Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2931357" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'd agree with that except for the last bit.&nbsp; The logic of game worlds are mandated by the RAW (of that setting).&nbsp; It doesn't have to be any sort of realistic in the real world sense, it just has to work with the dictated logic of the RAW.I think logical is possibly just as bad as mature as a descriptor.&nbsp; I think you do as well RC.My English is failing me.&nbsp; What is a word for something that evokes a willing suspension of disbelief?&nbsp; SODable?&nbsp; This is the effect I'm going for.&nbsp; To me, it's extemely difficult to ignore the elephant in the corner that is low level permanent magics.&nbsp; As was mentioned, these exist solely for metagame reasons.&nbsp; That's true.&nbsp; The only reason to have permanent light sources is to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling.&nbsp; However, again, that reason doesn't have to be examined.&nbsp; We only have to worry about how it affects the setting, not why it's there in the first place.Perhaps that is what's tripping us up here.&nbsp; I'm not terribly concerned with the why.&nbsp; Why something is in the game world, or why that game world looks like it does doesn't really concern me.&nbsp; It's a given.&nbsp; However, my concern is given a particular starting point (RAW demographics ((LOL, typoed this as demongraphics))) how is that setting affected by the presence of cheap permanent spells?I think Gizmo33 makes a good point.&nbsp; The people of Rome certainly didn't think magic didn't work.&nbsp; They believed that it did and acted accordingly.&nbsp; Those leaders spending the equivalent of millions of dollars on a fingerbone of some dead important guy didn't do so because they thought it was a hoax.&nbsp; They acted as if magic worked.&nbsp; There are so many real world examples of societies that believe in magic and spend vast resources fueling that belief.&nbsp; Why should the provable existence of magic change that?The question is raised of controlling those who cast spells.&nbsp; Churches work extremely well for this.&nbsp; Mage guilds are certainly a solid part of the genre.&nbsp; Both work pretty well in controlling magic.&nbsp; Dragonlance featured wizard police that killed unlicensed mages for example.&nbsp; I do agree that there would be SOME sort of control placed over spell casters.&nbsp; They would not likely be allowed to operate in a power vacuum, at least, not for very long.&nbsp; Would this be state controlled?&nbsp; Possibly.&nbsp; But, then again, guilds work as a protection both for and against the state.&nbsp; As do churches.&nbsp; It is possible to have the numbers of spell casters as dictated by the RAW without having totalitarian states cutting out the tongues of everyone with magic abilities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2931357, member: 22779"] I'd agree with that except for the last bit. The logic of game worlds are mandated by the RAW (of that setting). It doesn't have to be any sort of realistic in the real world sense, it just has to work with the dictated logic of the RAW. I think logical is possibly just as bad as mature as a descriptor. I think you do as well RC. My English is failing me. What is a word for something that evokes a willing suspension of disbelief? SODable? This is the effect I'm going for. To me, it's extemely difficult to ignore the elephant in the corner that is low level permanent magics. As was mentioned, these exist solely for metagame reasons. That's true. The only reason to have permanent light sources is to reduce the PITA factor of dungeon crawling. However, again, that reason doesn't have to be examined. We only have to worry about how it affects the setting, not why it's there in the first place. Perhaps that is what's tripping us up here. I'm not terribly concerned with the why. Why something is in the game world, or why that game world looks like it does doesn't really concern me. It's a given. However, my concern is given a particular starting point (RAW demographics ((LOL, typoed this as demongraphics))) [b]how[/b] is that setting affected by the presence of cheap permanent spells? I think Gizmo33 makes a good point. The people of Rome certainly didn't think magic didn't work. They believed that it did and acted accordingly. Those leaders spending the equivalent of millions of dollars on a fingerbone of some dead important guy didn't do so because they thought it was a hoax. They acted as if magic worked. There are so many real world examples of societies that believe in magic and spend vast resources fueling that belief. Why should the provable existence of magic change that? The question is raised of controlling those who cast spells. Churches work extremely well for this. Mage guilds are certainly a solid part of the genre. Both work pretty well in controlling magic. Dragonlance featured wizard police that killed unlicensed mages for example. I do agree that there would be SOME sort of control placed over spell casters. They would not likely be allowed to operate in a power vacuum, at least, not for very long. Would this be state controlled? Possibly. But, then again, guilds work as a protection both for and against the state. As do churches. It is possible to have the numbers of spell casters as dictated by the RAW without having totalitarian states cutting out the tongues of everyone with magic abilities. [/QUOTE]

Verification