Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2937863" data-attributes="member: 18280">I thought you said both.  Perhaps it was someone else.Why?  Because this is, right here, where you and I differ.  First off, I don't believe that it is anything other than a stylistic difference to either extrapolate from rules to make a setting or to make a setting and then fit the rules to it.  Neither is more "verisimilitudinous" though either, if done badly, can break suspension of disbelief.This doesn't even violate RAW, btw, because there is nothing in the RAW that says all things in the book must be available.  In fact, the RAW says exactly the opposite.Second off, I don't think that even "self reflection" requires that a D&D world rationally derived from the RAW must look "magitech-y".I can see that.  I tend to think that a more focused world is going to be easier to keep from spiralling out of control, regardless of magic level.This is the other area where we differ.  The RAW says that X number of spellcasters of various types and levels live in area Y.  It doesn't say how easy or hard they are to find.  It doesn't say what spells they know.  It doesn't say what their lives are like; whether they live in fearful hiding or if you can find one by asking at the local pub.  The RAW does say that NPCs act the way the DM says they act.  Which means that, if we accept your arguement that nothing in the RAW needs explaining, they act the way the DM says they act and it needs no explaination.It seems painfully obvious to me that answering "We have the basic physics of the setting, now, what would a setting look like where all those things are true?" requires one to go beyond the RAW.  It seems to me that you are looking at a few options of how that could be done as though those were the only options.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  You also seem to be looking at worlds designed for the current edition as examples of this process, without acknowledging that those worlds go "beyond the RAW" as much as (or more than) the divergence required to create a low magic setting.RC</blockquote>

Verification