Celebrim
Legend
You have your own language and I have my own language, but there is a lot of overlap in how we are looking at things.
You: Principles
Me: Processes of Play
You: Legitimate Intentions
Me: Valid Proposition/Proposition Filter
You: Arcs of Play
Me: Scene/Proposition Cycle
It's not perfect congruity but I think I understand what you are getting at most of the time, though you seem to use terms in ways that overlap multiple concepts that I have.
Where I'm seeing an idea that I don't have a term for and don't understand is no hidden gotchas. I neither understand the term, nor, to the extent that I understand the term do I understand it's importance.
So I don't get what that follows. Let me give you an example. I the GM know as a campaign level secret that unbeknownst to almost all people in the Realm, the King was born with a twin brother. Fearing a succession crisis, the twin brother was hidden away in the care of a hermit - his face permanently hidden behind a magical mask to hide his identity. A scheming courtier, aware of the Kings twin brother conspired to murder the hermit and steal the boy, and used him in a plot to usurp the throne. The throne is now currently occupied not by the real King Gowrie VI, but by his twin brother Prince Killup. King Gowrie has been transformed into a toad, and is currently living in a small cave on the royal grounds, unable to communicate his predicament. Now suppose at some point the players cast 'Zone of Truth' and question a low level Clerk about something and their questions happen to touch on the above secret. The clerk has no way of knowing that the man on the thrown is not King Gowrie, nor does he have anyway of knowing of the existence of Prince Killup, or that the real King Gowrie can be found hiding out in fountains in the Royal Guardians. If the players ask the clerk about his knowledge, shouldn't the GM answer truthfully from the perspective of what the clerk in the setting would know? Why would you be forced to reveal truths that the clerk would not know any more than you would be forced to put a vorpal sword in the linen chest of an inn just because the players looked for one there? Why would you be forced to undo established myth upon which the campaign currently depends (the PC's might not know exactly what is going on, but may have already discovered that the Palace Seneschal is a scheming villain with some hold over the King) simply because of a principle that NPCs should never testify with certainty on matters where you know (but the NPC could not) that their certainty is unwarranted?
Or to put it more simply, why must every NPC in your setting be aware of their own ignorance?
You: Principles
Me: Processes of Play
You: Legitimate Intentions
Me: Valid Proposition/Proposition Filter
You: Arcs of Play
Me: Scene/Proposition Cycle
It's not perfect congruity but I think I understand what you are getting at most of the time, though you seem to use terms in ways that overlap multiple concepts that I have.
Where I'm seeing an idea that I don't have a term for and don't understand is no hidden gotchas. I neither understand the term, nor, to the extent that I understand the term do I understand it's importance.
"GM might at times establish truths that have not been shared with players yet. They ought to normally avoid hidden descriptions that would refute fiction that players have no reason to doubt. An example of this might be a clerk answering questions under a zone of truth spell. The clerk should not testify to veracity and certainty on matters that GM has established behind the scenes to be false.
So I don't get what that follows. Let me give you an example. I the GM know as a campaign level secret that unbeknownst to almost all people in the Realm, the King was born with a twin brother. Fearing a succession crisis, the twin brother was hidden away in the care of a hermit - his face permanently hidden behind a magical mask to hide his identity. A scheming courtier, aware of the Kings twin brother conspired to murder the hermit and steal the boy, and used him in a plot to usurp the throne. The throne is now currently occupied not by the real King Gowrie VI, but by his twin brother Prince Killup. King Gowrie has been transformed into a toad, and is currently living in a small cave on the royal grounds, unable to communicate his predicament. Now suppose at some point the players cast 'Zone of Truth' and question a low level Clerk about something and their questions happen to touch on the above secret. The clerk has no way of knowing that the man on the thrown is not King Gowrie, nor does he have anyway of knowing of the existence of Prince Killup, or that the real King Gowrie can be found hiding out in fountains in the Royal Guardians. If the players ask the clerk about his knowledge, shouldn't the GM answer truthfully from the perspective of what the clerk in the setting would know? Why would you be forced to reveal truths that the clerk would not know any more than you would be forced to put a vorpal sword in the linen chest of an inn just because the players looked for one there? Why would you be forced to undo established myth upon which the campaign currently depends (the PC's might not know exactly what is going on, but may have already discovered that the Palace Seneschal is a scheming villain with some hold over the King) simply because of a principle that NPCs should never testify with certainty on matters where you know (but the NPC could not) that their certainty is unwarranted?
Or to put it more simply, why must every NPC in your setting be aware of their own ignorance?