NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7188023" data-attributes="member: 71699">I think that if we say "system" we mean rules, tables, guidelines and components. For example, world building "systems" (such as Traveller's) present a collection of tables for generating stats such as population, tech level and so forth. Each world ended up with a profile (UPP). We used those to create High Guard / Trillion Credit Squadron campaigns back in the day. It is a simple statement of fact that D&D contains world building tables e.g. the Random Settlements tables. However, I would say that it doesn't contain all the tables and eager world builder might desire. A world also needs rules, such as for war or trade. D&D offers only the UA Battle System and is silent on how the forces are constructed, or supported. Chivalry and Sorcery had extensive rules for that. World builders benefit from guidelines about things from pantheons to languages. D&D includes those although perhaps systems like Empire of the Petal Throne had more to offer for languages. I don't recall Traveller having much on that. Finally, a world needs to be populated with people and things. All of the systems mentioned contain detail and variety for people and things. For example, the MM gives us numerous creatures with contexts that are quite usable. I could agree that D&D does not offer complete support for world building, but what it does offer is at a reasonable degree of quality. I disagree that world-building doesn't use the system: rather that comes from an apparent blindness to the extent that D&D worlds perforce integrate the system!When we create a D&D world we constantly reference the mechanics. We put mechanically detailed people and creatures into that world. We shape the world to reflect the available spells and powers. Should we construct our world without reference to the mechanics of the game we are playing, then we really are doing that task badly. Sure, if you then wanted to argue that given world building done badly, integrating effects caused by the mechanics is pointless - then we're forced to agree with that because we built our conclusion into our premise. A conclusion that is of course especially spurious given that we probably agree that a world building system is one that offers and integrates more mechanics, not fewer.The system constantly attempts to offer mechanical compromises that help make your world work. For example, the cycle of rests maps to reducing exhaustion, examining and attuning items, and training and other downtime, that will effect most sentient and many other creatures in the world. Think - why can a creature reduce exhaustion by finishing of a long-rest, if they ingest food and drink? It's all very "meta" really: the mechanics proceed from the fiction and then reflect back upon it. One of the problems with Gritty Realism is then do we only reduce exhaustion once per week? We could say that is a character-only thing, which for me is needlessly jarring. Better I believe to find a mechanic that sustains our world, our game balance, and our diversity of meaningful encounters.</blockquote>

Verification