Search results

No worries. I have access to ways to model this area, too, I just figured it was easier to write the setting to fit 5e's rules than to rewrite the rules.

As a datum: I started two D&D 5e tables, each in a different FLGS/playspace. I specifically set out to recruit at least some players I didn't know, and I ended up with two tables of six players, half of which were new to me (the other half were old gaming friends, same three in both tables). At...

I don't think we disagree about game-level stuff. I'd be inclined to say that in the majority of fiction, regardless of genre or medium, something is being exaggerated in some way.

I honestly don't think I've pre-defined even thirty (let alone sixty) NPCs in even that much detail, across the three campaigns I've started. I'm planning ahead if I have a name. Obviously, there are different ways to make the setting engaging.

Apparently I'm refusing to accept there are limits on the PC ability, though.

Last paragraph. Languages don't work in most D&D settings the way they do in the real world.

I think the players are still bound by the fictional position. I'm pretty sure the player in my third campaign who has that feature isn't expecting it to work outside the starting city--I'm (I hope, obviously) going to make it clear it still will. Hell, she might not think she still has access...

Unrelated to the above: You can keep saying that, it doesn't make it true.

You are correct, it's not at all about good faith. Good job, well done, have a day!

In the case of STR, plausibly. I'm not sure what physics would have to do with language/s, though--at least as normally applied and understood. 😉

As far as I know, none of the players at my tables have ever been anywhere but Earth. As it turns out, I kinda despise situations where the player's characters are fish out of water--as both a player and a GM--so on those occasions when the PCs need (and the need arises with some regularity) to...

Sure. And it's almost certainly a fictional position where the player wouldn't expect it to work; at least, any player who argued it would, would seem to be coming from a place of very bad faith. So why does it keep coming up?

My approach is that outright failure--either you can't make contact, or they're implacably hostile--seems as though it should be rare, and if it's not based on known (or at least visible) fictional positioning, then it's perhaps itself something that PC might want to look into; and the PC can...

You mean this? Uh, the obvious answer is allowing high-STR characters to carry, or at least move things that'd be impracticable in the real world. A glaive sized for a storm giant, for instance (a sentient one, that refused to be reduced). Even though someone had a belt of storm giant strength...

Have you been reading this thread? Can you really claim in good faith there aren't people posting in this thread who at least come across as declaring just about every usage some people suggest as a "nope?" Do you really think jumping to "You're on some other plane of existence where neither you...

The world needs to behave in ways the players can predict, so they can make decisions on some reasonable basis. Sometimes--mostly in matters of classical physics--this means things in the game world behave pretty much the way they do in the real world. Other times, this means they behave in ways...

Whereas my primary campaign world is slowly awakening to sapience: This seems inherently supernatural. :LOL:

I'm not sure how "you can make non-hostile contact with the local criminal underworld, just about wherever you go" is "making the non-magical world somewhat magic." It seems to me to be much more in line with a "cinematic reality."

I think I'm at least gesturing (wildly, subtly, frantically) at the idea that in a world where magic works the way it's presumed to in most D&D 5e settings, things that seem as though they'd work in-game the same way they would in the real world might not in fact work the same way they do in the...

Because there are people who seem to be declaring practically every suggested usage a "nope?"