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

[Crimson Longinus]

This is why I framed my post above the way I did, CL.

Look at the empirical claims you're making above that you detach from "my (Crimson Longinus') particular cognitive orientation to sense of coherency or immersive state."

The first paragraph has at least one if not two. See the 4 bolded bits:

1) I understand that it makes sense to you to use PC elves and NPC elves be represented by similar rules.

2) I understand its your orientation to rules to have a CL-litmus test of simulation otherwise the rules to fiction relationship will generate a sense of baked-in incoherency.

3) I understand that if you don't have a particular brand of causal-coupling of fiction element y to rules element x then you will feel decisions around rules become increasingly arbitrary (for whatever value of increasingly).

4) I understand that you like the way your sim-based, GM extrapolations of setting : rules relationship make you feel comfortable about decisions around helpful NPCs (or unhelpful...or all dispositions in between).


But that was the thrust of my post above. Plenty of games and plenty of people don't hold any of your 1 through 4 as necessary for coherency or immersion or usability (or whatever). And design based around process rather than outcome does, in fact, have trade-offs. Just as outcome-based design has trade-offs such as "players who share CL's cognitive orientation to fiction : rules coupling and related causal logic/extrapolation likely won't dig this game!"

Sure, I was not really disagreeing you, merely elaborating. Of course it is preference thing, and not everyone cares for this. Though I think preferences similar to mine are rather common. But I've played games that work differently, and it is fine. Though I have no great desire to run such games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Inhabitants of the setting don't walk around with little stickers on their foreheads saying "PC" or "NPC" or "PC-in-waiting" or whatever. Jocasta stands out as different because of what she is - the last known mage - not because of who's playing her. Barantir the Elf Fighter and Torvellian the Elf Fighter should ideally be treated the same in and by the fiction without regard to whether either, neither, or both are PCs.

But the rules of RPGs don't just deal with the rules of some imaginary world. In fact they don't even specifically care about that. They deal with the problem of how several people can sit around a table and assume the persona of imaginary elves and fighters and such. There is a VERY REAL and even critical difference between a PC which represents the persona of a player and an NPC which does not.

Lest you think your way of playing is not like this, some very simple examples can dispel that notion entirely. For instance, you don't believe that the AD&D falling rules (1d6 damage per 10' fallen) when coupled with the hit point and dying rules actually constitute the laws of gravity and etc. of the fantasy world. I know this, you have stated it yourself on many occasions as to how you would rule if a high level PC fell a long distance. So we can dispose of the "the game tells us how the fantasy world works" argument prima facie. It, at most, gives us some convenient rules to follow which let us get on with things. The entirety of D&D combat falls squarely into this box too!

And we can see how rules are actually constitutive and produce a system by which we decide who says what, when, and why. Again, this is very clear! We can establish this easily as the primary purview of RPGs simply by surveying the range of designs which exist in this space. Even if we exclude some outliers we find that there are many which say NOTHING directly about how the fiction works! Many simply describe the participants roles in describing that fiction.

I can simply link to the article so helpfully pasted in another thread recently by @clearstream Blog Post.

It is quite clear from this that there are AMPLE reasons to have NPCs and PCs operate in different ways. Nor does 'fairness' have any traction here at all. As NPCs play a different role from PCs there's no fairness to be had by making them work the same. While there may not be 'tags' on PCs literally in the fiction, they are MOST CERTAINLY distinct in terms of play!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think this is one reason why I have so much trouble fitting into the categories I see people discuss about RPG styles. I do want a believable consistent setting, but I don't want rules aiming to simulate reality or to reflect an underpinning of physics. I feel like the rules are tools that can help achieve that aim among other things. But once a system gets deeply engineered or commits fully to this level of parity, it starts to feel more artificial to me than an actual simulation of anything.

So I don't really think it as "rules are physics" sense, not really. Rules are abstraction and approximation, but I still feel one should apply such approximation consistently.

