NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6205843" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Going to do the analysis of the above play-post with other agendas/systems in the coming days.  I'm also going to do a post on the 3.x DMG and the agendas that it promotes, its level of coherency with respect to its design ethos, what it has to say about "default DMing" and what it has to say about many other things in this thread (mostly about GM-force and, yes, Calvinball).  Most of it is going to be disputing positions taken in this thread on the aforementioned issues.  However, that is going to take me more than a few days, so I just want to post something right quick to get it out of the way; a retraction and an apology.@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?6681948-N-raac" target="_blank">N'raac </a>has asserted that default 3.x implied setting asserts a thriving "magic item economy" where magic items have basically been turned into commodities.  I didn't read much about the setting stuff in the DMG and didn't follow a lot of the nebulous advice as I found the 3.x DMG a pretty poor book back in the day, I had my GMing style, and I knew what I wanted to do with the ruleset and what principles it was built around.  In reviewing the 3.x DMG Campaign section, it is extremely clear in multiple entries there, that N'raac's take on the default is orthodox and my own is deviant (although I still hold that it makes plenty of sense as I've used it throughout all of my campaigns).  3.x process-sim nature, "there's a rule for everything" and granular setting components that are spurred by in-world association and internal consistency make it clear that all of the magic item creation rules/costs/etc are part and parcel to a thriving "magic as commodity" world; they are not metagame tools for the GM.  I remember now that this was one of the facets of the game that turned many-a-grog off (among other things).  Anyway, my take on that was off and I bridged my off-take by stating that such a setting paradigm was quintessential for certain adversarial GMing towards spellcasters.  I was wrong on my take and unfair on the extrapolation.  Consider my wrongness owned, and this an apology to N'raac for a poor 2nd order extrapolation borne of 1st order wrongness.Beyond that, I still hold my position firmly on the rest of it and will have a post in a few days on what I noted in the 1st paragraph above.</blockquote>

Verification