Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5392212" data-attributes="member: 18253">A few current threads (mostly the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/296729-gunpowder-fantasy-you-new-post.html" target="_blank">gunpowder </a>one but a few others) have caused me to take a look at my own settings in a new light. I typically describe what I think would be a lower magic setting in terms of the resulting society, fortifications, longevity, magic technology, etc but I run a standard D&amp;D game for the most part which, to me, is a much higher level of magic than fits my world.&nbsp;Put another way, if I imagined the magic and creatures the party generally uses and meets to be available throughout the setting, I have a hard time not imaging more of a magic revolution, more radically different fortifictions, and sundry other changes.&nbsp;Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment on the affect of standard D&amp;D magic, do you run settings where you live with discrepancies between how you made your setting and how you think your setting might really be with all the &quot;D&amp;D stuff&quot; if it were a &quot;real&quot; world? If so, how do you reconcile it?&nbsp;In my case, I usually take the most elaborate and defensible approach: I ignore it. (I am being facetious <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />). But you could also imagine a &quot;distortion bubble&quot; that surrounds the players and locally allows for more magic, creatures, etc., without necessarily applying to the whole world.&nbsp;I'm not sure I'd really formalize it that way myself. (Ignoring it seems to work just fine for my group.) But it is a way to handle it and as I came across another poster who seems to do something like this, I thought I'd start a thread on it.&nbsp;Caveats: this is a fairly esoteric, one could even say, silly topic. No need to post to the thread if the topic just isn't of interest to you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Haltherrion, post: 5392212, member: 18253"] A few current threads (mostly the [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/296729-gunpowder-fantasy-you-new-post.html"]gunpowder [/URL]one but a few others) have caused me to take a look at my own settings in a new light. I typically describe what I think would be a lower magic setting in terms of the resulting society, fortifications, longevity, magic technology, etc but I run a standard D&D game for the most part which, to me, is a much higher level of magic than fits my world. Put another way, if I imagined the magic and creatures the party generally uses and meets to be available throughout the setting, I have a hard time not imaging more of a magic revolution, more radically different fortifictions, and sundry other changes. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment on the affect of standard D&D magic, do you run settings where you live with discrepancies between how you made your setting and how you think your setting might really be with all the "D&D stuff" if it were a "real" world? If so, how do you reconcile it? In my case, I usually take the most elaborate and defensible approach: I ignore it. (I am being facetious :)). But you could also imagine a "distortion bubble" that surrounds the players and locally allows for more magic, creatures, etc., without necessarily applying to the whole world. I'm not sure I'd really formalize it that way myself. (Ignoring it seems to work just fine for my group.) But it is a way to handle it and as I came across another poster who seems to do something like this, I thought I'd start a thread on it. Caveats: this is a fairly esoteric, one could even say, silly topic. No need to post to the thread if the topic just isn't of interest to you. [/QUOTE]

Verification