With character creation this is particularly an issue. I think most people are good with the idea that if an NPC swings a sword and a PC swings a sword, they ought to use the same mechanic for that. But the assortment of choices presented for elves at character creation isn't necessarily a reflection of the realities of the world. It is choices specific to players. I think the worlds start to look boring if you imagine everything in it flowing from the same set of principles underlying character creation. In his OP (or perhaps it was a later post) @pemerton pointed to the issue of this impinging on creativity(and I think he had more narrative concerns in mind) but this also applies to people concerned with creating a believable and consistent world. The inhabitants of the world really feel more like video game figures than people if the GM is bound to the same set of mechanics and choices as the players for making NPCs and monsters. And even when believability and setting consistency are important, the creativity that @pemerton pointed to is also important because we are talking about games with supernatural elements that do draw on movies, books, etc for inspiration. If I can't make a cursed NPC or have to strictly do so by the laws of character creation, spells and the monster manual, I don't know....that just doesn't breathe life into a setting for me

But certainly that creativity applies to character creation too? So why not just add those fantastical deviations that might result unique NPCs into PC creation rules as well?

But then you just start playing the system itself and not really engaging the world IMO. Decisions about what rules to use shouldn't be arbitrary but the problem with having a rule for everything and rules as physics is in many individual cases they will feel a lot more arbitrary than if the system were more open

Can you give an example of what you mean? How is applying rules consistently bad? Why would you engage any more via rules if they're consistently applied compared to them being inconsistently applied? Certainly knowing that fiction X is always accompanied by a rule Y will just remove the meta pondering of what rule will today be assigned to X?

 

[Hriston]

*Gollum is a unique adversary, with his ability to live in the dark eating only fish and Goblins, his toughness, resilience, and ability to strangle, his ability to relentlessly follow the Fellowship and Frodo;​

What you've written about Gollum here, along with what you've quoted from Luke Crane in the OP, caused me to imagine the following exchange.

GM: In this game, you all play a chorus of angels who've each been granted authority over a certain aspect of reality by a deity who wields the power of creation. He has assigned you with the task of creating a vision of the world which he will then imbue with reality, filling the void which now stands empty.

Player: How about my character has some part of the gifts of all the other angels and goes out into the void to search for the power of creation for himself so he can make his own world?

GM:

 

[Bedrockgames]

So I don't really think it as "rules are physics" sense, not really. Rules are abstraction and approximation, but I still feel one should apply such approximation consistently.

Just personally, since i am a big believer in rulings, while I like rules that can be applied consistently, I also think room to be creative with how the rules are applied is important (and I am less concerned about consistently applying them the same exact way each time and more concerned about coming up with a ruling that meets the specific needs of the moment (i.e. I don't want to create an ever expanding set of more complex house rules). Again this is just my general preference for things

But certainly that creativity applies to character creation too? So why not just add those fantastical deviations that might result unique NPCs into PC creation rules as well?

I would say here it depends on the game. But the issue is complexity, balance, etc. You can have a set of rules for robust character creation (I have designed such systems myself). But at a certain point, those rules aren't going to be able to capture all the possibilities of a creative mind thinking outside the box and you will end up with cookie cutter results that still hamper GM creativity). Again, 3E tried to do this, arguably it did it exceedingly well without becoming a game like Anima or something (where it can take ages to make a character). But in my opinion that was both way overengineered and impacted setting consistency pretty badly (there were just so many edge cases that didn't fit the system that governed over everything). With D&D especially I prefer having fairly basic choices for characters generation that don't interfere with setting, that play to gamabilty and balance, but having more openness on the GM side of things in order to bring the setting to life.

Can you give an example of what you mean? How is applying rules consistently bad? Why would you engage any more via rules if they're consistently applied compared to them being inconsistently applied? Certainly knowing that fiction X is always accompanied by a rule Y will just remove the meta pondering of what rule will today be assigned to X?

It has been a while but one example that leaps to mind was magic item creation in 3E and things like monster templates in that same system. With magic item creation especially it felt like we were playing the system not playing the world. And it drained the magic out of magical items for me as well. This has always been an issue in D&D, but I think an area like that in the game is much better handled by creativity than mechanics (maybe some guidelines are fine). Other examples might be little rules like attacks of opportunity (where you start to think more in terms of the mechanics and pieces on the board than what is being described in the setting)

Sure, Applying rules consistently isn't bad. I generally apply rules consistently. But I prefer when systems have more open space for interpretation and aren't trying to govern things in the setting that a GM can manage better. Again I vastly prefer rulings. I want players engaged with what is happening in the game not what is happening in the system. I don't want them thinking "The jump skill allows me to jump X number of feet at a X percentage chance per rank". I want them to just think in terms of what the character is dealing with in the setting and how their character feels about the jump. And the idea of a good ruling is to fairly and equitably arbitrate that. I find this easier to do when the system isn't over engineered and doesn't have a rule for everything or try to cover every action

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not in AD&D, where only humans and Halflings can be 0-level.

