Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Underman" data-source="post: 5969513" data-attributes="member: 6696705">Who are you asking? Your question is addressed to me, but it was Neonchameleon who suggested the ambient magic theory. If you're asking me, I agree with you but IIRC it was he suggested that anti-magic should kill the dragon dead.I love this idea.To analyze my own mental state, I guess what I like about it is that it tries to honor some level of consistency/cohesion in pseudo-natural laws, and so helps with suspension of disbelief, which many people seemingly don't care about, but I do. It's certaintly not necessary to playing D&amp;D but it makes for far more richly textured, compelling campaigns IMO.Doesn't matter, it's official WoTC, so it's RAW and real D&amp;D, and in fact more relevant or more true to D&amp;D canon than real-life myths as inspiration.I've read some of the lengths that game designers go to explain adventure module background stories with elaborate (often overly contrived) rationalizations for how and why some villian accomplished so-and-so, which is the complete opposite of mythic and more pseudo-logical, matching the Draconomicon more in tone than most real-life myths.Nothing fictional needs an explanation in an absolute sense. It's want people want to have explained to some extent. You can't deny there are various elements in fantasy that various authors attempt to explain or justify in various ways, and many elements in D&amp;D that designers and players attempt to justify. Explain nothing or try anything with no explicit or intuitive suspension of disbelief and your fantasy story crosses over to the absurd and/or surreal. So given that, what exactly what are you arguing please, because I don't understand our disconnect.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Underman, post: 5969513, member: 6696705"] Who are you asking? Your question is addressed to me, but it was Neonchameleon who suggested the ambient magic theory. If you're asking me, I agree with you but IIRC it was he suggested that anti-magic should kill the dragon dead. I love this idea. To analyze my own mental state, I guess what I like about it is that it tries to honor some level of consistency/cohesion in pseudo-natural laws, and so helps with suspension of disbelief, which many people seemingly don't care about, but I do. It's certaintly not necessary to playing D&D but it makes for far more richly textured, compelling campaigns IMO. Doesn't matter, it's official WoTC, so it's RAW and real D&D, and in fact more relevant or more true to D&D canon than real-life myths as inspiration. I've read some of the lengths that game designers go to explain adventure module background stories with elaborate (often overly contrived) rationalizations for how and why some villian accomplished so-and-so, which is the complete opposite of mythic and more pseudo-logical, matching the Draconomicon more in tone than most real-life myths. Nothing fictional [B]needs[/B] an explanation in an absolute sense. It's want people [B]want[/B] to have explained to some extent. You can't deny there are various elements in fantasy that various authors attempt to explain or justify in various ways, and many elements in D&D that designers and players attempt to justify. Explain nothing or try anything with no explicit or intuitive suspension of disbelief and your fantasy story crosses over to the absurd and/or surreal. So given that, what exactly what are you arguing please, because I don't understand our disconnect. [/QUOTE]

Verification