Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9256466" data-attributes="member: 6915329"><p>You're making a lot of assumptions. Why would the PCs automatically think to protect her? Why would they even care about her? Depending on what the world thinks about magic--decided by the GM and other players during world creation--their viewpoints could be anything to "she must be protected" to "she must be killed" to "who cares?"</p><p></p><p>In the Discworld novels, for instance, wizards are generally considered to be fairly useless--they perform amazing deeds, sure, but most of those deeds are utterly useless from the point of view of the populace and they can be safely ignored unless they happen to tear open a hole in reality, in which case they better fix it before it spooks the horses. Discworld wizards the equivalent of theoretical physicists--what they do has practically no bearing on anyone's day-to-day lives, no matter how awesome it might be. Even most of the wizards themselves tend to put more stock in their staves, which they can use to bonk their enemies on the head, then in the spells they cast. </p><p></p><p>In a more prosaic, RPG sense of the world, what if the reason there are no more mages is because they all killed each other off in the wizard wars? People won't care if there's only one left, as long as she doesn't start killing non-casters. If casters had been snobbish to non-casters, then good riddance to bad rubbish. If casters had been known to dabble in dark forces and unleash horrible things upon the innocent populace, then the faster Jocasta dies, the better.</p><p></p><p></p><p>That's really easy: she now has new spells and magic points. I'm pretty sure 99% of GMs will do it that way, and the idea of creating an entire subsystem for an NPC mage seems laughably useless and outdated. It's not "more fair." It's just more work.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Firstly, "do what the characters would do" just means you need to make characters that aren't jerks to the other players. (and by <em>jerk</em>, I mean something a lot coarser)</p><p></p><p>Secondly, in our group's D&D game, I've managed to play a chaotic neutral tiefling rogue for quite some time without being a jerk to the other players. Why? Because chaotic neutral does not mean that I force my decisions on other players.</p><p></p><p>Thirdly, there is no "what my character would do," because you, the player, are making that decision. Your character is just a bunch of numbers on a page. <em>You </em>control their opinions and actions. </p><p></p><p>It's no coincidence that so many RPG horror stories start with players who are jerks but try to excuse their behavior with "it's what my character would do."</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I saw it. But the thing you balked at having your character "guard" another character by forcing them to remain "safe" at home, because that meant your character wouldn't be able to do other, presumably more fun, things.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So why even bring it up? Jocasta here doesn't need to be guarded unless Jocasta (meaning, her player) decides she wants to be. And if you aren't interested in playing bodyguard, then you have no business forcing the player to stay at home.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This makes no sense. Just because there are a million warriors doesn't mean they're expendable. They're not nameless NPCs; they're player characters. Unless the people at your table care so little about their characters that they don't bother to come up with any sort of characterization or background for them. There's bunches of chaotic neutral tiefling rogues out there, but there's only one Rime.</p><p></p><p>Also, you're completely misunderstanding my example. In my example, two players would mutually decide that one of them would act/be hired as the other's guard. The bodyguard's <em>character </em>may think that they're more expendable, but that's only because the player is choosing to have them that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's poor teamwork, and there's no reason why those characters would work together if they couldn't trust each other. The only reason why you <em>do </em>work together is meta-reasons, because most RPGs are for groups of 3-5.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Faolyn, post: 9256466, member: 6915329"] You're making a lot of assumptions. Why would the PCs automatically think to protect her? Why would they even care about her? Depending on what the world thinks about magic--decided by the GM and other players during world creation--their viewpoints could be anything to "she must be protected" to "she must be killed" to "who cares?" In the Discworld novels, for instance, wizards are generally considered to be fairly useless--they perform amazing deeds, sure, but most of those deeds are utterly useless from the point of view of the populace and they can be safely ignored unless they happen to tear open a hole in reality, in which case they better fix it before it spooks the horses. Discworld wizards the equivalent of theoretical physicists--what they do has practically no bearing on anyone's day-to-day lives, no matter how awesome it might be. Even most of the wizards themselves tend to put more stock in their staves, which they can use to bonk their enemies on the head, then in the spells they cast. In a more prosaic, RPG sense of the world, what if the reason there are no more mages is because they all killed each other off in the wizard wars? People won't care if there's only one left, as long as she doesn't start killing non-casters. If casters had been snobbish to non-casters, then good riddance to bad rubbish. If casters had been known to dabble in dark forces and unleash horrible things upon the innocent populace, then the faster Jocasta dies, the better. That's really easy: she now has new spells and magic points. I'm pretty sure 99% of GMs will do it that way, and the idea of creating an entire subsystem for an NPC mage seems laughably useless and outdated. It's not "more fair." It's just more work. Firstly, "do what the characters would do" just means you need to make characters that aren't jerks to the other players. (and by [I]jerk[/I], I mean something a lot coarser) Secondly, in our group's D&D game, I've managed to play a chaotic neutral tiefling rogue for quite some time without being a jerk to the other players. Why? Because chaotic neutral does not mean that I force my decisions on other players. Thirdly, there is no "what my character would do," because you, the player, are making that decision. Your character is just a bunch of numbers on a page. [I]You [/I]control their opinions and actions. It's no coincidence that so many RPG horror stories start with players who are jerks but try to excuse their behavior with "it's what my character would do." No, I saw it. But the thing you balked at having your character "guard" another character by forcing them to remain "safe" at home, because that meant your character wouldn't be able to do other, presumably more fun, things. So why even bring it up? Jocasta here doesn't need to be guarded unless Jocasta (meaning, her player) decides she wants to be. And if you aren't interested in playing bodyguard, then you have no business forcing the player to stay at home. This makes no sense. Just because there are a million warriors doesn't mean they're expendable. They're not nameless NPCs; they're player characters. Unless the people at your table care so little about their characters that they don't bother to come up with any sort of characterization or background for them. There's bunches of chaotic neutral tiefling rogues out there, but there's only one Rime. Also, you're completely misunderstanding my example. In my example, two players would mutually decide that one of them would act/be hired as the other's guard. The bodyguard's [I]character [/I]may think that they're more expendable, but that's only because the player is choosing to have them that way. It's poor teamwork, and there's no reason why those characters would work together if they couldn't trust each other. The only reason why you [I]do [/I]work together is meta-reasons, because most RPGs are for groups of 3-5. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency"
Top