Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DrunkonDuty" data-source="post: 3782770" data-attributes="member: 54364">(Apologies, this has turned out longer than planned)Long time fan of verisimiltude.Things I like to see:Social realism. By which I mean the towns, kingdoms, etc actually feel like real places. There should be reasons why a big city is in such and such a place: trade, defense, food supply. And there should be the means to sustain it when it is there. ie: there should be enough food, trade, defense. If there are particular social conventons they should effect game play in a believable way. Slavery, serfdom, trade guilds, monarchies, oligarchies all effect the world in different ways. React in different ways. They're not just labels slapped on the background. These are things for the players to interact with.Hairfoot you mentioned trade between the Gnoll tribe and local represntatives of civilisation: absolutely. Some enterprising folk would find a profit in it. IMC this sort of thing goes on all the time. It makes sense that people living next to one another will have relations that go further than hitting one another.Economic Realism: OK so just how much money is there in your average DnD kingdom? ENough so that dumping a few hundred thousand GP in one locale is just a drop in the bucket? If it's the fortune it's implied to be then massive inflation will follow hard on its heels.This impacts on the real economic limits built into the rules, ie: magic item cost. The game as played needs to take this into account. Either say yeah, loads of magic items or limit the resources in some way. ANd there are many ways to do this, including putting up the price of magic items.The folk of the city/kingdom/celestial empire of the orchid throne should live believable lives. Have the means to support themselves in ways other than waiting for heroes to return from dungeons laden with gold. This latter is of course the official reason given for Greyhawk City's recent prominence in the Flanaess. This sort of thing would lead to mass inflation and hardship for most with a few clever people making a fortune. Not to mention a population explosion, skill shortages leading to wage rises, blah blah blah. Look at any 19th C gold rush to get an idea. Greyhawk is a boom town. It'll be gone in a generation. Or should be. Sustainable populations need more reliable means of support like farming, trade and manufacture. Trade goods instead of Piles'o'Gold (tm): definitely. Historically, precious metal has rarely made up a large amount of trade goods. Yes, the Spanish convoys from America and the Silver for Tea trade between Britain & China in the 18th C. But you'll see a lot more silk and spices. And of course mundane stuff, by definition, makes up most of it. England in the middle ages was a major European wool exporter. A pirate capturing an English ship from this period had better be able to move a few tonnes of woolly jumpers.Motivation: NPC's must have believable reasons for their actions. Especially the villains. This is one of the biggies. The PCs are out to foil the villain (usually) and it is only fair that the villain acts in a way that is internally consistent. Otherwise the villain just becomes a wandering plot hook/pain in the @$$ that pops in to annoy the players from time to time. May as well just use the old wandering damage tables from one of the ancient dragon mags. (sorry, can't remember which one.)Ecology: This should make sense. Yes I realise I'm saying this about worlds in which critters exist that eat rust, gems or the very occasional adventurer. But there should be enough food to support a given population. If not then there should be a die off or a monster rampage or migration. OK yes, I realise most players don't give a <expletive> one way or another about things like the local environment being able to support a family of dragons. Just so long as the dragons can be slain and they have a huge hoard most players are happy. Nor do they care about where the hoard came from nor the economic ramifications that dumping a literal hill of gold and silver will have on the local economy.I, on the other hand, do give a <expletive>. I strongly suspect that this has a lot to do with me being (mostly) a GM. Or perhaps it is a reason for WHY I am mostly a GM.  As a GM I like my world to make sense. I guess it's a case of "If I'm going to the effort, I'll damn well do it properly."As a player the reason I want some verisimiltude is so I, as a player, can make reasonable assumptions about what my character is going to do and what the likely outcomes will be. I must admit I'm unlikely to care about the local ecology being able to support that family of dragons in most cases. Because in most cases it wont come up. But if it does, I want the situation to make sense so I can act sensibly. And as a GM I feel I should prepare for that possibility should one of my players feel the need to know.A reason to add some verisimiltude that has occurred to me while writing this is that realism can give you a lot of plot seeds.And for some classes the background matters. Druids and Rangers should care more about the ecology. Clerics and Paladins should care about their churches. More plot seeds. It's what we all want.</blockquote>

Verification