking and constant back and forth isn't getting anywhere. I've said what I said, you've said what you said. I don't think your criticisms of collaborative world building are all that relevant beyond your own group. You don't like that... fine. I can't do anything to change your mind.

If you want to ask questions about my experiences, please feel free. But I'm not going to continue this back and forth because it's not getting us anywhere.

Why? It's just three examples. Out of the myriad RPGs out there, why are these specific three worthy of special attention? What makes your particular examples of play with them instructive?

I explained how each one was used for collaborative world building and how suited the game was for that to happen. That's what makes the examples relevant. If it helps, I'll offer some more details about Heart.

As I said, the game utterly relies on collaboration. The environment into which the PCs delve in the game adapts to their subconscious... their wants and desires, their loves and fears. So you really cannot prep a whole lot for play until you have PCs already created. Or at least, already sketched out. You then take those details from the PCs and you craft challenges based on their fears and desires. The game is very player driven, so it eschews traditional prep. It's not prep free, but most of what you prep will be in response to the players and what the characters do and want.

A big part of play... the part that character advancement relies upon... is Beats. These are like XP triggers. The player selects two prior to play, and then if they manage to do those things in play, they get an advance.... either a new ability or a stat boost, what have you. So in order for characters to advance, the GM has to work these things into the game. If they ignore the beats, the characters will never advance, and the players will be dissatisfied.

Additionally, there are static world elements in the setting as well. The Heart may be constantly changing, but that doesn't mean everything is. Many of the characters will have connections to existing organizations or NPCs in the world. These organizations, locations, and NPCs are loosely defined, with lots to be developed during play by the GM and the players. For instance, the Hounds are an organization of soldiers, the 33rd Regiment, that braved the Heart, and mostly been lost. However, there are some that have survived and resurfaced. What caused them to vanish? What happened to them? Why are some back? These questions have no canonical answers. They're left up to the group to decide.

There is nothing about Heart that I would say is more difficult than most RPGs. It's simply different. Instead of crafting maps and monster status and NPCs before play begins, you introduce these things during play, based on prompts from the players. There's great advice and guidance on how to do so in the book. They even break it down into three sections: new to RPGs overall, new to narrative RPGS, and new to Heart.

The setting is totally viable and holds up on its own. It doesn't suffer from players wanting the spotlight... in fact, it's very much tailored to the specific characters by design. The setting doesn't break down in any way because it has multiple people actively contributing to its creation. The fact that it's designed specifically to deliver that kind of experience really helps. Other games that don't actively promote this kind of play may fall short in that regard.

Again, I don't know if you're familiar with this game at all or not, but feel free to ask any questions. I think talking about specific games and examples is the only way forward, so please comment on this or share your own examples.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Where the premise is that magic is gone but maybe one or more of the PCs can do something to bring it back, there's a clear journey involved from start to goal. Or when the premise is that magic is gone for good, there's a clear shift in focus to a non-magical setting and campaign.

Sure, but the OP mentioned that the goal of the last mage was to bring magic back. That's why the two ideas seemed very similar to me. The last mage looking to restore magic or the first new mage looking to do so. Seems pretty similar.

Both will likely involve a quest to restore magic. Organizations or entities devoted to stopping that. The mystery or event that caused magic to vanish. Why and how one person can still have it or gain it.

There seems to be a lot of similar ground being covered.

When the premise is that magic is gone (but wait: not quite gone, one PC still has it,) there's no clear journey, and the focus might very reasonably become one of keeping that last mage alive at all costs. Which would get pretty boring for the last mage's player when the rest of the party says "Yeah, you're far too valuable to risk - we're locking you in this padded bubble until we can figure out how to somehow generate more of you. And while you're in that bubble, your job is to teach as many people as you can how to do what you can do. Meanwhile, we'll be out here adventuring."

That sounds like a terrible way to interpret it as a game. Who would do that?

One is the goal of the campaign, and the other is oppositional to the point of obviation of the premise. You don't start with the goal, you work toward it.

See above. You've since clarified that the character of the "new mage" wouldn't begin play as a mage... so that's a bit different than I was expecting. However, I still think it's going to likely cover a lot of the same concepts and themes.

 

[Baron Opal II]

See above. You've since clarified that the character of the "new mage" wouldn't begin play as a mage... so that's a bit different than I was expecting. However, I still think it's going to likely cover a lot of the same concepts and themes.

Noted. I disagree and find them quite divergent. I've explained my position as well as I can.

 

[Alzrius]

Alzrius... again, the fisking and constant back and forth isn't getting anywhere. I've said what I said, you've said what you said. I don't think your criticisms of collaborative world building are all that relevant beyond your own group. You don't like that... fine. I can't do anything to change your mind.

