Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5395806" data-attributes="member: 18280">Sure they are, to the degree in which they are not certain what changes have occurred.&nbsp; Some areas of the caverns that they noted, but decided were not essential to their goals then, may well be examined more closely now.This is an exact parallel to the statue-room, where the statue was passed earlier, and the party returns to examine it when something else makes them think it important.By making a world in which the relevance of its features are interlocking, what might seem to be a piece of decoration when the party first passes through some place might seem like more later.Specifically, the original thread example had a statue placed by the GM, which the GM thought would be relevant to the PCs.&nbsp; The GM was claiming that irrelevant features should not be included.&nbsp; I countered with words to the effect of, &quot;What if they don't find it relevant now?&nbsp; Should it not have been included?&nbsp; What if they find it relevant later, and go back to it?&nbsp; Does that make it retroactively relevant?&quot;So, again, the context is (A) Something potentially relevant that(B) Is not examined at the time which(C) The PCs return to at a later date.Change that context, and you change the question.But you also remove the likelihood of any &quot;backtracking&quot; at all.&nbsp; Even if the PCs go back to look things over again &quot;just because they might have missed something&quot; one can claim that it isn't really backtracking, because their goal is to engage with whatever it was that they missed.The question becomes meaningless.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5395806, member: 18280"] Sure they are, to the degree in which they are not certain what changes have occurred. Some areas of the caverns that they noted, but decided were not essential to their goals then, may well be examined more closely now. This is an exact parallel to the statue-room, where the statue was passed earlier, and the party returns to examine it when something else makes them think it important. By making a world in which the relevance of its features are interlocking, what might seem to be a piece of decoration when the party first passes through some place might seem like more later. Specifically, the original thread example had a statue placed by the GM, which the GM thought would be relevant to the PCs. The GM was claiming that irrelevant features should not be included. I countered with words to the effect of, "What if they don't find it relevant now? Should it not have been included? What if they find it relevant later, and go back to it? Does that make it retroactively relevant?" So, again, the context is (A) Something potentially relevant that (B) Is not examined at the time which (C) The PCs return to at a later date. Change that context, and you change the question. But you also remove the likelihood of any "backtracking" at all. Even if the PCs go back to look things over again "just because they might have missed something" one can claim that it isn't [B][I]really[/I][/B] backtracking, because their goal is to engage with whatever it was that they missed. The question becomes meaningless. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification