Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wingsandsword" data-source="post: 2528628" data-attributes="member: 14159">I strongly disagree.  A quasi-historic setting isn't unrealistic because the game doesn't support it well, it's a poor fit for the system.  Just because the system doesn't fit the setting well doesn't make the setting unrealistic.A problem that D&D has long had is that many suppliments, players, DM's, and settings were built on the idea of the game having a quasi-historic background, with magic existing in small quantities, magic items being rare, and monsters being uncommon (but players just happen to have easier access to magic and find monsters more often than common folk for one reason or another).  Other settings and source materials presumed that magic was common and easy, or magic items were relatively abundant.  Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and Mystara were all using the same rules, at three increasing levels of magical power, as an example.A lack of any clear treasure guidelines in earlier versions of D&D also meant that the magic-item levels of parties could vary wildly.  Some official modules would have so many +1 swords that you could equip a small garrison, while others were so magic-poor that a few scrolls were a potent bounty.  The magic level of the game was generally at the GM's discretion, but even higher magic books said that No Matter What, Magic Items Shalt Never Be Sold, At Any Price.  Just because a PC could be a Wizard or Cleric with a 9 INT or WIS didn't mean that every faithful priest with a 9+ WIS became a Cleric and got divine spells, and every alchemist or sage with a 9+ INT who studied arcane lore became a Wizard.  Continual light may be permanent, but the people who could cast it would be rare.3rd Edition took D&D and assumed that it would always be a higher magic level, where the game itself was carefully balanced on a high level of magical power, magic items were made very easy to make (no dangerous CON loss, and creatable at much lower levels).  It gave a fixed price for magic items.  This is really good for standardization, but messed with some existing settings.I think this is part of why Iron Heroes (and Grim Tales) are popular in sections of the d20 Market, that they are built on a lower-magic framework and players who may want a lower magic level have a game that is built to fit the settings they want to depict.  It's about using the rules to depict the setting you want, instead of choosing your setting to fit your rules.When a setting and the game mechanics depicting that setting come into conflict, it is the mechanics that are wrong.  Creating a setting to fit the mechanics is okay, but saying it's revolutionary that you created a setting just to account for all the eccentricities of D&D isn't the peak of creativity, it's practicality.  Frankly, I've seen plenty of attempts by GM's to shoehorn various D&Disms into their own homebrew worlds, and come to the conclusion that it's best that you create the world first, and then find the perfect system to depict it that you and your players agree on.  For fantasy that may be D&D, Iron Heroes, C&C, Grim Tales, or if the players want, GURPS, HERO, BESM, or Storyteller even.  If you want to play a rules set and whatever setting fits, then go right ahead and find a setting that is already close (D&D has plenty of those already), but a setting that is designed from the ground-up to be a perfect fit for D&D isn't anything new.</blockquote>

Verification