Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 9408257" data-attributes="member: 53980">That's fair, although I don't really view "magic can break the rules" as being counter to internal consistency. I was more referring to the idea that if it's been established in the setting that RW science doesn't apply, but then you suddenly introduce firearms that are based on RW science, then either something exceptional is occurring (someone opened a portal to Earth and is importing them from there) or your setting is no longer internally consistent. If a player tried to invent RW guns, made all the right checks, and came to the conclusion that it's impossible in the setting, it would be crappy to suddenly introduce bad guys that invented guns by the exact same methods but succeeded. The player might conclude that the setting is nothing more than a one dimensional backdrop for that DM's whims. IME, many players find that sort of thing off putting, and I've seen players drop out of games because of it.Internal consistency is important, IMO, so that players can interact with the setting in a coherent manner. Magic being the exception to that consistency isn't truly inconsistent, because it's an established fact of most fantasy settings that magic works that way (one might argue that this is one of major factors that makes magic... magic). Even magic has rules that follow internal consistency (for example, spells don't function in an anti-magic zone).</blockquote>