Asymmetric gaming worlds

[Haltherrion]

A few current threads (mostly the gunpowder one but a few others) have caused me to take a look at my own settings in a new light. I typically describe what I think would be a lower magic setting in terms of the resulting society, fortifications, longevity, magic technology, etc but I run a standard D&D game for the most part which, to me, is a much higher level of magic than fits my world.

Put another way, if I imagined the magic and creatures the party generally uses and meets to be available throughout the setting, I have a hard time not imaging more of a magic revolution, more radically different fortifictions, and sundry other changes.

Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment on the affect of standard D&D magic, do you run settings where you live with discrepancies between how you made your setting and how you think your setting might really be with all the "D&D stuff" if it were a "real" world? If so, how do you reconcile it?

In my case, I usually take the most elaborate and defensible approach: I ignore it. (I am being facetious ). But you could also imagine a "distortion bubble" that surrounds the players and locally allows for more magic, creatures, etc., without necessarily applying to the whole world.

I'm not sure I'd really formalize it that way myself. (Ignoring it seems to work just fine for my group.) But it is a way to handle it and as I came across another poster who seems to do something like this, I thought I'd start a thread on it.

Caveats: this is a fairly esoteric, one could even say, silly topic. No need to post to the thread if the topic just isn't of interest to you.

 

[pemerton]

These days I tend to assume that the PCs are - for whatever reason - a focus for magical and mystical events that is very atypical for the gameworld as a whole.

In the past I've worked hard to establish a history/sociology for the gameworld that at least tries to make it plausible that widespread high magic wouldn't lead to the emergence of an industrial/technological civilisation.

For either approach, I find that a helpful dose of ignoring it makes the work easier!

 

[Asmor]

Consider this: in a world where magic is possible, but unlikely, through stupid, random happenstance, there will be some people who are exceptionally... exceptional.

So when you start your campaign, you have the option of following any of the 99.99% of people out there who will never do anything interesting with their lives... Or you can focus on the 0.01% who will.

And that, in a nutshell, is why it doesn't really break verisimilitude to have a low-magic world with high-magic PCs.

Another option which might be interesting is to just say that, for whatever reason, magically-inclined individuals tend to find each other. Call it fate. Magic attracts magic.

 

[Ryltar]

Regarding magic, the explanation of "the PCs (and BBEGs) are special" works quite well.

Bigger issues arise when technology comes into play. I've read my share of settings where the OP's suggestion to ignore any discrepancies are the only possible explanation for one nation building firearms and cannons and whatnot, while its neighbouring countries are still trapped in the early medieval period. No trade? Check. No wars to steal this technology? Check. Mmkay.

One of the few examples where this actually works is in Paizo's Golarion Campaign setting, where the sole gun-producing country specifically limits its exports and at the same time is entrenched in a very defensible location.

 

[steenan]

I strongly prefer to have the setting work in reasonable way, with no need for handwaving. It's much easier to immerse in such world and to imagine how things happen there. That is the reason why I strongly prefer Earthdawn and Exalted to D&D: all three use similar tropes, but Earthdawn and Exalted internalize them and make them have sense, while D&D forces me to live with discrepancies.

It definitely does not mean that I don't like PCs being exceptional. They may, and in many games should, be. What I need is an in-setting reason for this. Luck or something similar is a good explanation for a one-shot, but is completely unbelievable in a longer game. Trying to play a campaign with no clear explanation why the setting and the PCs work as they do is unacceptable.

 

[Umbran]

Trying to play a campaign with no clear explanation why the setting and the PCs work as they do is unacceptable.

In the past, I made sure the metaphysical basis for such things was well-determined in every campaign I ran. And, in half of the games, it didn't matter - the players didn't care, and the subject never came up in-game.

So, these days, I instead consider - do I intend to make the issue a plot point? Can the players use this information for constructive purpose? Will it make a difference if the PCs learn how this works in-game? If not, then I don't bother to specify.

 

[NN]

To the OP: a few ideas on the reconciliation

i) say that only a small %age of people have the capacity for using magic.
But PCs are exceptional.

ii) behind the scenes, theres a delicate balance of power between the powerful casters, both arcane and divine. So, the reason Grandulf the 20th level wizard isnt pooping out magic trinkets and ruining the local economy, is that hes actually spending 95% of his time warding off attack from Drungdalf the 20th level necromancer a hundred leagues away.

iii) if you focus adventures on a) resurgence of forgotten ancient evils and b) exploration of faraway untamed lands - then civilisation can remain low-magic flavoured.

 

[Dausuul]

Consider this: in a world where magic is possible, but unlikely, through stupid, random happenstance, there will be some people who are exceptionally... exceptional.

So when you start your campaign, you have the option of following any of the 99.99% of people out there who will never do anything interesting with their lives... Or you can focus on the 0.01% who will.

And that, in a nutshell, is why it doesn't really break verisimilitude to have a low-magic world with high-magic PCs..

This is how I generally approach things. It does require some thought, however, because in a low-magic setting, PC spellcasters can be very powerful even at low levels. Spells like invisibility are far more potent if no one expects to have to deal with invisible threats.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

...

 

[Haltherrion]

In the past, I made sure the metaphysical basis for such things was well-determined in every campaign I ran. And, in half of the games, it didn't matter - the players didn't care, and the subject never came up in-game.

So, these days, I instead consider - do I intend to make the issue a plot point? Can the players use this information for constructive purpose? Will it make a difference if the PCs learn how this works in-game? If not, then I don't bother to specify.

That's how I've evolved over the years- worried about it at first. Players rarely cared; just let it slide these days but may acknowledge it if someone brings it up.