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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wondered if it is relevant to this line of conversation to look at Deities and Demigods, which lists character class levels for the entities within, while also granting them miraculous features. They're not positioned as direct adversaries of player characters, yet it wasn't unheard of for high-level campaigns to feature them.

I suspect that the designers had not made a systematic assessment of and decision upon the matter. Hence the availability of conflicting texts.

Well, clearly they don't follow anything like PC rules. Equally clearly they have practically limitless power bounded only by plot needs. I mean 1e DMG literally states gods can simply perform wish-like miracles at the behest of PCs, though very rarely and not for free.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

What we're talking about here is genre, theme, and premise-based constraint. The general matters to be settled in play follow this. The GM's situation-framing and consequence-framing follows this. PC build and player action declaration follows this. System inputs (hopefully) follow this. Who has authority over that? Is it system, is it the GM, is the players? Is it a coalition of two of the three or all three in concert?

I'm very much for heterogeneity here. My Life With Master shouldn't be featuring Aliens inputs (for the GM or the PCs) upon play. You can take that same ball and run in many different directions.

But we need to recognize that there are gameplay consequences (agency over content broadly and in-situ agency over the nature of protagonism and its movement through various states during play specifically) and social consequences in the form of trade-offs when we organize around one model (which constituent part has what amount of say over this stuff) vs another model. That doesn't necessarily make one model good, bad, or better than another...but they don't produce the same experience of moment-to-moment and throughline of play (for any of the participants).

An easy example is the Stonetop game I mentioned above. If the orthodox position of the game/setting is "the line of Judges was broken and The Chronicle lost long ago"...but...the game produces an avenue of exception to this in the form of the Prophet background...a GM vetoing a player opting-into that PC build that isn't an inconsequential thing. It very much has impact. It becomes even more consequential if the default orientation of the system's (in this case Stonetop) position on GM authority doesn't grant the GM this veto authority. It becomes even more consequential still if it promotes the inverse of that GM veto authority. Right?

 

[Lanefan]

Only if the PCs actions warrant it (what if they're really clever about not using their magic in obvious ways) or the GM forces the issue.

You seem to be assuming D&D-style fireballs, but that's a big assumption. Look at Mage: the Ascension, where you're required to make your magic as unobtrusive as possible. If you want to shoot a lightning bolt at a target, that's bad; it causes Paradox. If you want to subtly rearrange reality so that a car crashes into a utility pole and causes the power lines to snap and one of them to hit your target, thus electrocuting them, that's fine, because it seems to be a mundane event.

And in D&D, most spellcasters are going to have access to a very large number of spells that do all manner of things. That's not true in other games; in many games, you only get a handful of spells, if that. In SWADE, for instance, you're probably not going to start with more than three or four spells (and often less), and it's unlikely you'll learn more than a dozen over the course of the entire game.

If your last mage only knows a couple of spells that have a relatively small number of uses, the game is not going to revolve around them. The other PCs are going to be far more useful in most situations.

Another determinant would be just how well-known this last-mage's existence is or has become. If she just recently came into her talent and only the rest of the party (if even they!) know about it, that's far different - and far easier to deal with in play - than if it's known far and wide that Jocasta is the last known mage in the world.

Because you, the GM, are not required to write adventures about it. Maybe you only play in completely open sandboxes, but you have to realize that's not the case with most games.

My point is that it doesn't matter what I write adventures about. The adventures could ignore the last-mage piece entirely and yet most of the time it'd still be top-of-mind for all involved: "We have to protect Jocasta, she's the last mage." "Does anyone in this town know what Jocasta is, i.e. how much care do we need to take?" , and so forth.

The GM is also going to have to give some thought as to how - or if - Jocasta's abilities can increase or expand in step with the rest of the PCs. The improvements among the other PC can be easily explained in the fiction through training, practice, and so on; but any new abilities or spells for Jocasta are probably going to have to come to her spontaneously...which, depending on system, might force the GM into using or devising mechanics she otherwise might have not.

That player was a jerk then, because your character decisions are not up to other players to force. Especially not with mind-rape magic like charm person.

Yes, it is. This is bad behavior. You shouldn't be tolerating this at your table.

In this case it wasn't just the one player. That, and I'm fully in the "do what the character would do" camp both as GM and player; and when what two (or more) characters would do is diametrically opposed then I've no problem with that being sorted in-character to whatever extent is required.

So forcing a player to have their PC stay at home and forcing a player to continue playing a PC they don't want to are both OK, but actively choosing for your own character to act as a bodyguard is not OK? So, you're fine with things that affect others as long as they don't affect you, personally? Wow.

Er...you might have missed that the PC that was forced to continue play was mine; which means it did affect me.

