"Oddities" in fantasy settings - the case against "consistency" | Page 24

Alzrius... I don't know what to tell you. I'm not ignoring what you're saying. I am offering an alternative approach, based on the ideas in the OP.

And I've responded as to why I don't think that approach is viable, likewise with regard to the ideas in the OP. It's not like I'm the only one in this thread to do so, so I'm hardly a lone voice in this regard.

Your argument seems to be "But that's not how I do it"; which is perfectly fine, but I'm simply saying that the prevailing method need not be the way it goes. I'm not going to limit my comments to your experience. Why would I?

Literally everyone's arguments in this thread come down to "but that's not how I (would) do it." There's no other argument to make; personal preference is all this is, and while there are a few people who seem to want to say that their insight is Truth-with-a-capital-T and that people who disagree are ignoring/misunderstanding what they're saying, the simple fact of the matter is that people disagree because they understand just fine, but have their own opinion which is different. No, the "prevailing" method need not be how it goes...but it can be, and that's okay.

We don't need to be beholden to setting conventions if we don't want to be.

No one "needs" to be "beholden" to anything in a game of imagination. But there are very good reasons to stick to setting conventions, and likewise reasons not to be enthusiastic (or even supportive) of players in your group who don't want to. That deserves to be reiterated, since we shouldn't take it as a given that conventions and limitations are necessarily bad things.

I've been clearly stating that I'm talking about a collaborative effort in nearly every post I've made.

So have I. I've repeatedly supported the idea that the GM should talk to players and vice versa, and that a consensus being reached is the ideal. But there's a conversation to be had about what if that can't be reached, and why someone can reasonably make a case not to be supportive of overturning setting conventions.

I don't see why you'd want to blame me. If we're having different conversations, then I suppose it's on both of us, no?

I don't recall issuing "blame" at all. I'm pointing out that if that's what you're talking about, then we're talking past each other.

I'm well aware of the primary way that this is all handled. I have played and run plenty of games with that paradigm. I've also run many that did things differently. Based on that experience... which I'm willing to bet is likely greater than yours... I am saying that your concerns don't really come up. Are they possible? Sure... but not really problematic in any persistent way as you're stating.

You have no reasonable basis for suggesting that your experiences are "greater" than mine (whatever that means), and likewise, I think that your concerns are the ones that might be theoretically possible, but carry little-to-no practical weight at the game table (and, I'd wager, as most game tables). Mine, to me, seem both more germane and more notable.

As such, maybe it's a better idea to talk about the ideas at hand, and not get into pointless contests of who has the "greater" experience.

Why are you of this opinion? It seems more like a supposition.

It seems more like a self-evident truth to me. Most GMs that I've known can't turn on a dime when a major change happens during the course of play, and require some time to figure out how things will shake out from a huge curveball happening. Are you saying you've only ever played under GMs who were able to adapt to major alterations in the course of the game without missing a beat? Because that doesn't seem like a very common experience at most tables.
Well, I tend to think of "main character" more as something that comes up in films and books... and you introduced that idea to the conversation. I don't think RPGs tend to have main characters. Even one like the last mage. Yes, they may take the spotlight a times. But that doesn't mean that there's any reason for that to dominate play as you've described.

I'll also add that it would be perfectly possible for mishandling the spotlight to happen in any game.

Again, the issue is that such a background lends itself to that type of problem very easily. It doesn't have to come up, but by its very nature it makes it easier for it to. Recall how, of the three characters mentioned in the context of the "last mage" campaign, the other two (the inquisitor and the protector/sacrificer) were defined by their role toward the last mage. That means that their characters are defined by him, but the same isn't true (or at least, is far less true) going the other way. Can they still make an impact? Sure, but if the last mage's player decides to do something like suddenly go to another continent, they'd be expected to drop what they're doing and go also, or otherwise react to the major change somehow. The problem is one of the impact of one character's actions having an outsized effect compared to (or on) the others.

Sure. That sounds like collaboration. Which is what I've been advocating for.

So have I, which is why I'm glad to see you acknowledge that here. But collaboration will not always (and shouldn't necessarily be presumed to) lead to the player who wants to overturn convention being allowed to do so. "Collaboration" all too often seems to be shorthand for "find a way to give the player what they want."

I mean us. You and me. Like if I said "we're not in Kansas anymore".

And yet, I'm not one of the people engaging in caricature.

I made an actual caricature, and am pointing it out so that you can compare it to my previous comment and see the difference.

You said that "we" are starting to get into caricature. I'm pointing out that while you might be, I'm not. So it's not "we," it's "you."

There are no inviolable laws of nature. It's all made up. We can make anything we want to be the case.

Which runs counter to what I said previously about imbuing the game world with a sense of immutability to better abet engagement and immersion. Yes, that immutability is illusory, but putting that aside is part of the process of role-playing.

I was pointing out that it was nonsense.

Literally analyzing an idiom is a poor way to do that. Also, I disagree with your opinion; if you have to overturn convention in order to make a particular type of character, that is indeed doing extra work for something you could almost always acquire without going that far.

The reason that is the main paradigm of so many games is inertia. That's how many learned to play RPGs, that's the most prevalent method, and clearly folks have a hard time even imagining a different approach.

No, I don't think that the main paradigm of many games is "inertia" at all. Quite the opposite, really. That seems to assume that most people playing the game are simply uncreative, unimaginative, and otherwise unable to fully appreciate the nature of playing an imaginative fantasy game. It assumes the worst about other people, and with no particular reason for doing so.

If my comment was pointless, I think the same would apply to yours.

You'd be wrong. Simply repeating someone else's paragraph back to them with two parts transposed is flippant, rather than insightful.

All I'm saying is that the GM's ideas and wants for the game should be as subject to group review as the players'. It's really not that hard to understand.

I agree that it's not hard to understand. I just don't subscribe to the same belief. It's not like this particular debate is at all new in RPG circles.

I think we're at an impasse though. I'm not going to go line by line in response to you anymore. If you have any questions or something new to add... please go ahead. But this back and forth has otherwise gone about as far as it can, I'd say.

Actually, I think this has gone fairly well for how this type of exchange tends to go. While not without some bumps in the proverbial road, this has been a fairly measured exchange.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHywsMOiq6Kdo2K2r3nFmqWtmaOuerSx062gp5%2BjYsGpsYycmKydXZa0orXNrKtmm5%2BjwKq%2F056lnLFebH1zfpZqZqmno6l6en6UbGhubA%3D%3D