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: 5393765" data-attributes="member: 57939">Except that I didn't change the Y of the continual flame spell. If X is the player choice to utilize an in-game effect, then Y is the in-game effect determined by the rules. If a player casts continual flame under my interpretation, then it will not run out on them within the context of the game or the campaign. What I changed was the less well-defined factor of how rule effects work when utilized by NPCs in a historical sense.To draw a comparison, let's look at how non-magical physics are emulated by D&D. For the most part, the game doesn't spell out anything specific about how the laws of physics work in a D&D rules. It just generally presumes a general similarity with real-world physics. The D&D rules don't even attempt to accurately model real world physics (this can be seen in the oddities of falling damage, which only roughly approximate the effects of gravity). Furthermore, the D&D rules are not in any way dependent on a setting that follows real world physics. The D&D rules work just as well in a flat world held up by a turtle where objects fall based on the ordering of elements Aristotle proposed. Either trying to emulate real world physics or trying to emulate a completely fantastic world work equally well under the same rules.To make another comparison, what happens when a PC imbibes a lot of alcohol? There are no rules for drunkenness in most versions of D&D. However, it would be unbelievable for most DMs and players if there was no consequence for being drunk, whether is represented by rules for not. So players are certainly comfortable with the application of non-rules logic into the game world.As such, there is no direct correlation between game rules and the details of setting logic.Since when was I arguing for a "static setting". I haven't even been advocating any specific setting! All I have been saying is that D&D settings are highly malleable based on what assumptions a DM puts into them. For example, most of the arguments around whether or not mages would be commonplace are completely dependent on questions of class/level demographics. Those demographics are purely based on DM whim, rather than rules. A world where half the population are level 10 or higher is just as legitimate under the rules as a world where no-one except the PCs is above level 1. As such, the DM can adjust the class/level demographics to suit the needs and tone of the setting.What bugs me is that when I said that it was possible to have a setting where there was no industrial revolution or magical revolution, a few people including you started telling me that such a setting either shouldn't exist or just dismissed it as "house-ruled" (i.e. not real D&D). Shouldn't DMs be free to create the settings they like as long they do so intentionally and with internal logic?</blockquote>

Verification