Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Baron Opal II" data-source="post: 9253588" data-attributes="member: 6794067">Per the OP, we don't know why the foundational concept was put forward. There could be a good, or at least interesting reason for it. It could be that the players keep picking all magic using parties and the referee this time wants something different. Having someone play the "last mage" could derail the campaign rather than spur interesting stories. We don't know.From our limited perspective the stance appears contrarian rather than collaborative.Presumably it already has, since a significant thematic section of fantasy gaming has been obviated by a starting premise. I would think that it in of itself would generate some discussion prior to character creation.Again, communication is key. Why are we thinking about exploring a magicless campaign? We don't have that information. The story could be about becoming the next mage rediscovering magic, so having a last mage character ends the campaign before it begins. Contrarianism alone is not innovation.This is more of a tangent, however. With a discussion of setting consistency and the utility thereof, I think that it is important to adhere to a significant degree of consistency until the lack becomes useful. Inconsistencies should be present to highlight exceptions, provide clues, identify special characters and situations worthy of greater attention.I will attempt to clarify with an Ars Magica anecdote when I have a moment.</blockquote>

Verification