Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5942893" data-attributes="member: 23240">There is one more question to be asked: How do we want the setting (with its magic) to interact with gameplay?Do we want a world that is, in itself, consistent? Then, magic can't allow one to &quot;do anything&quot;. It needs clear rules - and the people in the game world will use and abuse these rules. Players can and should use all their ingenuity in such setting - and the rules of the game, while simple, should reflect the rules of the world close enough to allow for creativity without breaking.Or, we can have a world that follows a specific genre. Then, magic can be allowed to theoretically &quot;do anything&quot;. But at the same time players should be asked (openly, in big letters, on the first page of the rulebook) to limit themselves and play by the genre, not by what RAW allow. Either you buy in the genre and want to abide by it, or the game will break.D&amp;D often mixed these two and it blew many groups in their faces. Sometimes, things were limited mechanically, for balance, without any good reason in setting. Sometimes, things were allowed that either required completely rebuilding the setting, or allowed players to break it in awful ways.Distinction between these two approaches is important in many aspects of a game, but completely crucial in designing the magic system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steenan, post: 5942893, member: 23240"] There is one more question to be asked: How do we want the setting (with its magic) to interact with gameplay? Do we want a world that is, in itself, consistent? Then, magic can't allow one to "do anything". It needs clear rules - and the people in the game world will use and abuse these rules. Players can and should use all their ingenuity in such setting - and the rules of the game, while simple, should reflect the rules of the world close enough to allow for creativity without breaking. Or, we can have a world that follows a specific genre. Then, magic can be allowed to theoretically "do anything". But at the same time players should be asked (openly, in big letters, on the first page of the rulebook) to limit themselves and play by the genre, not by what RAW allow. Either you buy in the genre and want to abide by it, or the game will break. D&D often mixed these two and it blew many groups in their faces. Sometimes, things were limited mechanically, for balance, without any good reason in setting. Sometimes, things were allowed that either required completely rebuilding the setting, or allowed players to break it in awful ways. Distinction between these two approaches is important in many aspects of a game, but completely crucial in designing the magic system. [/QUOTE]

Verification