Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8139168" data-attributes="member: 29398">Second try on this - computer died halfway through the first try...In real life some people have dangerous jobs, and could be considered bold and daring just for doing those jobs each day.That doesn't mean those people aren't going to use every safety mechanism they have in order to reduce their risk, does it?If I said it's bad I mis-spoke; it's always good.Much of this - hometown, family make-up, etc. - is done by random roll; not everyone worries about it until-unless their character looks like it's going to last a while.  After this, players are free to string those randomly-generated elements together however they like, subject to veto (which I'd usually only do in cases of abuse or in cases where what the player is doing clashes with something already established).Depends what it is they want the character to know, and the context.  When faced with some sticky problem in the field I don't want someone just deciding they know the answer; but if it's been established ahead of time that the PC has this knowledge then cool - run with it.  If there's doubt, we roll; and if the player doesn't have the info then I'm forced to give it.All info as regards setting flows from me at some point unless I've given permission otherwise.  If you-as-player want to write up all the details about your home village that otherwise hasn't entered play yet, chances are I'm not gonna stop ya. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The knowledge gap causes problems in either direction.  If the player knows more than the PC (e.g. the old fire-v-trolls debate) then metagame headaches arise.  If the character knows more than the player then the player can't properly role-play the character or make truly informed decisions for it.  Thus, keeping player knowledge of the fiction and character knowledge of the fiction in close alignment is beneficial.  It'll never be perfect, but that doesn't make the attempt worthless.Agreed, though broad-stroke things like the placement of ranges of hills (that are close enough for the PCs to see if they just look that way!) really should be given ahead of time - particularly to the player of the PC who specifically has local knowledge.Question: would you allow local-knowledge-guy to tell you what monsters live in those hills as well? (in other words, can the players set their own enemies?)Thing is, once you move from "ask the GM" to "tell the GM" you're into collaborative storytelling - which, as I've said before, is fine as long as it's recognized as such.You're always going to end up with a set sequence of fictional events!  It's called the game log. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As for the participants creating a shared fiction, I see it that one participant is responsible for creating the scenery and backdrop and then all of them including that one are responsible for creating the story (or sequence of events) that happens within it.Story that happens elsewhere that may or may not affect the PCs either at the time or later; or story that affects a different group of PCs (in a multi-party campaign); or story that led to the situation being what it is now i.e. history.Hypothetical example using my current setting: I might have a line in my pre-campaign setting notes saying a dormant volcano about 40 miles west of Praetos City is going to erupt on Auril 30 1085.  The campaign starts in mid-1082; I-as-DM have no idea in hell what they'll be doing or where they'll be on Auril 30 1085 or even if the campaign will go that long.  They might be a thousand miles away, in which case the eruption might never affect them at all.  But if for some reason they happen to be wandering around west of Praetos at the time they're in for a world o' trouble.  Is this sort of thing bad campaign design?  I don't think so.Another actual example from my campaign: a party found a way to access a city that sank beneath the sea 1000 years ago (actually 1082 years; the sinking started the current calendar!), and found sort-of people still living there.  On returning to the surface they presented this means of access (a device called The Way) to the current head of the ruling council of the city whose population is mostly made up of descendents of survivors of the sinking.  Much celebration ensued.  Party moved on to other things.A year later they return to that city, but unknown to them things haven't been static while they were gone.  The head of that ruling council took advantage of all the euphoria over The Way's discovery to quietly, quickly, and with no small amount of luck bump off all the other council members and declare herself Empress.  She's still pleased with the PCs who brought her The Way, along with their associates, meaning the PCs now find themselves with a friend in the highest of places.  Is this sort of ongoing backstory bad campaign design?  I don't think so.If the GM decides there's hills to the north ahead of time and appropriately works this in to the players' up-front knowledge, it's great.If either the GM or the players decide on the spot that there's hills to the north yet a PC in-character already knew they were there it's a long way from great.</blockquote>

Verification