Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5458813" data-attributes="member: 87792">I'm calling what you're saying irrelevant.&nbsp; Something saying &quot;This is a problem, manage it yourself&quot; is doing no more than acknowledging the problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;And it's absolutely crap at it.&nbsp;&nbsp;But that's not the problem.&nbsp; The problem is that wizard's tower over there with flying cars and working nuclear reactors.&nbsp; One smart mage with fifth level spells irrevocably alters the gameworld.&nbsp;&nbsp;Sprinkle the world with metropolises, and you have the Forgotten Realms. But a &quot;fairly realistic&quot; setting is not a function of how magical it is. Eberron is a very magical setting, yet many people enjoy the sense of magic belonging in the setting. I'm not a huge Eberron fan. I was raised on Mystara and Greyhawk, so &quot;medieval drag&quot; appeals to me.&nbsp;&nbsp;You've been playing longer than I have.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;And are based on &quot;Wizard of Oz&quot; economies.&nbsp; Pay no attention to the mages.&nbsp; Or the druids.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you want the world to look differently, you will have to modify and prune some elements. &nbsp;&nbsp;Yes.&nbsp; The microeconomics are fine.&nbsp; It's the macroeconomics that make the world break.&nbsp; And PCs look at a micro scale.&nbsp; &nbsp;Specifically, I ran a level 1-20 campaign and not once did I feel the campaign world was unsupportable simply because it was fantastical. I have never banned a single core spell, class, or feat from my games.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Forgotten Realms is the equivalent of shrugging, saying &quot;A Wizard (or deity) did it&quot; and moving on.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Living Greyhawk took a third way which you glossed away; mid power levels, with gonzo elements less common and more isolated in the game world. Greyhawkian D&amp;D with its feudalism and relatively medieval-esque militaries and economies has also been a viable approach, again, for countless campaigns over the past few decades.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unless you want to put those resources into the hands of the PCs, in which case you are worse off than you started. Actually, in my view, the ability to endlessly produce a magical effect is a much larger obstacle to world-building, because it makes it impossible to build any world in which magic is rare and mysterious. If I were going to adapt 4e to my preferred style of game worlds, I would have to replace the wizard's zot powers with... I don't know, crossbow powers or something.</blockquote>&nbsp;It is trivial to add unbalanced settings.&nbsp; It is non-trivial to work out what will be unbalanced and prune it.&nbsp; Needing to manage the system in creative ways makes certain you can't have a world which doesn't have such work-rounds.&nbsp; And thus reduces flexibility.&nbsp;&nbsp;Who says you can't do both?&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; And if you are going to use a battlemap at all, grabing a mini and moving it 2 squares is a lot more cinematic than not moving it 2 squares.&nbsp; Once you're using a battlemap at all (and they are useful as visualisation aids), if you are not moving minis around on the battlemap you aren't moving them far in the situation because they are still in the same 5 foot square.&nbsp; Without push, pull, and slide rules, if the <a href="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm" target="_blank">tarrasque</a> hits you as hard as it can with its tail you are thrown back no more than four feet because if it knocked you any further you would be in a different square.&nbsp; Never mind un-cinematic, that's not even approaching gritty realism.&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed.&nbsp; This is a world away from economy-destroying magic.&nbsp; The fundamental difference being the things you mentioned above are things PCs avoid (including traipsing through fairy rings).&nbsp; Economy or world-building wrecking magic is a goal of many mages - and is core in 3.X&nbsp;&nbsp;Indeed.&nbsp; But there are so many spells in the 3e PHB from wizards, clerics, and druids that are salient to the economy that you need to effectively eliminate greed from the motivation for spellcasters.&nbsp; And that is, to me, the problem.&nbsp;&nbsp;Absolutely.&nbsp; The biggest problem with 4e worldbuilding is that it's on two separate currency systems - one for magic items, one for commoners.&nbsp; Which doesn't matter much.&nbsp; Very little needs fixing because the whole game is in a different realm.&nbsp; Which is about the same way as it works in 1e.&nbsp; 3e tried to merge the realms and it simply doesn't work.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5458813, member: 87792"] I'm calling what you're saying [I]irrelevant[/I]. Something saying "This is a problem, manage it yourself" is doing no more than acknowledging the problem. And it's absolutely crap at it. But that's not the problem. The problem is that wizard's tower over there with flying cars and working nuclear reactors. One smart mage with fifth level spells irrevocably alters the gameworld. Sprinkle the world with metropolises, and you have the Forgotten Realms. But a "fairly realistic" setting is not a function of how magical it is. Eberron is a very magical setting, yet many people enjoy the sense of magic belonging in the setting. I'm not a huge Eberron fan. I was raised on Mystara and Greyhawk, so "medieval drag" appeals to me. You've been playing longer than I have. And are based on "Wizard of Oz" economies. Pay no attention to the mages. Or the druids. If you want the world to look differently, you will have to modify and prune some elements. Yes. The microeconomics are fine. It's the macroeconomics that make the world break. And PCs look at a micro scale. Specifically, I ran a level 1-20 campaign and not once did I feel the campaign world was unsupportable simply because it was fantastical. I have never banned a single core spell, class, or feat from my games. Forgotten Realms is the equivalent of shrugging, saying "A Wizard (or deity) did it" and moving on. Living Greyhawk took a third way which you glossed away; mid power levels, with gonzo elements less common and more isolated in the game world. Greyhawkian D&D with its feudalism and relatively medieval-esque militaries and economies has also been a viable approach, again, for countless campaigns over the past few decades. Unless you want to put those resources into the hands of the PCs, in which case you are worse off than you started. Actually, in my view, the ability to endlessly produce a magical effect is a much larger obstacle to world-building, because it makes it impossible to build any world in which magic is rare and mysterious. If I were going to adapt 4e to my preferred style of game worlds, I would have to replace the wizard's zot powers with... I don't know, crossbow powers or something.[/QUOTE] It is [I]trivial[/I] to add unbalanced settings. It is non-trivial to work out what will be unbalanced and prune it. Needing to manage the system in creative ways makes certain you can't have a world which doesn't have such work-rounds. And thus reduces flexibility. Who says you can't do both? I do. And if you are going to use a battlemap at all, grabing a mini and moving it 2 squares is a [I]lot[/I] more cinematic than not moving it 2 squares. Once you're using a battlemap at all (and they are useful as visualisation aids), if you are not moving minis around on the battlemap you aren't moving them far in the situation [I]because they are still in the same 5 foot square[/I]. Without push, pull, and slide rules, if the [URL="http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/tarrasque.htm"]tarrasque[/URL] hits you as hard as it can with its tail you are thrown back no more than four feet because if it knocked you any further you would be in a different square. Never mind un-cinematic, that's not even approaching gritty realism. Indeed. This is a world away from economy-destroying magic. The fundamental difference being the things you mentioned above are things PCs avoid (including traipsing through fairy rings). Economy or world-building wrecking magic is a [I]goal[/I] of many mages - and is core in 3.X Indeed. But there are so many spells in the 3e PHB from wizards, clerics, and druids that [I]are[/I] salient to the economy that you need to effectively eliminate greed from the motivation for spellcasters. And [I]that[/I] is, to me, the problem. Absolutely. The biggest problem with 4e worldbuilding is that it's on two separate currency systems - one for magic items, one for commoners. Which doesn't matter much. Very little needs fixing because the whole game is in a different realm. Which is about the same way as it works in 1e. 3e tried to merge the realms and it simply doesn't work. [/QUOTE]

Verification