NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8061198" data-attributes="member: 7025508">I am fine with the quantum setting approach where things that are not observed are not really set in stone. However, sometimes I might want certain things to be in certain way and I am not going to alter them to thwart metagaming and I am sure I am already far  more flexible with my handling of the 'truth' of the setting than an average GM. And regardless of whether we are calling it 'changing' or 'creating' facts about the setting, you're approach grants stupid characters this power and to me that is an absurd result. It is not a problem if people are able to differentiate between themselves and their characters. Every character not having perfect knowledge of the setting hardly is a difficult concept to grasp. Even newbies get this super easily, as basically everybody understands that a character in a book or a movie doesn't have all the same information that the viewer or an author might have.How do you generally decide whether to trust people and how you determine whether they're lying to you? Do your friends routinely lie to you? These are not gaming questions, these are social interaction questions, this is really beyond the scope of this thread. Has the GM the power to decide facts about the setting and are the characters part of that setting? If the GM, decides that in the setting all elves are blue, then they are blue, including possible player character elves. If the GM decides that a certain thing is not generally known, then it is not. If the GM decides that the setting has certain tech-level then the people in that setting cannot just start to operate at a higher tech level. We were talking about using real world understanding of technology in a low-tech setting, not the trolls. No one really cares about the troll, they're a stupid problem.</blockquote>

Verification