Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6239402" data-attributes="member: 22779">The reasons your suggestions have largely been rejected N'raac is that they are very heavy handed. You are presuming a very high magic setting for one. One where every king will have court wizard security. Where every king will have detailed knowledge of how magic works. This is the result of pressing that DnD rules are world building rules. Once you reject that idea then suddenly you no longer have wizard security corps at every court. After all, what wizard security did Conan's court have?  Or Theoden's?  Sure, if you presume that DnD's rules are for world building then you probably should have wizard security corps and laws governing wizardry. But, in a setting where the rules are viewed as action resolution tools and the Player's Handbook is for players, then you don't get this kind of setting. What really spins my wheels is how anyone can talk about believability and DnD rules applied to world building in the same breath. There are just too many giant holes for me to even begin to view DnD rules as even remotely aligned with world building.</blockquote>