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

[hawkeyefan]

That brings up the question: who is sabotaging whose fun? Most of these discussions revolve around GM vs Player. But what if the other players had been OK with the no magic campaign and the player who wants to be the last mage is sabotaging their fun? While that may not be quite as stark as Lanefan's example of the other players sticking the last mage in a protected cage (though, if they did something like that, it kind of says what the other players feel about the last mage's choice of characters), the mage wannabe may be the one disrupting the dynamic. In the OP example, did the other players start out wanting to create characters revolving around the last mage's power? Or did they have a different first choice?
I can certainly imagine there being some irritation about one player's choice having such an impact on the campaign direction.

Well, in the example from the OP, the other players made characters that connected directly to the last mage concept. That player was also acting out of excitement for an idea, not acting to shut down anyone else’s play. But then again, they were hypothetical.

If there was anyone who was so against the last mage concept then I’d hope and expect that they’d speak up before play begins. That would seem to be the time to discuss such a thing. Waiting till play begins and then locking up a character? That’s ridiculous.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you've just got this whole Last Mage in a game where the premise leads with "No More Mages" all wrong. You even have some firsthand experience with just how damaging such a "premise break" is!

Remember our Stonetop game? Remember where you played the Prophet Judge?



Remember how much this obnoxious premise-break destroyed our game. The line of Judges was broken long ago and you have the temerity to break with that premise and become the lone servant of Aratis in a new age, attempting to establish a new line of Judges.

I couldn't even believe you would do such a terrible thing. Game never got off the ground because of your terrible, Main-Character-Syndrome, premise-break. I hope you feel bad!

Yeah, it’s a pretty good example. Luckily, all the other characters were just as thematic and interesting, and each of us had plenty of focus.

It’s almost like we all knew how to handle it and none of the concerns suggested ever really came about. Like they’re, I don’t know… phantom fears, or something.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you've just got this whole Last Mage in a game where the premise leads with "No More Mages" all wrong. You even have some firsthand experience with just how damaging such a "premise break" is!

Remember our Stonetop game? Remember where you played the Prophet Judge?



Remember how much this obnoxious premise-break destroyed our game. The line of Judges was broken long ago and you have the temerity to break with that premise and become the lone servant of Aratis in a new age, attempting to establish a new line of Judges.

I couldn't even believe you would do such a terrible thing. Game never got off the ground because of your terrible, Main-Character-Syndrome, premise-break. I hope you feel bad!

It depends on how the premise was presented. If it was presented as "there is no more magic since magic died out in the world" and the group agreed to that premise, a player trying to play a wizard is being disruptive. He agreed to no magic and then asked for magic. If the setting was presented as "Magic died out long ago and is no more, but you guys are trying to bring it back", then possibly a wizard could be made, but even that would be disruptive if done immediately, as that isn't bringing it back, but presenting it as still there.

As always, the answer to whether it will work or not is, it depends. Circumstances matter. You cannot say that players should always be allowed to break the premise or you are big bad wrong preventing the player from having his fun. Sometimes it is in fact the player trying to big bad wrong prevent everyone else from having their fun. Stick with what you agreed to, if an agreement was made.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, it’s a pretty good example. Luckily, all the other characters were just as thematic and interesting, and each of us had plenty of focus.

It’s almost like we all knew how to handle it and none of the concerns suggested ever really came about. Like they’re, I don’t know… phantom fears, or something.

And that's fantastic. There are lots of fun ways to play out a scenario like that. It all depends on what was agreed to ahead of time, and if everyone agreed to the last mage idea, have at it!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's the 4e synthesis. The premise of universal stats in 3.x was precisely the opposite; that I might very well care about the bartender's Profession (publican) skill, or his Listen check, or I should be able derive from a game mechanic how likely he is to hit the fighter when a brawl breaks out.

You could make the argument that 4e was both a reversion to and an expansion of earlier edition norms.

Honestly? Nobody made up stats for unimportant random barkeeps. At most they might note some personality feature or specific want or bit of information they're in the market to sell, as required to run the plot of the day or lay a hook in the 'sandbox'. 1e, 3e, 4e, 5e, its all the same. In 1e you MIGHT bother to note hit points, AC, and some sort of weapon they keep under the bar simply because it is so easy to do. 4e, maybe if something comes up you drop in the villager minion stat block or whatever. I mean, 4e actually notes nominal ability scores for everything, though they rarely come into play. In 4e or 5e you'd probably note the characters skill bonus in a couple relevant skills instead.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not defending the utility of listing the CON - or any other ability - of the human rogue in the cell, Obmi, or all of the Drow. Merely pointing out the fact that Gygax did, in fact, list all of these. Dex and Con bonuses appear factored into AC and HP. Str bonuses are noted. Magical plusses are factored in.

