Quote Originally Posted by Vaz View Post
But given that as the world builder, you can change that, or make exception via McGuffin its entirely in World Builders hands anyway.

'I want someone else to tell me I'm not limited' sounds like a needless extension of 'I'm not limited'.
I'm going to expand on my last point, since I'm no longer on mobile in the car.

Even among published settings, magic works quite differently in each setting. The spells (game mechanics) are similar, but the underlying theories are different and so the worlds respond in different patterns. Combine that with an explicit decision not to have a default setting (Forgotten Realms is only the setting for AL, not for the books entire), and you get a need to not pin things down tightly to one world.

There's a trade-off with consistency. To get consistency (with magic), you need to have a working model of how magic works in the particular setting. The more consistent you make that model, the more restricted it is to one particular setting, and the greater the expectations that players have on that being the case. Effectively, setting a hard default raises the barriers to player buy-in, because you're eventually making a whole new system. Since doing so gets exponentially harder the more pinned-down, specific rules there are, the probability of dissonance rises greatly since no DM can keep track of all the moving parts.

For example, take the Great Wheel planar model of most of 3e. The assumption that there is a Lawful outer plane that contrasts with a Chaotic outer plane, or a Positive Energy plane that contrasts with a Negative Energy plane pervades the rules (especially as far as the spell and ability tags go). It forces a particular view of outsiders and results in a very specific feel. My setting, where alignment specifically, and in-universe, is not a thing would not work without a major overhaul. There are too many mechanical and expectation pieces that depend on alignment being a thing, and certain races/types having certain alignments. As I've said on other threads, my angels are not necessarily good (some are, some aren't)--they're defined by their purpose and the source of their power (the Great Mechanism). Devils are not evil (some are, some aren't)--they're defined by their refusal to swear allegiance to the Powers and to the Mechanism and their resulting need for a source of power (which they find in making and keeping contracts with mortals). Demons aren't evil either, nor are they chaotic--they're defined by their goals (which all involve the overthrow of the gods and the Mechanism) and their power source (consuming mortal souls). Some gain their diet of souls in fair trade for services rendered without deceit; some delight in corrupting and consuming unwary souls.

Same goes for the magical system. There is no Weave in my setting--magic pervades and makes up everything (as anima). There is no mundane--everybody is magical (but not necessarily a spell-caster). This magic is created by life and growth, discovery and innovation. This makes souls the magical currency of the universe. Manipulating them, consuming them, paying with pieces of a soul, etc. All of this requires very few changes to mechanics--only to the descriptions of things. This means that in-play, I can stick close to the text without dissonance with the setting. All of this is exactly courtesy of the "vagueness" of the rules. Doing this in 4e would have been reasonably easy, due to the strong fluff/crunch dichotomy of that system. Doing this in 3e would have been nearly impossible and involved an entire rewrite of the monster manual, the spell system, basically everything to account for the differences.

Game systems can go one of two ways--
* Maximum consistency, leading to a single-setting system. The various WarHammer game lines are that way. You can port to other settings, but it's really really hard since so much presumes that setting.
* Maximum setting flexibility, leading to a tool-kit approach. These (in the extreme) end up mainly only restricting the genre and/or tone of the game. FATE and Powered By the Apocalypse systems are like this.

D&D has always sat on the fence (which is both good and bad). It's not a totally build-the-setting-to-fit-the-game system like FATE, nor is it a single-setting system like Only War or Dark Heresy. That means that the designers have to carefully walk the line--not setting too hard of defaults and not baking too much of the fluff into the crunch, but also not divorcing the two entirely (like 4e was accused of doing).