Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SKyOdin" data-source="post: 5393245" data-attributes="member: 57939">First off, there is no singular D&D setting. Whenever someone creates a setting or campaign for D&D, they interpret the basic rules and ideas of D&D in different ways. Look at Eberron, Forgotten Realms, and Dark Sun for example: all three of those official settings take the same basic rules and draw out very different setting paradigms. And nothing I have suggested is beyond the same bounds of interpretation that those settings use. I haven't suggested anything involving changing actual rules, only the setting interpretations of those rules.Second off, D&D doesn't tell you anything about how magic works. Let me ask this, what does a wizard do when he casts fireball? The 3E rules tell us that the wizard says something, does something with his hands, and then does something with bat guano. The 4E rules tell us absolutely nothing about what the wizard does when he casts fireball. There is no explanation whatsoever of where the fire comes from in either rule set. That isn't even an attempt at an explanation, let alone an actual system. Does the wizard invoke a pact with fire spirits, draw out the ideal form of fire from an alternate dimension, call upon a miracle from his guardian angel, or draw out the power from a local ley-line of energy? D&D makes no attempt to give an explanation for arcane magic on even that fundamental level. So there is no implied understanding of how magic works in D&D; it is just a blank slate for DMs to fill in as they wish.Likewise, the only setting material given in core D&D rules deals with cosmology, lists of gods, and so on. However, those things are explicitly designed to be replaced and modified at will. I don't consider changing the list of gods or what the planes are to be house rules, since those things aren't rules in the first place.Also, I don't think that just because a monster or race is included in a book means that that creature exists in a setting. It is also safe to assume that creatures are governed and affected by considerations that are not directly addressed or explicitly stated by the game rules. Otherwise, creatures wouldn't need to eat and couldn't procreate. In my opinion, saying that dragons exist in a setting and saying that dragons never existed in a setting are equally valid options.Let me summarize my argument. I think that it is possible to prevent a magic-industrial revolution in a D&D setting without changing a single word of rules text. It can be done simply by being selective about what is included in the setting and adding some rather logical qualifiers to magic that don't affect the in-game use of magic. Likewise, it is possible to have a world dominated by advanced, commonly used magic by adjusting those non-rule factors in a slightly different way.EDIT: I suppose I should say that there is an implied setting of sorts in D&D. However, my point is that it is a very vague, ill-defined thing. People tend to overstate how real the implied setting is. There are many things that don't work with D&D, but far, far more things that do. Honestly, I think many people's ideas of what "generic D&D" means are colored by their own preferences and experiences. However, those preferences are not an inherent part of the ruleset.</blockquote>

Verification