Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 4912700" data-attributes="member: 13892">I understand what you're saying but, again, what you're describing in the context of a D&D campaign (i.e., a game actually being played) is not internal consitency — it's simple rote adherence to canon as prescribed by the publisher (an entirely different thing). If you're referring to the setting as it exists apart from a given game of D&D then, yes, what you describe would be internal consistency (as it is confined to the setting itself). That kind of internal consistency has nothing to do with the DM, though, and everything to do with the publisher as only they control what goes into the books and, thus, what changes can be made to the setting as it stands apart from a given D&D campaign.  As soon as a setting becomes part of an actual game being played, it's only one component of a larger whole known as the campaign — which, as we both agree and already have discussed, is internally consistent or inconsistent in its own right. In this context, an individual DM is free to make any changes to a setting as he or she sees fit and, so long as they are applied in manner that begets steady continuity, such changes are consistent.In the context of the setting as a component of the campaign, the only time that changes are inconsistent is if they break continuity as established in the campaign. All of your numerous examples, as odd as they would be, would also all be internally consistent if applied in that manner. The only way they would be inconsistent is if: A. The DM changed them from one session to the next willy-nilly. B. You're talking about the FR setting apart from a campaign, in which case you need to direct your ire at the publisher, not DMs.</blockquote>

Verification