Ode to a Classic
20 hours ago
"There's this guy who used to post on a message board I frequent. He went by the nickname of 'Halaster Blackcloak' and it pisses him off to no end that anyone uses level limits. That's why they're in effect in my game."
A short list of setting assumptions that make D&D work:
1) Adventuring is very, very deadly. Most adventurers fall down holes and die.
2) Mages are rare and secretive. They do not integrate into legitimate power structures; rather they hoard their knowledge from rivals and from a fearful world. The world that had mages mass-conjure and mass enchant now lies in ruins. people loot its' remains, usually dying in the process
3) Peasant is not the default origin. It is younger noble with no inheritance.
4)You are not buying and selling at village smithies. You flog to travelling merchants, nobles, wealthy collectors, wizards and barons.
There is many things I like with DL:
-- An intolerant order of sorcerers who hunt down all MU who don't want to join and obey.
-- The three orders of knighthood.
-- Draconians.
-- The post-apocalyptic fantasy feel.
There is likewise many things I don't like:
-- Ansalon is too small for my taste (but relatively easy to double all distances)
-- I hate Kenders and Tinker gnomes, I really hate them.
-- I dislike minotaurs and would replace them with Greyhawk's Scarlet Brotherhood.
-- I dislike the timeline after the war of the lance (easily discarded)
-- I dislike priests have no spells during the war of the lance. (Nonetheless, also easily houseruled: priests of ancient deities would have been specialty priests ala 2e, but don't exist anymore. However, druids and clerics are available as PCs, though rare as NPCs; clerics would be akin to later 3e DL mystics.)
Last: I would have the half-orc race being hobgoblins instead, and playable as such in the setting.