Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug Sundseth" data-source="post: 3664032" data-attributes="member: 52196">I have to disagree.&nbsp; The original statement in the article (as I read it, anyway) and many of the examples here (which are arguably strawmen, of course) assume exposition that is inherently unknowable by the PCs.&nbsp; I think that's an issue that hasn't been well explored either in this thread or in the article.&nbsp; I also think it's a pervasive problem among a certain sort of GM (which might include me, though I try to avoid that pitfall).<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="8-)" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; 8-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname="8-)" />&nbsp; (Logically unsupportable, of course, but funny nonetheless.)&nbsp; FWIW, I agree with much of what you've said in other comments in this thread.Presenting unknowable information (whether extended exegesis on PC genealogy, expository lumps about the history of magic items or architecture, or cut scenes showing the actions of NPC far away) is certainly a playstyle issue.&nbsp; It's also possible to do it well, but IME it's really unlikely for an inexperienced GM or player to do it well.&nbsp; In the instant case, I think it's reasonable to advise against it categorically.&nbsp; (See also: dream sequences.)That's not at all what I got out of the article.&nbsp; What I saw was an experienced GM providing blanket advice to an inexperienced GM.&nbsp; While that advice isn't universally applicable, I think it was good for the intended audience, at least in the sense of being a decent starting place.&nbsp; (If you caveat your advice with a naive audience, it's very easy for the caveats to swallow the rule.&nbsp; &quot;Drinking too much alcohol is a bad idea ... though drinking some can have health benefits.&quot;, can too easily become, &quot;Drinking's not so bad.&quot;&nbsp; This dramatically reduces the important impact of the basic statement.)As you might have gathered, I disagree.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="8-)" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; 8-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname="8-)" />&nbsp; (I suppose that makes me an unreasonable person, but there you go.)&nbsp; I think it was fairly decent advice for a naive audience, subject to substantial modification with increasing experience.&nbsp; Given the demographics at their site and the limitations on the time of the writer, that seems appropriate to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug Sundseth, post: 3664032, member: 52196"] I have to disagree. The original statement in the article (as I read it, anyway) [i]and many of the examples here[/i] (which are arguably strawmen, of course) assume exposition that is inherently unknowable by the PCs. I think that's an issue that hasn't been well explored either in this thread or in the article. I also think it's a pervasive problem among a certain sort of GM (which might include me, though I try to avoid that pitfall). 8-) (Logically unsupportable, of course, but funny nonetheless.) FWIW, I agree with much of what you've said in other comments in this thread. Presenting unknowable information (whether extended exegesis on PC genealogy, expository lumps about the history of magic items or architecture, or cut scenes showing the actions of NPC far away) is certainly a playstyle issue. It's also possible to do it well, but IME it's really unlikely for an inexperienced GM or player to do it well. In the instant case, I think it's reasonable to advise against it categorically. (See also: dream sequences.) That's not at all what I got out of the article. What I saw was an experienced GM providing blanket advice to an inexperienced GM. While that advice isn't universally applicable, I think it was good for the intended audience, at least in the sense of being a decent starting place. (If you caveat your advice with a naive audience, it's very easy for the caveats to swallow the rule. "Drinking too much alcohol is a bad idea ... though drinking some [i]can[/i] have health benefits.", can too easily become, "Drinking's not so bad." This dramatically reduces the important impact of the basic statement.) As you might have gathered, I disagree. 8-) (I suppose that makes me an unreasonable person, but there you go.) I think it was fairly decent advice for a naive audience, subject to substantial modification with increasing experience. Given the demographics at their site and the limitations on the time of the writer, that seems appropriate to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification