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

[Umbran]

I feel like asking to be ‘the last mage’ in a world without magic is ...

I feel like asking for anything ought to be considered the beginning of a discussion or conversation, and the results of that discussion ought to be more dependent on what the particular people in that discussion want than any consideration of what one playstyle or other says "must" or "must not" happen.

This thread seems filled to the brim with folks characterizing each other as being at one extreme end or another, lacking any exception or nuance, without bothering to listen to what is being said.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I feel like asking to be ‘the last mage’ in a world without magic is like asking to be ‘the last giant mech pilot’ in a regular game, it insinuates far too much about the world and that can’t just be brushed off by saying don’t think about it too hard, and if you’re asking to play it then i think either you didn’t read/listen/care about the world premise when it was being discussed or you misunderstood it, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking to be the mage in a magicless world.

Maybe. It sort of depends on how the world without magic is presented. If it is some sort of "there used to be magic, but it has faded and forgotten," then bringing in some last flickering remnant of that magic might be appropriate. I think "there is no magic, and probably never was, and the point is to see how characters deal with challenges in mundane means" is fundamentally a different concept that the former.

 

[Wolfpack48]

The "last mage" idea, unless it's a single-player game, really does risk turning the rest of the characters into a supporting cast - fine for a single adventure, maybe, but not so great for a whole campaign.

This. Doing something like this is fundamentally changing the entire concept of the campaign from "let's explore a world without magic, maybe discover together why it no longer exists, and perhaps bring it back" to "Let's all support and protect the last mage character." The campaign is now about one character (really, one player). Now, if this is floated early, discussed, and all the players agree to it (I don't think they would), then there is no problem. I myself would never agree to such a campaign.

EDIT: Ars Magica uses the supporting cast model, so maybe folks would go for that, but that setup specifically was the reason I never played that game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Maybe. It sort of depends on how the world without magic is presented. If it is some sort of "there used to be magic, but it has faded and forgotten," then bringing in some last flickering remnant of that magic might be appropriate. I think "there is no magic, and probably never was, and the point is to see how characters deal with challenges in mundane means" is fundamentally a different concept that the former.

for sure, but in the specific example the OP quoted it was proposed as 'a world without magic' and to me 'without magic' means without magic, so in that scenario asking to be the last mage is basically ignoring the premise rather than playing off of it, asking to be the mech pilot in the fantasy setting.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I feel like asking to be ‘the last mage’ in a world without magic is like asking to be ‘the last giant mech pilot’ in a regular game, it insinuates far too much about the world and that can’t just be brushed off by saying don’t think about it too hard, and if you’re asking to play it then i think either you didn’t read/listen/care about the world premise when it was being discussed or you misunderstood it, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking to be the mage in a magicless world.

I mean this could simply mean the player doesn't want to play in a magicless world, and this is the only way they know how to voice their dissent. In which case the referee would need to be savvy enough to realize that a magicless campaign ain't gonna work with this particular group, or at least with this particular player. At this point, perhaps discuss going to a standard campaign with magic, or convince the player that the proposed idea is sound and agree to go non-magical. Or if the player indeed wants to be the "special star," that means taking other steps. I still wouldn't go the "last mage" route in any case.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I mean this could simply mean the player doesn't want to play in a magicless world, and this is the only way they know how to voice their dissent. In which case the referee would need to be savvy enough to realize that a magicless campaign ain't gonna work with this particular group, or at least with this particular player. At this point, perhaps discuss going to a standard campaign with magic, or convince the player that the proposed idea is sound and agree to go non-magical. But I still wouldn't go the "last mage" route in any case.

if a player recognises they don't want to play in a magicless world that's fine, but if they recognise that then they ought to really consider if the best solution is to just not play in it then rather than changing or undermining the premise, no one is forcing them to play and just because they don't that doesn't mean the rest of the group doesn't want to play the magicless world, or decide if they care about playing enough with the group to put up with their own distaste of the setting to indulge the desires of the rest of the group and their desire to play.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It’s not. He would not have come up with the concept without the proposed setting.

What’s the point of the world without magic? Is it to prompt conflict for the players to bring to the game and to discover what happens? Or is it to limit what’s available?

Well, for me, it was to limit what was available.

A friend wanted to run a Star Wars game and said "no force users". He already ran a game where most people were, and wanted to try something different without needing to take the Force into account. I like playing mystical characters, so I asked if the Force was off the table could I play a gadgeteer instead? He was fine with that, and off he went.

I find your question strange. As phrased, the point is, actually, to play a world without magic. I can only presume what was stated is what was meant. Now, if it is a discussion then I would expect it phrased more as a question, and then someone asks about being the last mage, then tou have your negotiations. Presumably there is a reason that initial condition is set. By all means ask your whys and wherefors, but, again, there's likely a reason.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Maybe. It sort of depends on how the world without magic is presented. If it is some sort of "there used to be magic, but it has faded and forgotten," then bringing in some last flickering remnant of that magic might be appropriate. I think "there is no magic, and probably never was, and the point is to see how characters deal with challenges in mundane means" is fundamentally a different concept that the former.

So there's a case for being the First Mage!

 

[loverdrive]

Aside from everything else, now I wanna run or play a game about the last mage in a dying world, that sounds like a blast
...at least as long as I'm not the one playing the last mage

 

[Lanefan]

I've not read the thread so I may be putting out a pile of bullet points that no one cares about and/or aren't terribly applicable. But, I'm a sucker for saying things that no one cares about and aren't applicable, so here goes!

It's so nice to know I'm not the only one!

* There is TTRPG play where the question of "who is the lead (for whatever value of lead) protagonist" is a matter for aggressive play and application of system to settle, even when (or perhaps especially when) the preplay setup might either (a) generate a character whose "protagonist momentum" (lets call it) is actually greater than others (the Master in My Life With Master is intentionally set up this way) or (b) superficially it appears that way at the outset but its ultimately settled downrange of actual play.

Disclaimer: the following all assumes group play rather than solo.

There's a difference between a) a campaign where the role of lead protagonist shifts from character to character (in the medium to long term) as the game goes along, and b) a campaign where one character is the lead protagonist all the way through.

IME few if any players have issues with the former but many - sometimes including the player of the lead protagonist! - end up having issues with the latter.

And also IME I've found any situation where there's an obvious or declared lead proatgonist (e.g. Jocasta has rounded up the party specifically to help her on her quest) to be a PITA as GM, largely because it's almost ironclad guaranteed that either bad play or bad luck is going to kill off that lead protagonist at the first opportunity, leaving everyone floundering: <both in and out of character the players look blankly at each other> "It was Jocasta's quest, but she's dead - now what do we do?". And so, I've learned the hard way to avoid these sort of setups if-when possible.

* Personally as a GM? I'm always drawn toward/enamored with the stories of either (a) (so-called) "support characters" or (b) characters whose story tragically (and often violently) ends or just never turns out despite their best efforts. Honestly, I'm that same way with media (RIP Cormac McCarthy). Of the games I've GMed, I can absolutely point toward a host characters where the experience of witnessing their trajectory was deeply visceral and memorable to me precisely because aggressive play and application of system yielded a trajectory of distinct orientation to fulfilment (which might even include "lack of") or even decisive, defining failure.

Oh, me too. I love watching underdog characters do well or die trying, and often quietly cheer for them even though as GM I'm supposed to be neutral (and am, when it comes to laying the hurt on 'em). But I also want there to be that chance that the support (or underdog) character now can eventually become the lead character or top dog later, if everything falls in place for it; instead of being doomed to the support/underdog role forever no matter what.