Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2566662" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, I would say that my views of a low magic setting come from the fact that you want to create a LOW magic setting - as in a setting without a great deal of magic.  Otherwise, it's not usually called a low magic setting.  I would have a problem calling a group comprised of a cleric, paladin, wizard and bard a low magic campaign.  When three of the four PC's are spell casters and can possibly create magical items at 1st level while the fourth PC has magica immunities and abilities, calling that campaign low magic seems a little strange to me.  If a DM wants to call his campaign low magic and have that statement actually be true, then my list is a pretty good start.  It's not the only way, that's true, but, I'd say that you'd need to at least partially address those issues if you truly wish a low magic setting.  I agree 100% with all of that and have done so all the way along.  It's part and parcel with being a referee.  A referee has to know the rules well enough to know when the rules can be ignored.  Not every foul is called in a soccer game, because, to do so would result in a terrible game.  However, a good referee knows when a foul should be called and when one should be ignored.  I'm going to disagree with that.  The ruleset does not try to cover all possible actions.  What it does try to do is give robust enough rules that can be applied without massive modification to determine the outcome of actions where there is a chance of failure.  That's close to what you said, but not exactly the same.  The assumptions behind the rules varies greatly depending on which rules you are talking about.  However, it is incombent for the DM to recognise those assumptions before altering the rules, otherwise, alterations tend to cause more problems than they solve.  I illustrated that above with the Relics and Rituals example of not including gp and xp values for magic items because magic in SL is "incredibly rare and priceless" while not changing any of the core item creation rules.  This creates an automatic conflict between the rules that needs to be addressed.Again, I agree with this 100%.  You are the DM.  What rules are used are up to you to approve.  That approval should be made prior to gameplay, and, IME, usually is.  Most DM's now advertise their campaigns with the caveat that this or that ruleset is in effect.  This has always been true.  If I played a 2e Forgotten Realms campaign, then certain rules would be in effect - particular gods and effects for example.  If I played a Known World campaign, there would be a completely different set of rules (although mostly the same for basic actions) from a Dragonlance or Ravenloft game.  And certainly, in the interests of time, making snap decisions is perfectly acceptable with one corollary.  If the snap decision is being made because no one knows exactly what the RAW says and you want to keep the game moving, that's fine.  However, if a DM simply disagrees with the RAW because it offends his or her sense of theatrics, then that's not cool.  The players are playing with the assumption that the RAW exists for a reason and should be followed.  They are certainly constrained to follow the RAW to the letter.  No one would argue that the players should be allowed to play fast and loose with the RAW to satisfy their sense of theatrics.  The DM should operate under, if not the same restrictions, then at least in the same ballpark as the players.  Like I said a while ago, I believe we agree more than we disagree.</blockquote>

Verification