And the bodyguard piece comes back to doing what the charcacter would do. If I'm playing a warrior-type who's at loose ends and looking for a place in the world and you present me with this task/duty then sure, I'm your bodyguard as long as you need one. But if I'm playing a free-thinking scout type with her own goals and ambitions and who doesn't want to be tied down being someone's protector then you can - how did that old song go? - take that job and shove it.

And that would be dumb move on your part. It's no more sensible for you to go adventuring then it is for a last mage to be adventuring.

Sure it would. In the end (and if it comes down to it; ideally, it doesn't), as a more ordinary warrior or scout (or whatever my function is) I'm far more expendable than is the only one of something that any of us will ever see again. Your bodyguard PC is a perfect example: in that role, if things get desperate, my job as bodyguard is to take that metaphorical bullet and sacrifice myself so that the last mage can survive.

Which would also be a jerk move, because part of the game is to work as a team, not to betray each other like that. And again, maybe your games are filled with people who don't understand or care about concepts like teamwork or consent, but most games are not like that.

Some characters work well in teams, others don't. Most often it's a mix. Betrayal, double-crossing, hidden agendae, or just pure chaos (benign or otherwise) - it's all fair game.

And most gamers actually care about their characters to not just shrug their shoulders like this.

I very much advocate not getting emotionally attached out-of-game to one's character(s). Sure, share the emotions of the character while it's in play, but also realize and recognize that it's just a character; and that when (not if!) bad things happen to it you (general you) have to be detached, and take what humour and-or entertainment from it that you can.

To me, perhaps the worst type of player is the one who gets hissy or pouty at the table when something bad happens to their character(s) in the fiction.

My overarching rule: what happens in character, stays in character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To me, perhaps the worst type of player is the one who gets hissy or pouty at the table when something bad happens to their character(s) in the fiction.

I don’t think it’s a matter of getting mad at negative things happening… that’s part of the game and the possibility should be expected.

But when other players choose to block a character when they could just as easily choose not to, that’s just dumb.

I mean… your main criticism is that this concept is a distraction, but it would take an active choice to make it so.

So why choose that way?

 

[pemerton]

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!

Well, while we're calling out main character syndrome, let me fess up: Thurgon is a Knight of the Iron Tower, and the Last Knight, yet has met two other knights - one a hermit who poles his raft up and down the river; another undying in a crypt, whom Thurgon released.

It's premise-destroying and self-absorbed to the highest possible degree! With me and @hawkeyefan doing it, in almost antipodeal positions from one another, it's a wonder the world hasn't collapsed under our combined hubristic weight!

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I disagree. You create a world with no magic. Assuming it's an otherwise fantastical world (e.g., not the real world or a harder SF setting), why no magic? Because you didn't think about it? Because you don't want magic being an easy out? Because you don't want mages to outshine martials? Because you wanted to play in this one system that doesn't have rules for magic? I might have missed it, but I don't think I've seen anyone here address the reasons behind that limitation. If you know why you don't want magic in the game, then you can work with the player to find out why they want to play the last mage.

I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with, as the section of my post which you cited is framed largely as a question, but if you're disagreeing with the idea that genre fidelity must either yield to player autonomy or vice versa then I would suggest: in a no-magic world where the player's character is a mage, it seems that the genre has yielded. Note that I am not making a hard distinction between genre and setting, here, as I see that boundary as rather fluid.

I'm not making a value judgment; I'm not asking for justifications as to why this might be the case (there might be many reasons) - merely pointing out the fact that it has occurred.

Two things here that would need to be addressed: first, do the game's rules even allow for an Atlantean mage or a dragon PC? I took a quick look at a product page for the Pendragon Campaign (I've never played the game or read the books) and it apparently has rules for magic, and assuming that PCs are allowed to use that magic, then having a mage from Atlantis isn't a problem. Here you can talk to the player. Why Atlantis? How did you get from there to here? Since faeries seem to exist in this game, perhaps you, as the GM, can say that Atlantis is actually a fae city, another Avalon or Tir na Nog. If the rules don't allow for faerie PCs, then they can play a human who had been a "guest" of the fae for 10,000 years and only just escaped, and had picked up a few magical tricks.

And now you have potential plot hooks (fae keepers looking for an escaped pet) and a good RP hook (playing a character who has been away from other humans for thousands of years, even if a much shorter time has passed in the real world).

Dragons, of course, are a bit tougher due to perceived power levels, but again, do the rules allow such a thing? If yes, and you merely need a way to tie them into the setting, that's also easy. In folklore, there have always been strange creatures that were "saved" by being converted to Christianity. Meet Brother Grazadragram Ironscale; he donated his hoard to the church.

If there are rules to allow for "weird" PCs, or if the rules say that your non-human heritage doesn't matter, mechanics-wise, then that means that's it's either perfectly fine to play an Atlantean mage or a dragon, or that the designers were dumb enough to think that nobody would ever want to play something really weird in an otherwise Arthurian setting.

And if the rules don't allow such things, then nobody can say you're unreasonable for not allowing homebrew. If the player wants to play an Atlantean mage because Atlanteans have super-powerful tech, you can point to the equipment list and say "sorry, there's no space ships here; you can have a cart and a mule instead."

Secondly, what's the point of the game? If the point is Arthurian quests and chivalry, then why can't a dragon do those too? What's preventing Brother Grazadragram from going on a quest to find the Holy Grail, or whatever it is Pendragon PCs are assumed to be doing? If the plan is to have the PCs just faffing around the British countryside doing whatever they want, then how is letting one of them be a dragon any different?

This is why it's important to find out your player's motivation, because then you can work with them to create a character that actually fits in with the setting and genre.

All of this is fine. There are always ways of incorporating all kinds of backstories which can be made to make sense. I'm having a bit of trouble affording any particular significance to "do the rules allow?" as this constraint seems quite dispellable, if the players are all on board.

My broader point, is that - although it sounds like a blast - if the characters consist of Lady Elen, Brother Grazadragam the Dragon, Taira no Masakado and Patrique du Fe - the Mage from Atlantis - then has the game, at this point, essentially departed too far from the genre? "Arthurian Romance" runs the risk of becoming a scenic backdrop, rather than a living paradigm in which the characters are meaningfully immersed.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I do want to admit that the chosen one could indeed work well - The Wheel of Time has a ‘chosen one’ character in Perrin but also has many other equally interesting characters. Some of them are even MORE interesting.

 

[Laurefindel]

My broader point, is that - although it sounds like a blast - if the characters consist of Lady Elen, Brother Grazadragam the Dragon, Taira no Masakado and Patrique du Fe - the Mage from Atlantis - then has the game, at this point, essentially departed too far from the genre? "Arthurian Romance" runs the risk of becoming a scenic backdrop, rather than a living paradigm in which the characters are meaningfully immersed.

[emphasis mine]
Sometimes a scenic backdrop is all that is wanted or needed, and the said backdrop gives just enough flavour to make the campaign stand out as different.

Sometime a meaningful and immersive paradigm is desired instead, and the campaign will fail to stand out (in a positive way at any case) if players deviate too far from it.

I think there is room and legitimacy for both types of game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Having the genre oddities is fine sometimes but sometimes you just want to play the scenario straight, you don’t want a twist or a subversive riff off the premise, especially when it’s something like magic that is nigh omnipresent in games to the point where in DnD you’re removing basically 3/4 of available player content to work the premise, you have it in every other campaign can we just have the one without it, played straight.

 

[Maxperson]

What we're talking about here is genre, theme, and premise-based constraint. The general matters to be settled in play follow this. The GM's situation-framing and consequence-framing follows this. PC build and player action declaration follows this. System inputs (hopefully) follow this. Who has authority over that? Is it system, is it the GM, is the players? Is it a coalition of two of the three or all three in concert?

I'm very much for heterogeneity here. My Life With Master shouldn't be featuring Aliens inputs (for the GM or the PCs) upon play. You can take that same ball and run in many different directions.

But we need to recognize that there are gameplay consequences (agency over content broadly and in-situ agency over the nature of protagonism and its movement through various states during play specifically) and social consequences in the form of trade-offs when we organize around one model (which constituent part has what amount of say over this stuff) vs another model. That doesn't necessarily make one model good, bad, or better than another...but they don't produce the same experience of moment-to-moment and throughline of play (for any of the participants).

An easy example is the Stonetop game I mentioned above. If the orthodox position of the game/setting is "the line of Judges was broken and The Chronicle lost long ago"...but...the game produces an avenue of exception to this in the form of the Prophet background...a GM vetoing a player opting-into that PC build that isn't an inconsequential thing. It very much has impact. It becomes even more consequential if the default orientation of the system's (in this case Stonetop) position on GM authority doesn't grant the GM this veto authority. It becomes even more consequential still if it promotes the inverse of that GM veto authority. Right?

If a game builds into its rules exceptions what has been established via background choices, then the DM and players need to expect that those can/will be used. There are many different RPGs and many different approaches to play. What I am saying clearly wouldn't apply to RPGs or playstyles that work differently.

In a game like D&D, though, it could be that the DM wants to run a completely mundane game, so he has created a setting where magic has died out. Trying to play a wizard runs completely contrary to that established fact and there is no background that makes that okay. Any such background, class, subclass, etc. that uses magic violates the entire premise. Or maybe the DM plans on having the PCs rediscover and bring back magic. In such a case, a PC wizard could work.

As @Umbran pointed out in his response to me, opening up a dialogue about the desire to play a wizard is perfectly fine. The player may discover that the DM was planning bring back magic and can incorporate the idea into his plan. However, if the DM still says no magic, the player shouldn't be upset over the denial or insist on playing the wizard.