I'm looking at 1978.

The Drow? Why are they heavily standardized? - I'm talking about those above the baseline, with additional Cleric and MU levels. What do they omit?

Well, they appear legal - if by legal, you mean they comport with the rules used for PCs. What makes you think they're not?

The entry for the Drow at the back of G3 is pretty exhaustive.

Well, I don't remember if a PC writeup is in G3, I know it appears in UA and I'm pretty sure there was a Dragon version, but I'm definitely not going back to research that stuff. As I said, the monster and the PC versions, wherever they appear, ARE DIFFERENT. PC drow do not get all the special abilities of NPC drow for instance.

 

[Campbell]

I think what matters is whether or not people are thoughtful and able collaborators. I think being open to new ideas is important, but so can adhering to a vision. My overall stance is that merely asking should never be taken as rude. Insisting sure. What I don't want to get to the point of is a place where players feel like they cannot bring their own idea to the game, where in the process of getting to buy in we aren't willing to consider other peoples' ideas. Where not making waves becomes more important than creatively contributing.

I think generally where we run into this issue is that we have not actually achieved buy in. Often, we assume we have it, but we haven't actually closed the sale. This applies to both character and campaign concepts. I don't think it is wise to assume people will just get on board without making genuine effort to do so.

This is an area I personally need to take some accountability on. There have been times both as a player and a GM that I have assumed everyone was well aware of the direction I was trying to take play and had bought in without actually checking with people. I mean a Session Zero can be helpful here but buy in is not something that you set in at the start of the game and assume it continues the whole way through. Games evolve and regular check-ins can help to ensure we are all still on the same page.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Honestly? Nobody made up stats for unimportant random barkeeps. At most they might note some personality feature or specific want or bit of information they're in the market to sell, as required to run the plot of the day or lay a hook in the 'sandbox'. 1e, 3e, 4e, 5e, its all the same. In 1e you MIGHT bother to note hit points, AC, and some sort of weapon they keep under the bar simply because it is so easy to do. 4e, maybe if something comes up you drop in the villager minion stat block or whatever. I mean, 4e actually notes nominal ability scores for everything, though they rarely come into play. In 4e or 5e you'd probably note the characters skill bonus in a couple relevant skills instead.

I found 3E to be different in this respect, with things like NPC classes. I definitely had players who expected stats for NPCs and for you to follow the rules for them in the book. Obviously not everyone would get them, but the books did provide stock stats for NPCs with different levels so you could use those. But for me, 3E had the most strong sense of parity between player characters and the world in terms of how the mechanics flowed. I think the problem is many people came to equate that with setting consistency, because it feels like there is an underlying mechanical physics. Personally I found this actually produced problems with setting consistency (and I am not antagonistic to 3E, I liked it, but this is definitely an area where the game felt over engineered to me)

 

[hawkeyefan]

And that's fantastic. There are lots of fun ways to play out a scenario like that. It all depends on what was agreed to ahead of time, and if everyone agreed to the last mage idea, have at it!

Yeah, I think that’s the point of the OP. To be open to ideas that may seem different than you expected. To not reflexively disagree because we’re being too precious about our own ideas.

 

[Laurefindel]

I found 3E to be different in this respect, with things like NPC classes. I definitely had players who expected stats for NPCs and for you to follow the rules for them in the book. Obviously not everyone would get them, but the books did provide stock stats for NPCs with different levels so you could use those. But for me, 3E had the most strong sense of parity between player characters and the world in terms of how the mechanics flowed. I think the problem is many people came to equate that with setting consistency, because it feels like there is an underlying mechanical physics. Personally I found this actually produced problems with setting consistency (and I am not antagonistic to 3E, I liked it, but this is definitely an area where the game felt over engineered to me)

Yeah, 3e really tried to be symmetrical and provide complete stats for as many things as possible. It was indeed over-engineered, even though it was good engineering (and a game-changer for the time).