Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 8224193" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I addressed the &quot;changing your mind&quot; in a previous post.&nbsp; Nothing in the game world is unchangeable to a DM.&nbsp; So the past, present, and future are malleable by your rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; The only limit to change is the DM choosing not to change something.&nbsp;&nbsp; We very much play by rule 0 in my games.You see, if a player asked me ten years later if I remember a campaign where he rescued a young maiden, I might say yes.&nbsp; He might then ask whatever happened to that maiden.&nbsp;&nbsp; Now if I wrote it down what happened then I'd answer.&nbsp;&nbsp; I would answer to the degree that I'd established it as a campaign fact.&nbsp; If I say she married the prince or that her brother killed her then those things happened in that campaign.&nbsp; Now obviously under normal circumstances I don't work out things beyond the end of the campaign but that was an example.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perhaps a better question.&nbsp; What if a player asks &quot;Was old otho a traitor? Was he working for the enemy?&quot;&nbsp; I can answer emphatically &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot;.&nbsp; It would be a fact.&nbsp; Even though the group never found out I knew that fact.&nbsp; I knew that when the group told otho they were going north that he'd report to the enemy.&nbsp; It impacted what they might meet going north as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; And I had Otho in place from the start as a traitor because if I just imagined him at that moment I'd feel like it was cheating.I was thinking the &quot;story of the characters&quot; as opposed to the truth of the campaign.&nbsp; The story of the characters is a subset of the truth of the campaign.I don't know how anything you said indicates you have a regard for campaign truth.&nbsp; I am sure there are preppers who change things all the time on the fly without regard for the truth of their campaign.&nbsp; Being a prepper doesn't mean you respect campaign truth.&nbsp; Even being an improver, you can respect campaign truth I suppose but it's only what you establish as rules with the PCs and what happens during play.&nbsp; So you choose to limit campaign truth to those things.&nbsp;&nbsp; So my rules are a DM will create a campaign sandbox and play it straight.&nbsp; He won't change the underlying truth.&nbsp; Now I will concede that you only have as much truth as you have established as DM.&nbsp; So if I have written down info about an Inn and it's inhabitants but no map, I might add a map at some point.&nbsp; Once the map is added I don't change it wholesale.&nbsp; I think one issue Ovid is you take something that is mostly true but not always and you want to make it absolutely true 100% of the time.&nbsp; That is at least how I'm seeing it.&nbsp; No offense intended in that assessment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 8224193, member: 6698278"] I addressed the "changing your mind" in a previous post. Nothing in the game world is unchangeable to a DM. So the past, present, and future are malleable by your rules. The only limit to change is the DM choosing not to change something. We very much play by rule 0 in my games. You see, if a player asked me ten years later if I remember a campaign where he rescued a young maiden, I might say yes. He might then ask whatever happened to that maiden. Now if I wrote it down what happened then I'd answer. I would answer to the degree that I'd established it as a campaign fact. If I say she married the prince or that her brother killed her then those things happened in that campaign. Now obviously under normal circumstances I don't work out things beyond the end of the campaign but that was an example. Perhaps a better question. What if a player asks "Was old otho a traitor? Was he working for the enemy?" I can answer emphatically "yes" or "no". It would be a fact. Even though the group never found out I knew that fact. I knew that when the group told otho they were going north that he'd report to the enemy. It impacted what they might meet going north as well. And I had Otho in place from the start as a traitor because if I just imagined him at that moment I'd feel like it was cheating. I was thinking the "story of the characters" as opposed to the truth of the campaign. The story of the characters is a subset of the truth of the campaign. I don't know how anything you said indicates you have a regard for campaign truth. I am sure there are preppers who change things all the time on the fly without regard for the truth of their campaign. Being a prepper doesn't mean you respect campaign truth. Even being an improver, you can respect campaign truth I suppose but it's only what you establish as rules with the PCs and what happens during play. So you choose to limit campaign truth to those things. So my rules are a DM will create a campaign sandbox and play it straight. He won't change the underlying truth. Now I will concede that you only have as much truth as you have established as DM. So if I have written down info about an Inn and it's inhabitants but no map, I might add a map at some point. Once the map is added I don't change it wholesale. I think one issue Ovid is you take something that is mostly true but not always and you want to make it absolutely true 100% of the time. That is at least how I'm seeing it. No offense intended in that assessment. [/QUOTE]

Verification