How consistent is your game world?

[JoeGKushner]

If it's something that effects the PC's, I'll let them know. This could be a new 'critical' hit system, new uses for action points, introduction of Dork 20 cards to the game, etc...

If it's a background element that no one knows about, I won't even bother to tell them.

 

[Kanegrundar]

There are always things that sounded good when I put it down on paper originally, but when I use it or simply re-read it I know I could do better. If I really want to change something that the players have already gone over (such as a quirk to a society, a city leader, or some landscape feature) I'll have an in-game reason for changing it either in the current campaign or a future one in the same world. Beyond that, I don't really worry about it as long as we're having fun.

Kane

 

[mafisto]

I agree with Samothdm's 20% - making an inconsistency work within the overall structure of the campaign is extremely rewarding. Inconsitencies can be seen as one of two things: a glitch in my planning, or a shortfall in the character's understanding of the world. I always go with the second. It forces me to create layers of intrigue and complexity where there would otherwise be none.

As for keeping those inconsistencies out in the first place... my campaign is already planned for a three year (RL) run. A decade's worth of in-game events (driving the metaplot) is already in motion, so all I really have to do is keep to the timeline and make sure the players get to see their little slice of the world change. It really helps keep the story tight; otherwise, I'd be hopelessly lost.

Oh yeah, and using DM Genie and other PC based DMing tools is utterly invaluable. Being able to track every session, every NPC and every map within a single interface sure helps keep my brain from melting

 

[gizmo33]

IMO the players have no right to complain if it's a fact about your campaign world that their current character should not have known - though I would go easy on them the first time, allowing for retro-gaming with the understanding that they should check facts with the DM in the future. IMC it's allowable to assume that your character shouldn't have to roleplay every bit of information that they've picked up about the world, perhaps the Baron is well-known enough that people know the number and ages of his children. IMC it's permissable for players to use that information, assuming it fits the criteria and I give permission for it (usually after the fact). If the current set of characters encounters a fact that's inconsistent with what their prior characters new, invoke the "alternate universes" explanation:
DM: "My campaign consists of a number of related but alternate universes, where the consequences of different historical outcomes are explored. You are now in universe #2132A, which bears a close resemblance to my previous campaign world but differs in some subtle ways. The Baron in this universe has no daughter, so let's go back and, with that knowledge, what does your character really say?".
OR
DM: "Hey guys/gals, I'm not going to keep track of 15 years of campaign material - I reserve the right to change my campaign details. For example - I'd like to rework the town of Woebegone without having to call every player in my campaign from 1986 and get their permission. Anytime you start new characters in my campaign. All bets are off, ask before you bet your life on some fact."

I suppose the response depends on how close of friends you are with the players.
Of course my advice here is a last resort measure, I more often follow the advice given in the other posts on this thread - I just like to keep this one in my back pocket in case.