What do you tend towards? Examples: Forgotten Realms: high fantasy, heroic. Cimmeria (from conan the barbarian): low fantasy, pulp. Eberron: high fantasy, pulp.
Last campaign: Low magic, gritty realism, "humans against a dark and hostile world" noir tone.
This campaign: High magic, High Adventure, Renaissance level technology ( Clockpunk ), Renaissance style dynamic and growing culture ( eventually to be tinged by the fear of the campaign's "dark forces" which of course the Party will have to defeat and save the day ... somewhere around level 18 ).
In all cases, my approach almost completely dominated by simulationism: what happens is governed by the internal logic and plausible unfolding of events in the world; governed by "what would have actually happened", and not "the rule of cool", "what's best for the story", "what's most interesting for that Character", "what's a strict literal mechanical interpretation of what the rules say", or "What's the best way to win?"
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
For me, I tend toward pulp fantasy rather than heroic fantasy; whether it’s high-magic or low-magic depends on the idea for the campaign.
Im young (18), so I have no experience with older versions of D&D, but I’ve read about the old Gygax and Judges Guild modules, their writing style, and structure, and I like them better. For me, the idea that adventures are more localized and not as world-threatening, and that the heroes are flawed morally really intrigues me.
What do you tend towards? Examples: Forgotten Realms: high fantasy, heroic. Cimmeria (from conan the barbarian): low fantasy, pulp. Eberron: high fantasy, pulp.
I did NOT eat those hikers.
Last campaign: Low magic, gritty realism, "humans against a dark and hostile world" noir tone.
This campaign: High magic, High Adventure, Renaissance level technology ( Clockpunk ), Renaissance style dynamic and growing culture ( eventually to be tinged by the fear of the campaign's "dark forces" which of course the Party will have to defeat and save the day ... somewhere around level 18 ).
In all cases, my approach almost completely dominated by simulationism: what happens is governed by the internal logic and plausible unfolding of events in the world; governed by "what would have actually happened", and not "the rule of cool", "what's best for the story", "what's most interesting for that Character", "what's a strict literal mechanical interpretation of what the rules say", or "What's the best way to win?"
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
For me, I tend toward pulp fantasy rather than heroic fantasy; whether it’s high-magic or low-magic depends on the idea for the campaign.
Im young (18), so I have no experience with older versions of D&D, but I’ve read about the old Gygax and Judges Guild modules, their writing style, and structure, and I like them better. For me, the idea that adventures are more localized and not as world-threatening, and that the heroes are flawed morally really intrigues me.
I typically find my comfort zone is around the "Ebberon" level of high fantasy pulp.