Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shilsen" data-source="post: 3787260" data-attributes="member: 198">True. It's probably easier for me because I always had huge issues with the implied medieval (though I'd say it's more akin to the European Renaissance) setting of D&amp;D from the time I started playing (1999, very close to the end of 2e). With the existence of magic in the game world and the nonexistence of many things without which, I'd argue, the medieval/Renaissance setting just couldn't have taken its particular shape (the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity, the Black Plague, etc.), it always seemed nonsensical to me that the implied setting resembled the medieval/Renaissance period(s) as much as it did. That's why Eberron has worked very well for me. Even if not perfect, it answers my taste for a setting which actually fits the existence of magic in it, which I personally need for a setting to work for me. I should also add that the &quot;wide magic&quot; approach actually seems, to me, to make a pseudo-Renaissance setting much easier to justify than the level of magic found in the 2e books, let alone 3e. Once you've got a fair number of people capable of casting spells of 5th and higher level (not the case in Eberron, but definitely the case in 2e's and 3e's implied - and written - settings), society should be incredibly different from the medieval/Renaissance model.Absolutely. But as noted above, so too, I'd argue, does the default D&amp;D magic model.Agreed, but with the caveats I mentioned above. YMMV, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shilsen, post: 3787260, member: 198"] True. It's probably easier for me because I always had huge issues with the implied medieval (though I'd say it's more akin to the European Renaissance) setting of D&D from the time I started playing (1999, very close to the end of 2e). With the existence of magic in the game world and the nonexistence of many things without which, I'd argue, the medieval/Renaissance setting just couldn't have taken its particular shape (the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity, the Black Plague, etc.), it always seemed nonsensical to me that the implied setting resembled the medieval/Renaissance period(s) as much as it did. That's why Eberron has worked very well for me. Even if not perfect, it answers my taste for a setting which actually fits the existence of magic in it, which I personally need for a setting to work for me. I should also add that the "wide magic" approach actually seems, to me, to make a pseudo-Renaissance setting much easier to justify than the level of magic found in the 2e books, let alone 3e. Once you've got a fair number of people capable of casting spells of 5th and higher level (not the case in Eberron, but definitely the case in 2e's and 3e's implied - and written - settings), society should be incredibly different from the medieval/Renaissance model. Absolutely. But as noted above, so too, I'd argue, does the default D&D magic model. Agreed, but with the caveats I mentioned above. YMMV, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification