Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9251776" data-attributes="member: 29398">I would assume it's to limit what's available, both to the PCs and to the GM."Must have been" implies the past, "one or more of the PCs" implies the present; and there's a big difference between the two in how the concept is likely to play out.  There's a big difference between "magic is dead" and "magic is dying"; the player here is trying to take the former and turn it into the latter, forcing the GM to sort out all the ramifications of magic otherwise not quite being dead.Well, as we no longer have JRRT around to ask directly, all we have is conjecture.  That said, given his approach I'm quite willing to accept that everything he put in those books had a reason for being there, and that it all sat on a very solid and consistent chassis.The GM obviously has some sort of agenda or idea or conecpt in mind, otherwise the no-magic restriction wouldn't be there.  Maybe she doesn't want to bother with magic in the campaign because of all the extra rulings and work it entails.  Maybe she just wants to see how a no-magic game plays out and-or functions.  Maybe she's got a loose plot in mind where the PCs are the ones to return magic to the world.  Who knows?By this I take it you're not cool with characters moving from one campaign/world to another?</blockquote>