Though maybe the MM is carrying over some legacy thing, from before the above rule was clarified?

I'm not sure there's really a 'rule', but overall it is pretty messy, actually. So, in Chainmail there were basically grades of forces, light foot, heavy foot, armored foot, and then light, medium, and heavy horse. Furthermore peasant/levy is a sort of subcategory of light foot (even worse). In D&D this got translated into hit dice, with 'peasants' being basically 1d6-1 hit points, and then 'normal soldiers' (veterans) having 1d6, and thus the 'heavy' types had to be 1d6+1. Fighting Men then got a d8 for hit points instead of d6+1 for whatever reason. The Monster Manual is an unreliable guide to ANYTHING because it was written BEFORE 1e AD&D, and thus we don't even know what a 'hit die' meant, it was defined later!

So, is an AD&D 1e goblin basically a 0 level figure? Yeah, kinda. In the case of a dwarf we have no way of knowing, but AS ORIGINALLY ENVISAGED a 'peasant' has a 1d6 hit points, maybe with a -1 but we don't know for sure as D&D doesn't have ordinary people stats. At some point during the development of the Monster Manual hit dice were redefined to a 1d8 (presumably this marks the point in Gary's development of the PHB rules where Fighters got a 1d10 hit die). It is widely accepted that at this point 'zero level humans' (IE peasants) have a 1d6 still, but that's kind of an assumption AFAIK. I don't think the DMG or MM actually define 'zero level' as a thing. There's a section called 'typical inhabitants' on p88 of the DMG which lists hit points for various sorts of 'people', but mentions nothing about race, just that they are 'non-classed'. The combat tables have a column under the fighter matrix for level 0, and here is the only place where '0 level' is defined (in a footnote which is where your 'humans and halflings only' comes from). This same footnote explains that dwarves, elves, and gnomes are 'never below first level' but what this means, especially in terms of the 'ordinary inhabitants' rules, is never explained.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean, when I look at the entry for "Buccaneer" in the Monster Manual, and discover that they are assisted by an 8th-level Magic User, how am I supposed to detail that character without making an 8th-level Magic User? With practice, I might assign some spells, some hit points, an AC etc - that might fall within a reasonable range - but I don't think AD&D ever advocates such a method. And as soon as I've assigned 2.5 x 8 hit points (or 4 x 8, for that matter) - which takes about 0.1 seconds - I've already engaged with the character creation process detailed in the PHB.

Sure, you are going to base your NPC roughly on the rules for Magic Users (which are the only spell casting rules in the game for this sort of figure). In fact a LOT of monsters have 'the casting ability of an Nth level Magic User' or somesuch (this is more common in later materials). It is a shorthand way of avoiding some much more complex description is all. In the case of the 8th level Pirate Wizard, he's still a pirate! Nor are you going to follow the full up Magic User rules, rolling for spell comprehension etc. In fact there isn't really ever detailed a way to do this, as it would literally require a 'lifepath' of some kind, not even purpose-built higher level PCs really ever get a detailed way of working out a spell book. The GM simply makes it up, whatever would be interesting for the character to have in order to play out their part in the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Honestly I think this starts to make the game very weird in terms of setting consistency. I agree you can make NPCs just like PCs in AD&D, and sometimes you need and want that, but there are also plenty of stock options and there was an attitude or culture where you didn't have to strictly do that (which I think did emerge by the time WOTC had D&D). But the problem it creates is in terms of setting is something you can see in the novels that tried to grapple with class. If class and levels are objectively underpinning the physics, this is something peopel in the setting itself ought to be able to sense. And then you have really weird moments that arise like in the Dark Elf trilogy where Drizzt is trying to find himself and a man he meets gives him insight by overseeing "You know what you are, you're a ranger!". Paraphrasing that quote, but he didn' mean, your a ranger because you protect the forest and wander, he meant deep down inside you, there is this Rangerness that is part of who you are. I always thought this was very bizarre (and I liked the Dark Elf trilogy a lot). This would periodically arise in TSR novels from that period and it never landed well because it created a very strange sense of setting. I see class and many other elements of characterization as broad simplifications meant to make characters for fun, balance, etc. And some of those things intersect with the world (the way a mage learns spells for example and the spells they cast). But many things are just simplified abstractions and shouldn't be liberalized in the setting, lest you find your inner ranger

Right, that's how I see it. In D&D class is simply a tool that is used to divide PC protagonists into different archetypes and attach rules to generating them which insure that each archetype is somewhat distinct and can function in ways that are appropriate to the sort of fiction that the player is signaling by saying "I'm a wizard." They want to cast spells, give them spells! You don't, usually, give the fighter spells because A) he didn't ask for them, and B) it muddles up the distinctions between archetypes. NONE of these considerations are relevant to NPCs, and 'class' is not a 'thing' in the fantasy world itself, at all.

