Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shadzar" data-source="post: 5455449" data-attributes="member: 6667746">Did you or did you NOT include jewelry for young ladies in your game?This is part of the setting that jewelry exists for young ladies.You set that as the state of the setting. Later you aren't creating the setting, just changing societies views on what kind of jewelry is fashionable.You described people as wearing jewelry or not? It may seem innocuous, but that is a part of your setting.If you say up front that people do NOT wear gold jewelry, then you have defined that state of jewelry. Having no one wearing gold jewelry is your undefined state for that kind of jewelry.Either way of the various types of possible jewelry from gold to flammable, you already placed jewelry in your campaign and its setting. You aren't creating jewelry as part of the setting at a later time. You are jsut changing the state of one possible jewelry.Your flammable magnesium jewelry existed when needed, but if it never existed, it does NOT change that jewelry did.Follow me?Again like your trees, you defined they existed but didn't specify which species. Therefore by having trees you by default set each tree species state to yes, no, or undefined. The specific species can't retcon that trees never existed in your campaign, because you already said they did.These may seem silly little examples, but I am using what you presented form your interesting game story.Trees and jewelry were decided to exist. This is a small part of a setting, and probably a common assumption, but you made that go from an assumption to an actual part or your setting by presenting them to your players.Take the bigger picture of a setting and look at gnomes not being present as a playable race initially. That is a part of the setting, but no real reason given, like half-orcs and assassins int he past.OK, half-orcs were given a reason, but it was initially a silly cause of creation to begin with. It only serves to show that the game isn't about "traipsing through fairy rings and talking to the little people" as some designers would have you to believe, but set up part of the default setting for the game too, in how gritty and harsh the life of an adventurer could be.Like people trying to debate what is acceptable reasons for a DM to disallow parts of the game, likewise a decent setting information should be present int he books for a game with a long history, to explain its reasons why some things are and are not there.People may not have needed a reason for you young ladies to wear jewelry, flammable or not, but others question the world itself, where there is nothing to support it. This is a problem with the 4th edition "assumed" setting.For those looking to just play, then it might not be a problem, for those looking for that rich place to play in and looking to trust those presenting things to have a place for those things and reasons for them being included or removed, the setting or absence thereof can play a big part in how popular it is amongst those people who look for that element.</blockquote>

Verification