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="Hussar" data-source="post: 2942342" data-attributes="member: 22779">Just as a point about the size of cities.  Feudal era cities are much more densely populated than modern cities.  Well, maybe not all modern cities, but, still.  Rome had a million people crammed into a couple of square miles.  You could walk from one side of Rome and back in an afternoon.  The point you are missing BoredGremlin, is that a govenment need not pay in cash.  My example of paying with land works quite well.  Also, applying income tax in a feudal setting is very anachronistic.  You don't pay a percentage of your wages, you pay a flat tax generally, based on the land you own.But, all this is somewhat beside the point.At first glance, it appears that there are two camps in the lighting the city discussion.  However, for my purposes, there is only one.  Both sides are relying on the RAW to define their positions.  In other words, they are examining the RAW to determine how RAW affects the setting.IMO, this is a very good thing.  I never said that an examination of RAW must lead to magitech.  That is, of course, only one interpretation among many.  However, what I did say was that in order to acheive consistency, you have to examine how RAW affects the setting.  Either to change the setting or to change the RAW.  It is that examination process which leads to more consistency, not necessarily the answers that come from any given examination.In a system as complicated as DnD, it is extremely unlikely that any of us would come up to a common idea as to the implications.  And that's great.  That means that the RAW will support a wide variety of ideas.  Great.  But, simply ignoring RAW and its implications is not a better way to develop a setting.  It's a better way to have giant gaping holes in the setting, but not a better way to develop a setting.Take the idea of the number of predators.  Now, if we accept that there are so many predators, then there should be some reason in the campaign setting as to why.  Perhaps elf makes for very healthy meat.  I dunno.  Don't care since my settings generally don't include so many.However, simply ignoring it and saying, "Well, it's DND" is overly simplistic.  To me, ignoring the elephant in the corner is far more short sighted than actually making some sort of attempt to develop a workable solution.</blockquote>

Verification