I think it gets a bit fuzzy in that it would make perfectly good sense for a guy walking down the street to assume your mail-clad dude sporting a large axe is an expert in melee combat (and possibly draw other cultural inferences). He might then refer to you as a 'fighter', but in terms of how the fiction 'works', there's nothing transgressive about such a character deciding to cast Fireball! PC fighters won't have that option, but it isn't inherently 'wrong' or 'impossible', and an NPC could easily have that ability. I think TSR, in it's material, didn't much explore that in terms of stock NPCs, but I always took that as more "hey we're busy pumping out modules and this is good enough." vs someone thinking it was some sort of violation of some 'law of nature.' 2e with kits, 3e with its limitless MCing, and 4e with its powers and MCing and modularity of stat blocks all subvert the idea to one extent or another (and I'd note that OA definitely nibbled around the edges with PCs too).

 

[Faolyn]

Some characters can be trusted, others can't; and whether they're PC or NPC matters not. I've played characters who will try to turn any situation to their own advantage regardless what it means for anyone else; and I've also played characters who have been on the receiving end of such. It all depends on the specifics of character and situation.

Ona broader scale, one thing I do not generally assume is that real-world ethics and morals fully translate into the game world. Here in the real world we try to be respectful, inclusive, considerate, and all that; while in the D&D game world it's pretty much wild-west law of the jungle when you're in the field and something like "the king's word is the law" when in town.

I am trying to play a game with my friends and we all want to have fun. So we work together to make sure we all have fun, and we can't have fun if we can't trust each other or if we go all Lord of the Flies on each other. When you're in the field, you need societal rules even more, because you have no one else to rely on other than the other PCs. The only reason your games don't fall apart is for completely meta reasons, because you know it's a group game and not a solo game--in reality, you're not going to go fight the lich-queen with someone you can't trust not to steal from you or stab you in the back.

The camera in the shower wouldn't fly here either.

And yet slavery and charming other PCs is perfectly OK!?

But charming other characters? Won't say it happens all the time but it sure ain't unheard of. PCs routinely charm NPCs in order to a) extract information and-or b) take them into the party as meat shields, and if its good for the goose it's good for the gander: if the situation allows, I'll sometimes have NPCs try to charm PCs. And PCs charming other PCs, often as a non-painful means of keeping them from doing something stupid, is almost a tradition in some parties.

And as I said, that is a bad thing to do because it takes agency away from those other players.

Rime, my chaotic neutral rogue, often does stupid things. Put a button in her path and she'll push it. The DM loves her because they can guarantee I'll find the plot that way. The other players try to reason with her as to why not to do certain things, and it often works. But the idea of charming her into obediance is anathema to the rest of the party because mind-control is pretty evil. And no, we don't charm NPCs either for exactly that same reason.

Both of these are tangential at best to the question of the party protecting Jocasta more so than they'd protect anyone else, because she's the last of her kind.

And you are continuing to assume that's the primary or only option with the last mage! If she's a PC, then it's up to the players to decide if they want that party dynamic.

"Well, let's see how much help she is, first; but if she's any use then we'd better do whatever it takes to keep her upright as we ain't gonna get another one if she dies."

And here you are reducing a PC to a mere tool, rather than as a person. Rime isn't in the party because of her skills as a thief, since she has none besides stealth (Int was her dump stat and many rogue skills in 5e are Int-based; she's a swashbuckler, who rely on Dex and Cha); she's part of the party because she is friend and ally to the other characters. We have nobody who can search for traps with any reliability. We have NPCs with the party because we have befriended them or because they're part of our backstories, not because we hired them for a role.

We've had games where a PC has not been able to become friend and ally to the characters for whatever reason--typically goals or personality too different--and each time, the player had chosen to have PC leave and then made a character who could work with the group. But this is very rare, since we all find a reason to work together.

