Point out something in the setting that makes no sense

>point out something in the setting that makes no sense
>"It's fantasy bro, you can accept magic but not this?"

gonna need to know exactly what it is that pissed you off before I can discuss this one my dude.

Rivers splitting

Not OP but earlier today a negress in front of me waited for half an hour in line at McDonald's and when she finally reached the front, she hadn't decided on her order so she stood there going, "uuuh, Imma have a, nah-nah, uuuh, how bouta, nah, uh, mebbe some, nah, uuuh..." for almost half an hour while everyone stood there, waiting. By the time she finally got her food she'd taken up my lunch hour so I had to go back to work without eating so that really pisses in my Cheerios, you know?

But that's entirely legitimate. Assuming every setting must always operate by the absolute laws of reality except when stated otherwise is patently ludicrous. A fantasy world can have its own laws and still be perfectly internally consistent even if the ways some aspects of it work don't reflect how things are in our world and aren't fully understood in the context.

If the GM doesn't want to autism over nitpicky details, they're under no obligation to do so. Grand stupid settings that focus more on aesthetic and ideas are just as legitimate as super granular detailed ones that try and explain everything, they just cater to different preferences. I'll take a cool aesthetic and fun metaphysics over everything being explained rationally any day.

But this is a tabletop game. Players need to understand how the setting works if they're to interact with it and ultimately make choices that cause changes.

If the setting isn't "explained rationally," it's less fun because we can't predict what will happen or how.

Yes, the laws can be different from our own. But they need to be consistent in their own way and in a way that is predictable and rational. If they aren't, then the setting can become "broken" by asking basic questions.

A setting can make sense without everything needing a rational explanation. It just requires being able to accept that it runs on thematic or metaphysical logic instead.

Can you cite an example of a decent movie, show, book etc that has a plot point or event that defies rational explanation but "runs on metaphysical logic instead"?

No. A rational explanation must always exist, even if it need not always be readily apparent or predictable in advance. Because, again, players need to understand how the setting works if they're to interact with it and ultimately make deliberate choices that cause changes. Having vague, nebulous shit that isn't explained is license for the GM to make up whatever bullshit he wants, probably with some cover like "It runs on thematic logic :^)" and leads to ass pulls, unpredictable outcomes (which make choices meaningless, violating player agency), and badly-arranged settings where characters act in nonsensical ways.

It's much easier to write actions and events that make sense for the people carrying them out when you know who is carrying them out, what their motivation is, and clearly define the systems with which they have to work.

Hey man magical leylines, asshole wizards, demented river nymphs. There's all sorts of "a wizard did it" excuses. I mean if you're aiming to make a low fantasy gritty setting then sure, go ahead and nitpick geographic features. But if you're already having some outrageous shit going on its a very small detail to get hung up on. I mean I get it, I do, but did they have a reason for why they included it?

You're probably being autisticly pedantic OP.

Heracles was able to support the entire weight of the sky on his shoulders, taking the burden for Atlas.

That is an action that defies rational explanation, because it's not part of a rational story. It's part of a myth, where thematic logic rules, and in its own context it makes perfect sense and is perfectly consistent. Plenty of stories run on fairytale or mythic logic rather than needing to excessively explain everything, and that's just fine.

Hell, most modern superhero movies only offer the faintest general explanation, and how their powers actually work tend to be more an expression of who they are, the powers acting as an embodied metaphor of their personality traits, ideals and beliefs. And it's driving some of the most popular films in the world right now.

You might not like it, but thematic logic like that works just fine as a basis for a setting, and it's done so since the dawn of time.

good for you

Except in a world with active gods/aliens with reality-warping tech, that's perfectly valid.

When Jesus walks on water, its perfectably acceptable to say "he did it". It isnt "Jesus cheated by spreading out his weight so he didnt break the surface tension", or "Jesus made himself less buoyant" or "antigravity magic", He just DOES it by merit of divine power. A god or supernatural entity need not concern itself for our laws; indeed their mere existance proves that our """Laws""" are far more flexible and limited than we understand.

>DM: A brown person is the mayor of this town
>Sperglord: Explain to me, mathematically and scientifically the logical facts of how this happened. There is physically no way, according to science that this could happen in any reality.Otherwise I'm taking my anime catgirl loli character sheet and leaving this SJW hell nightmare.

this

most non-autistic people don't care about the why or how, they care about the what

>user gets autistic over rivers
>this is somehow perceived as an attack on brown people
SHITSKIN PROBLEMATIC NIGGER PATRIARCHY.

>That is an action that defies rational explanation
No it doesn't. Hercules was famous for his physical strength and stamina. Now, nobody disputes that this doesn't make sense in terms of laws of physics, but that's fine and doesn't contradict what I said before. But "really strong guy holds great weight" makes rational sense in terms of the mythology it comes from.

And that's usually what people mean when they talk about "realism" in fantasy - it's not so much that fantastical elements make hard physical sense as much as things are consistent with what we're told about the setting, and that characters, actions, and events make rational sense. This doesn't mean "characters are always rational," simply that to the AUDIENCE, what happens makes rational sense - so a character might do something completely irrational, and that makes rational sense to the audience if that character is, indeed, not a rational person (either in general, or in specific regards to something relevant).

"Divine figure does miracle" makes rational sense, too, in the mythology in which it comes from. Internal logic is maintained. Indeed, you are explaining why it is rational.

So you're using a definition so broad it's impossible to not adhere to. Okay then, so there isn't actually a problem.

