Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7785662" data-attributes="member: 22779">Oh, yeah.&nbsp; For sure.&nbsp; Trying to develop a consistent, realistic world using D&amp;D materials is a fool's errand.&nbsp; There's just WAY too many inconsistencies for it to work (see the 3e undead spawning rules for how quickly a world would fall apart).&nbsp; It's more about making a world that is just believable enough that it doesn't trip people's &quot;this is stupid&quot; bar.&nbsp; And that bar is at wildly varying levels depending on the person.&nbsp; For me, I'm definitely one of the folks that as a player, really doesn't care too much about massive gaping setting inconsistencies.&nbsp; I just want to play whatever we're sitting down to play, thankyouverymuch.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And, sure, you could set up a setting where the forces of fantasy are in opposition to progress.&nbsp; Fair enough.&nbsp; My beef is when EVERY setting is like that.&nbsp; Or, if we're presuming that every setting has to be like that.&nbsp; It's very limiting IMO.&nbsp; I find settings much more compelling when they can take some element of that setting and make that a driving force in that campaign.Then again, I see settings as very disposable.&nbsp; I run one campaign in a setting, after a couple of years (at best) that campaign is done, and we move on to another setting.&nbsp; So, I don't have to worry too terribly much about consistency.&nbsp; There's enough blank space in the campaign that the consistencies usually don't get too glaring.My &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; bar is extremely robust, so, I'll accept that keep on the borderlands with no farming around it next to a veritable army of humanoids that all hate each other living cheek to jowl next to each other.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7785662, member: 22779"] Oh, yeah. For sure. Trying to develop a consistent, realistic world using D&D materials is a fool's errand. There's just WAY too many inconsistencies for it to work (see the 3e undead spawning rules for how quickly a world would fall apart). It's more about making a world that is just believable enough that it doesn't trip people's "this is stupid" bar. And that bar is at wildly varying levels depending on the person. For me, I'm definitely one of the folks that as a player, really doesn't care too much about massive gaping setting inconsistencies. I just want to play whatever we're sitting down to play, thankyouverymuch. :) And, sure, you could set up a setting where the forces of fantasy are in opposition to progress. Fair enough. My beef is when EVERY setting is like that. Or, if we're presuming that every setting has to be like that. It's very limiting IMO. I find settings much more compelling when they can take some element of that setting and make that a driving force in that campaign. Then again, I see settings as very disposable. I run one campaign in a setting, after a couple of years (at best) that campaign is done, and we move on to another setting. So, I don't have to worry too terribly much about consistency. There's enough blank space in the campaign that the consistencies usually don't get too glaring. My "suspension of disbelief" bar is extremely robust, so, I'll accept that keep on the borderlands with no farming around it next to a veritable army of humanoids that all hate each other living cheek to jowl next to each other. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification