Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7192674" data-attributes="member: 71699">It is true that if something does not have "any larger meaning" for you, then it will be hard to see how it could have any larger meaning. Setting aside that tautology, a couple of facets are security and logistics. If our world applies random encounters consistently then what we decide for our random encounter tables will be reflected in our settlements and culture. Deadly encounters on the doorstep of settlements helps sustain a points-of-light setting: travel is risky, mundane communication is limited, cultures develop separate identities. Logistically, it's harder to move resources in such a world, and a large share of such resources as are available is consumed by the maintenance of defensive forces. Conversely, if our civilisation has pushed everything really dangerous into the hinterlands, then we might expect the emergence of more and larger polities comprising multiple settlements with shared identities. Possibly some losers of the clash between such a civilisation and autochthonous peoples will remain to disrupt things. Similarly our mechanics for eking out supernal power matter. A world in which spell casts are cheap (or common) is different from one in which casts are expensive (or rare). A simple thought experiment is to change the pacing costs of one spell - Animate Dead. Say it lasts one week and we always get to recover the spell slot in one day. Necromancers gain power and more of them will be found in, or at the head of, the courts or other centers of power in our game world. One only has to look at each class ability or spell and ask - what if this was more frequent, or less frequent, in my world? What are the knock on effects?I acknowledge that creating a fully realised, perfectly consistent world cannot be done based on RPG mechanics. I disagree that we cannot reflect on those mechanics and incorporate them meaningfully into our game worlds.</blockquote>

Verification