It's not that I don't "like" that you think my criticisms aren't relevant, it's that I think you're wrong to try and decide what constitutes "relevant" to anyone except you, which you're doing again here (i.e. "outside your own group," apparently as opposed to your own experiences, which you seem to think are relevant to a lot of people). Again, a lot of other people have echoed the issues and concerns that I've brought up here. I know you feel free to discount them, which I think does them a disservice, but that's your prerogative.

If you want to ask questions about my experiences, please feel free. But I'm not going to continue this back and forth because it's not getting us anywhere.

Again, I don't think that interrogating someone else's experiences is useful, at least when it comes to trying to determine whether or not they're valid for anyone else (i.e. criticizing them).

I explained how each one was used for collaborative world building and how suited the game was for that to happen. That's what makes the examples relevant. If it helps, I'll offer some more details about Heart.

As I said, the game utterly relies on collaboration. The environment into which the PCs delve in the game adapts to their subconscious... their wants and desires, their loves and fears. So you really cannot prep a whole lot for play until you have PCs already created. Or at least, already sketched out. You then take those details from the PCs and you craft challenges based on their fears and desires. The game is very player driven, so it eschews traditional prep. It's not prep free, but most of what you prep will be in response to the players and what the characters do and want.

A big part of play... the part that character advancement relies upon... is Beats. These are like XP triggers. The player selects two prior to play, and then if they manage to do those things in play, they get an advance.... either a new ability or a stat boost, what have you. So in order for characters to advance, the GM has to work these things into the game. If they ignore the beats, the characters will never advance, and the players will be dissatisfied.

Additionally, there are static world elements in the setting as well. The Heart may be constantly changing, but that doesn't mean everything is. Many of the characters will have connections to existing organizations or NPCs in the world. These organizations, locations, and NPCs are loosely defined, with lots to be developed during play by the GM and the players. For instance, the Hounds are an organization of soldiers, the 33rd Regiment, that braved the Heart, and mostly been lost. However, there are some that have survived and resurfaced. What caused them to vanish? What happened to them? Why are some back? These questions have no canonical answers. They're left up to the group to decide.

There is nothing about Heart that I would say is more difficult than most RPGs. It's simply different. Instead of crafting maps and monster status and NPCs before play begins, you introduce these things during play, based on prompts from the players. There's great advice and guidance on how to do so in the book. They even break it down into three sections: new to RPGs overall, new to narrative RPGS, and new to Heart.

The setting is totally viable and holds up on its own. It doesn't suffer from players wanting the spotlight... in fact, it's very much tailored to the specific characters by design. The setting doesn't break down in any way because it has multiple people actively contributing to its creation. The fact that it's designed specifically to deliver that kind of experience really helps. Other games that don't actively promote this kind of play may fall short in that regard.

Again, I don't know if you're familiar with this game at all or not, but feel free to ask any questions. I think talking about specific games and examples is the only way forward, so please comment on this or share your own examples.

I think it's important to note that, at the end of the proverbial day, none of this is instructive for anyone else. I get that you had a very positive experience with this, and like it quite a bit, but ultimately that's not really going to determine anything about what anyone else takes away from it (though it might give them some impetus to try). But there's no sort of insight here that would be any more valid than the insight of someone who hated the game, or found it boring, or simply read your description and didn't think it was worthwhile to take a further look at. Which is kind of the point that I've been making; if someone else wants to know more, they can certainly ask you, but you don't get to say that someone else with a different experience should have that experience "criticized" because you presumably know better (i.e. because you don't).

I'm glad you like Heart, and want to share it with others; that's great. Really, it is. But how much anyone else takes away from that is up to them, not you, and whatever they do (or don't) take away from it is no less valid than what you do.

 

[Lanefan]

On the question of experience:

I'll go out on a very short limb here and guess that everyone posting in this thread has somewhere between "loads of" and "far too much" experience at GMing. As such, we've all learned (probably the hard way in some cases) what works for us and what doesn't; along with also learning some general basic principles* that more or less apply to all.

We can mostly agree on the basic principles, I think, but we get lost in the weeds when it comes to what works for us and what doesn't; because what works great for me might look ludicrous to you, and vice-versa.

It's also a question of a) learning and b) respecting our own limitations. For me, I'm awful at note-taking during a session; which means the odds are high that if a situation comes up where I have to make up anything important on the fly I won't remember the details later when I come to write up the game log. And asking the players to take notes isn't an option unless I want to meta-telegraph a) that I'm winging it and b) that this is important and will be on the test. Result: I try** to ensure the important details are noted during prep, and when I do have to wing it I try** not to add in too many important details.

Someone else, on the other hand, might be far better at winging it all and find that prep imposes too many limits.

* - some examples: show up on time for the games, be committed to what you're running, be willing and able to (learn how to) hit player-thrown curveballs, things like that.
** - success continues to elude me on an all-too-regular basis.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, but the OP mentioned that the goal of the last mage was to bring magic back. That's why the two ideas seemed very similar to me. The last mage looking to restore magic or the first new mage looking to do so. Seems pretty similar.

Both will likely involve a quest to restore magic. Organizations or entities devoted to stopping that. The mystery or event that caused magic to vanish. Why and how one person can still have it or gain it.

There seems to be a lot of similar ground being covered.

Perhaps. The one big difference that leaps out is that the last-mage arc can't include the (perhaps lenghty) arc leading to the first mage discovering magic.

That sounds like a terrible way to interpret it as a game. Who would do that?

I would.

If I'm playing a character with even a shred of wisdom in a party that contains the last known mage in the world, there's no way in hell I'm letting that mage anywhere near anything risky; and "anything risky" most certainly includes field adventuring. I don't care if it's someone else's PC, there's not a chance it's going adventuring if I have anything to say about it.

That mage should be behind glass in the equivalent of a museum where others can study her, learn from her, maybe even try to replicate her.

See above. You've since clarified that the character of the "new mage" wouldn't begin play as a mage... so that's a bit different than I was expecting. However, I still think it's going to likely cover a lot of the same concepts and themes.

Maybe. Or maybe the rediscovery of magic is a trial-balloon throw-in to some other story arc, maybe or maybe not leading to anything.

Let's say the campaign thus far has been about a group of Dwarves looking to take back their ancestral home (i.e. the Hobbit plot, but without magic); and somewhere along the way (the Barrow Downs? the troll cave?) someone finds an old yet still functional spellbook in a hoard. From here things can go in different directions: they can ignore the book and focus on the original arc, they can drop the original arc and focus on the book (thus leading to the return of magic once someone figures out the contents and how to use them), or they can do some of both.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's not that I don't "like" that you think my criticisms aren't relevant, it's that I think you're wrong to try and decide what constitutes "relevant" to anyone except you, which you're doing again here (i.e. "outside your own group," apparently as opposed to your own experiences, which you seem to think are relevant to a lot of people).

Well, I have actually learned quite a bit from other folks here on ENW. And most of that was due to people challenging the established wisdom. So that’s what I’ve been doing in this thread.

Again, a lot of other people have echoed the issues and concerns that I've brought up here. I know you feel free to discount them, which I think does them a disservice, but that's your prerogative.

So what? Plenty of people have advocated for collaborative world building, too. That more people may default to the more common way doesn’t dissuade me. I’m not discounting their opinions. I have no doubt that they are perfectly happy doing things the way they like and have always done it.

Notice, I’m not saying that way doesn’t work. I think that’s the key difference.

Again, I don't think that interrogating someone else's experiences is useful, at least when it comes to trying to determine whether or not they're valid for anyone else (i.e. criticizing them).

I mean… I would think a person’s experience is very relevant. You keep bringing up your experiences.

I think it's important to note that, at the end of the proverbial day, none of this is instructive for anyone else.

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, I learned from many such discussions. This particular exchange has probably outlived it’s usefulness because we’re in the weeds about it and you now don’t want to talk about specific examples. So there’s really nothing left to say at this point.

 

[Alzrius]

Well, I have actually learned quite a bit from other folks here on ENW. And most of that was due to people challenging the established wisdom. So that’s what I’ve been doing in this thread.

And that's fine. Seriously, there's nothing wrong with sharing your experiences, and learning whatever you can from others. It's when you start saying that because someone else's experiences don't match with your own, they become worthy of criticism, that's when the issues arise.

So what? Plenty of people have advocated for collaborative world building, too. That more people may default to the more common way doesn’t dissuade me. I’m not discounting their opinions. I have no doubt that they are perfectly happy doing things the way they like and have always done it.

Notice, I’m not saying that way doesn’t work. I think that’s the key difference.

That's not a key difference, though. I'm not issuing any sort of flat-out statement that your way "doesn't work," despite some people seeming to go out of their way to twist my statement regarding viability. Quite the contrary, the entire reason I've repeatedly emphasized my own experiences (which has also ruffled some feathers for reasons I still don't understand) was to make it explicit that I wasn't issuing any sort of declaration that your approach doesn't work. Just that there are a not-inconsiderable number of people for whom it doesn't, and that their reasons are valid, and don't deserve to be criticized.

I mean… I would think a person’s experience is very relevant. You keep bringing up your experiences.

And I appreciate you saying that, but it's important to then recognize that these experiences aren't open to criticism from others. Personal opinions regarding likes and dislikes aren't a matter of being valid/right/etc.

Maybe, maybe not. As I said, I learned from many such discussions. This particular exchange has probably outlived it’s usefulness because we’re in the weeds about it and you now don’t want to talk about specific examples. So there’s really nothing left to say at this point.

The reason I don't want to talk about specific examples is because that way leads back to the idea that those examples can be criticized, which is judgmental and gatekeep-y. The idea that you can learn something from someone else's experience doesn't mean that you can treat it your own as necessarily being something that others can learn from; whether or not they take anything away from your anecdotes and stories is up to them to decide, not you, and whatever they decide is equally valid.