Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9618882" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Right. This is salient difference. But this also means that in high myth game the GM is limited by that established myth, and that the players can at least in theory learn that myth and use it for their advantage. In a game where they myth is established retroactively that is not possible.Now in reality, I think most games contain both approaches. Everything cannot be mapped, everything cannot be predetermined. Then again, in almost every game some things are. So are just haggling over the exact amount, really.Yeah, good example. IMO world building decisions absolutely should affect resolution this way. And perhaps in this instance the PCs had not learned about this fact beforehand, and it happened to be one that worked against them. But as the fact was known to the GM from the get go, it was in principle learnable. And of course in some other instance some other pre-established fact will work in the characters' favour. Furthermore, now the PCs know of this so in future they can take into account and perhaps even learn this technique themselves. To me the world having this sort of concreteness is a benefit. To me it feels more real that way (though I recognise this is subjective.) But it definitely makes possible interaction with the world that in the fiction after method would not be possible.</blockquote>