Your suggestion was that the bodyguard character agree to be hired as such by the last-mage character; and "hired" implies many things: a boss-employee dynamic and authority structure; an expectation by the employee that there will be recompense (i.e., pay) for time spent at this job, perhaps in lieu of a share of treasury; an expectation by the employer that the employee's first loyalty will be to the employer and that the employee will put the boss' interests first, and so on. In other words, a hench.

By "players" here you mean "characters", I assume.

No, I mean players. As in, two players had a discussion about their character ideas and came to the conclusion that it would be a cool party dynamic if one player was the boss and the other was their secretary.

Are these secretaries truly employees of those who they secretary for? I ask because if yes, the boss-employee authority dynamic means there's a situation where one character can legitimately tell another character what to do and expect it to be done. Not every player is going to be cool with giving away that much control over their character; if yours are, that's both cool and IME very unusual.

Yes, they're truly employees. But no, because while the boss can order the secretary around, the secretary's player can choose whether or not they are going to obey, and the secretary's player can have a discussion with the boss's player if the boss is getting out of hand with their demands. Because we understand that things like one PC being abusive to another is as much a player issue as it is a character issue, because it involves a player making the choice to act that way. There's no such thing as "it's what my character would do." Your characters are not separate entities over whom you have no control. If they're jerks, it's because you made them that way.

Plus (in my MotW game), the boss is really dependent on the secretary to do things such as pick up the dry cleaning and correct their abysmal spelling and work the phones and make sure there's enough raw meat in the fridge to satisfy the boss after he wolfs out. The power balance is actually equal. It's not just one player ordering another one around.

But switch from that sort of game. Let's pretend we're talking about game where you're in a chain of command. A military game, or something like Star Trek. The players are still choosing to play in that dynamic. Because it's a group game where the goal is for everyone to have fun, having the captain or commander PC abuse their relationship with the other PCs because they're in charge means that there's a good chance that the other PCs aren't having fun.

Though I have to ask: if you care about them that much then why are you exposing them to the (undeniable!) risks of field adventuring in the first place?

Because they're PCs, and I'm not going to force other players not play their characters. This is what you need to understand, and you seem to refuse to do that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I read that note as pertaining only to the Attack Matrix for Fighters etc., clarifying how NPCs of various races do or don't use the table, so standard MM elves, dwarves (both hill and mountain), and gnomes all attack as 1st-level fighters (THAC0 20) regardless of their actual HD and regardless of whether they are considered equivalent to 1st-level fighters in some other respect. I.e. they might still be considered as "unclassed" individuals. Whereas, unclassed humans and halflings attack using the "0" column.

I was thinking of this passage from Swords & Spells (1976), p 6:

​

NOTE: Scale figures representing human/humanoid (and highly intelligent) creatures of 1st level or above or with 1+1 hit dice are always considered as having elite guard status. For example, the following types of troops are classified as elite guard status:​

​

Veterans (1st level fighters)​

Elves​

Hobgoblins​

Gnolls​

This ties in with the Loyalty Base Modifiers given on DMG, p 36. Under "Training Or Status Level" are the following:

trained regulars ... +10%​

elite, sub-officers, minor officials/expert hirelings ... +20%​

guards, officers, or major officials/henchmen ... +30%​

​

My thinking is the distinction between hirelings and henchmen is relevant. I.e. henchmen are classed individuals while hirelings are not. Thus, 1+1 HD MM demi-humans, like elves and mountain dwarves (but not hill dwarves), not only attack as 1st-level fighters on the attack matrix, but they also have a status/training classification that is the equivalent of that of a classed character of at least 1st level. Because MM hill dwarves lack that status due to their inferior HD is why I use the term "level 0" to refer to them, by which I mean "unclassed".

Yeah, I see you kind of got to the point I did before me. I don't think anything but PCs in AD&D LITERALLY have a class as an attribute of the character and are 'classed'. Things that have stat blocks (MM entries or similar abbreviate versions) are not 'fighters' even if, in some cases, the rules will tell you to treat them as such for some specific purpose. The example of the pirate 8th level wizard NPC special figure (for example) is a bit different, they should probably just follow the Magic User rules for attacks and such? It isn't really actually very clear though! I mean, there's not anything saying exactly that they have N hit dice either, so that makes sense in terms of "I need a rule for when this character stabs someone with his dagger." OTOH can the pirate wizard wield a cutlass? Wear leather armor like other pirates? None of this is actually spelled out anywhere! But heck, this is AD&D, its not like a really coherent set of rules...