Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7596692" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right, so in my scene framing type of process I reveal some information which says &quot;Boyleston has a reputation for fine swordsmiths&quot; then of course if the PCs end up in Boyleston, guess what they will find? This is hardly difficult. Likewise if the party is in Trenton and nobody has ever suggested that Trenton has top-notch smithies, then probably when the desire to find one comes up, the answer will be &quot;gosh, you should have gone to Boyleston!&quot; This doesn't seem harder in my game than in others. I would also observe that it is quite possible to happen to show up in Boyleston without knowing much about the town and then learn from observation that it is a swordsmithing center. Depending on the characters and circumstances that might be more or less plausible. If it seems implausible then 'zero myth' certainly makes it trivial to remove that implausibility by simply not making it so. In that case it might later be established that the swordsmiths are all in Trenton.Sure, these are all simply matters of basic consistency. Of course the locals will know of the baron if he did/does rule them. Likewise if it has been established that no one rules the town, then said fact will (or should) remain consistently true, or else some justification should exist for why it changed or why the PCs were deceived. My earlier point was merely that since most things aren't really established in either technique, that the variance in plausibility caused by some sort of 'missing foreshadowing' is pretty likely to be minimal. GMs, in either technique, normally only establish facts that are going to be actually salient in play, unless perhaps the setting has been heavily developed in past games. In that case either GM would have that information available, presumably, regardless of how or why it came into being established.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7596692, member: 82106"] Right, so in my scene framing type of process I reveal some information which says "Boyleston has a reputation for fine swordsmiths" then of course if the PCs end up in Boyleston, guess what they will find? This is hardly difficult. Likewise if the party is in Trenton and nobody has ever suggested that Trenton has top-notch smithies, then probably when the desire to find one comes up, the answer will be "gosh, you should have gone to Boyleston!" This doesn't seem harder in my game than in others. I would also observe that it is quite possible to happen to show up in Boyleston without knowing much about the town and then learn from observation that it is a swordsmithing center. Depending on the characters and circumstances that might be more or less plausible. If it seems implausible then 'zero myth' certainly makes it trivial to remove that implausibility by simply not making it so. In that case it might later be established that the swordsmiths are all in Trenton. Sure, these are all simply matters of basic consistency. Of course the locals will know of the baron if he did/does rule them. Likewise if it has been established that no one rules the town, then said fact will (or should) remain consistently true, or else some justification should exist for why it changed or why the PCs were deceived. My earlier point was merely that since most things aren't really established in either technique, that the variance in plausibility caused by some sort of 'missing foreshadowing' is pretty likely to be minimal. GMs, in either technique, normally only establish facts that are going to be actually salient in play, unless perhaps the setting has been heavily developed in past games. In that case either GM would have that information available, presumably, regardless of how or why it came into being established. [/QUOTE]

Verification