Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 1069794" data-attributes="member: 3887">On the subject of implied setting...I hate to interupt a good old-fashioned argument, but I was thinking about the issue of implied setting vis a vis game mechanics.The place where implied setting bothers me the most is in the DMG, take your pick of editions, it doesn't matter. The rules for magic item costs/spell costs/cost to create items do a hell of a lot to imply a pretty specific kind of magic-heavy world; it contains tacit assumptions that relate and define economics, religious views, political and miltary structures, etc. Now you certainly ditch a lot of these assumptions, reign in the magic, run a low-magic world, etc. But that takes work. It means you need to rebalance a lot of the game, which was built on the assumption that characters of level X have access to item/spell Y.Having the rules that come bundled with all kinds of assumptions about the game millieu is nothing new.Now given that gamers run so many vastly different kinds of campaigns from a rules system which isn't really generic at all {hell, its the opposite of generic; the D&D interpretations of fantasy archtypes have become archetypes themselves}, how bad can implicit connection to a setting really be?Have gamers really become that lazy? Or I am just terminally out-of-fashion with the trend started by the d20 system?</blockquote>