Are you being intentionally dense at this point? It's easy to not adhere to. Violation of internal consistency is an easy trap to fall into.

Let me guess, your players aren't exactly in love with your worldbuilding. Because if you're confused about so basic an element of storytelling, you're probably godawful at either running or playing a game.

>did they have a reason for why they included it?
Not that I can tell. He isn't someone I know in real life, it's a published setting with a lot of content but shit-tier geography and I read something the creator said about how people often point out the flaws of the maps to him, and, well, you can fill in the rest.

I have this arguement with my player weekly.
>player headcannons aloud how magic works with modern science understanding
>i flavor-describe a spell in a way that doesnt fit his understanding
>he asks how it works like Y when it SHOULD work like "X" (X being his explanation)
>tell him its divine magic and Pelor doesnt have to explain anything, if he wants to stuff a soul back into a body, or make a new one, or regrow a limb that's on him, and he isnt bound by biology.
>him: "surely the gods are bound by some rule, or use material plane laws as a guide"
>"I'm sure theres an argument for craftsmanship where they try to do things with minimal effort and resources, but player 2 is a mid-level Cleric, and as such is basically a Saint. Dramatic things and miracles are SUPPOSED to happen around people like that, regardless of what is possible"
>player goes into conservation of energy
>"theres a literal infinite plane of fire. Entropy doesnt work here the same way it does irl."

I swear, everytime its something different. Yes, a hydra gets to heal indefinitely regardless of conservation of mass. Yes, a Vampire can gaseous form. No, Finger of Death doesnt target your nerves, it just attacks your life energy. Yes, a druid doubling crop yield and harvests is safe, they already fortified the stalks for the extra weight, dont worry about nitrogen, they know what they are doing better than your rogue does.

Because that's not what was originally talked about in the OP. You're conflating two wildly different ends of the spectrum. Not everything needs a rational explanation, some things can just be accepted, and some things aren't important enough to worry about. If how a river flows isn't important to the story, so why get all anal about it?

No, but you're going to believe your gut reaction regardless of what I actually say, so there's no real discussion from here.

"Is this really relevant?" isn't a good defense of a flaw. Even if a flaw isn't game-breaking, that doesn't make it not a flaw, and in a constructive sense it should still be pointed out in a reasonably proportionate matter.

And yes, all those reasons could be valid if the setting works that way. That doesn't excuse a creator from having to name them. If the audience is forced to come up with it themselves with no context to support it, it's not a defense, it's just fanon.

Speaking of fanon, player headcanon is occasionally a good source of expanding the fluff and narrative but also frequently a damn headache. I hate it when players conclude or just outright invent the way something works and then REEE when the GM comes up with something different.

>Because that's not what was originally talked about in the OP.
Yes it is. It literally is.

>point out something in the setting that makes no sense
Right there. See that? That part where it's pointing out things in setting that make no sense? There's a term for that. Care to guess what it is?

It's one thing if the headcanon is good and manages to fit the setting and what they see, but its another when it:
A- comes from a character who has no reasonable way to understand the topic (ie., a pure mundane rogue trying to explain god-magic)
B- is every damn session

The fact that people use spells like plant growth AT ALL implies it works without the horrific downsides of de-nitrogenated soil or plants crushing themselves.

It's certainly not appropriate for a player to simply make something up and then proceed as if it's canon. I would never discourage players thinking things up like that, because it means they're invested in the game and setting at least, but I would ask them to bring things like that up to me in private so I can either incorporate it, explain why it wouldn't work, tell them if I have ideas that contradict it, or whatever.

The OP, without any further context, is just pointless nitpicking. If you want to make a better point, then do a better job of phrasing and arguing it.

I did, in several posts now.

>That's not what was in the OP!
>Yes it is, right there-
>Well I don't like what OP is saying!

...What?

I hate that argument too

Get it all the time everytime you criticize current star wars on reddit

Meanwhile if you criticize star wars on Veeky Forums they call you a wookiepedia autist and spam its articles on boobs and ice

I would agree, except I know this is more him thinking he can out think both me the GM and gods in-universe, cuz he doesnt care for the idea of entities that are incomprehensibly powerful, wise, and unscrutable. 1 day i may let him be smarter than a god and give him the Arachne or Babel treatment.

I feel like you are failing to make allowance for the possibility that your GM does not know that much about why rivers split or flow together, and that it is possibly unreasonable to expect him to know very much about it.
Besides which, many geographical features of the real world are somewhat anomalous to their general landscape, which we hardly take to be a fault of the designer of Planet Earth.
Like... would you complain if Ayers Rock happened in an otherwise flat and arid plain landscape?

Alright fair enough. I mean too be fair I don't expect too many people out there to be as autistic as I am, but still at least update/try to fix your mistakes ffs

Well you never know if it's a RAFO kinda detail. Perhaps the river was a focal point of something important that hasn't quite yet been revealed. It's possible, but the likelihood is next to nil. Eh, fuck it man a wizard did it

Reminder

>>point out something in the setting that makes no sense
>GM responds: "That does seem to not make any sense, doesn't it? What does your character do about it?"

>Well you never know if it's a RAFO kinda detail. Perhaps the river was a focal point of something important that hasn't quite yet been revealed. It's possible, but the likelihood is next to nil. Eh, fuck it man a wizard did it
If that were the case, then why would the GM say something like >"It's fantasy bro, you can accept magic but not this?"
rather than something like "There's a reason for it, it just hasn't come up yet."?

go back there