The whole truth or partial info. What do you prefer?

[333 Dave]

Well, the approch I'm taking with New Dawn is the Players Guide has the myths, rumors, and partial truths, and the GM's guide has the real truth. I'd prefer that approach if I was buying another person's setting.

 

[coyote6]

I also was quite fond of the Shadowrun approach.

However, what I'm not fond of is being given rumors & half-truths in one book, and a later book revealing "the hidden truth", which turns out to not be anything like the rumors & half-truths.

If there's a hidden truth, tell me what it is up front. Or at the very least, tell me there is a hidden truth. But don't play "everything you know is a lie" games, where sourcebook X reveals that info from core book Y, published months or years ago, and upon which I've built a campaign, is wrong. Might work for fiction, but not so much for RPGs, IMO.

(And, of course, this applies mainly to the important pieces of a setting.)

 

[Crothian]

You need a mix. I like having truths and rumors based off of those truths. Or perhaps we can have 3 different truths told by three different civilizations. And then even the truths can be seen as false.

 

[Tiefling]

IMO if multiple people in the same group might, at different times, DM the same setting, it's kinda silly to do a DM's book with the answers to all the secrets. A player who has previously DM'd the setting and therefore read the DM's book will know the secrets, forcing another DM to change everything around if he wants the player to be surprised. Better to just let the DM do it however he wants so that each DM's world can be different without having to re-write the built in assumptions.

 

[Humanophile]

The problem with giving honest-to-god Truths in game books is twofold. First, the players will dig them up, in which case they either gain the free "Plot Omniscience" ability, or else the DM has to rework the campaign, therefore losing any benefit of having "the full truth" in print.

Second, metaplot heavy books, especially ones that tell the full truth and nothing but, encourage a "must buy every book" mode of thinking, as well as a "can't deviate from canon" mentality. Both can get quite annoying to non-obsessive gamers, even if they're hard habits to shake. Note how 3e made a point of not following a 2e path on this.

(And Forceuser, how can you like the Shadowrun approach? I personally like the game, setting, and most of the time mechanics a lot myself, but referencing another book in the core book? Forcing you to buy other books to understand the huge bombshell they dropped in the new edition? Forcing you to buy a splatbook you may not want/need just to understand what another referrs to? Thank you, but that's not my cup of tea.)

 

[uv23]

Thanks for the opinons folks, but we're diverging here. I probably wasn't specific enough in my original post. The whole truth vs partial truth reference is not specifically tied to any metaplot, or anything that the players need to know. Its all about ancient history, and certain origins of species and gods and events. More of a completeness thing rather than a plot device.

 

[ForceUser]

Its all about ancient history, and certain origins of species and gods and events. More of a completeness thing rather than a plot device.

I like to see campaign-specific myths and highlights of ancient history because they help set the tone of the setting, but again, leave it vague enough for me to sculpt how I want to. The best approach would be to offer at least two conflicting viewpoints of the same historical event.

Humanophile said:
And Forceuser, how can you like the Shadowrun approach? I personally like the game, setting, and most of the time mechanics a lot myself, but referencing another book in the core book?

You misunderstand. I like the Shadowrun approach inasmuch as it allows total flexibility within the game mythos. My appreciation of this was not relevant to FASA's marketing strategy.

 

[Staffan]

However, what I'm not fond of is being given rumors & half-truths in one book, and a later book revealing "the hidden truth", which turns out to not be anything like the rumors & half-truths.

Preach it, Brutha!

 

[mirzabah]

I voted "Whole Truth", but the problem with that, as others have pointed out, it's a bit hard to stop players from peeking behind the curtain - especially when many players are also GMs.

The problem with the mystery approach is that subsequent published material can clash with local interpretations of the setting core.

Harn has a good approach; a plethora of detailed settings material for the GM and a seperate volume for players. There was still plenty of loose ends in the core material for the GM to develop as he or she saw fit.

 

[Zappo]

I'd like to have both the rumors and the truth. In two different books if possible. My dream has always been having, for each sourcebook, a "For players" small booklet and a "For DMs" big book - like the Planescape boxed sets, for example.