The whole truth or partial info. What do you prefer?
- Thread starter uv23
- Start date
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
I would always go for vague myths and rumours. They spark my creative instincts and make me think "that would be a cool idea to follow up".
Many years ago, when I created a science-fiction rpg (which can now be found on my website at http://www.thewhitetower.co.uk/starguild/ (plug)) the group of "blind-testers" who just picked up the rules and used them as-is really liked the multitude of plot hooks which I had built in - vague elements, unanswered questions and rumours.
One of the things which is least interesting about FR to me is the apparent process of nailing down all the history and events. As a DM I want mystery in settings which I run. If it excites and stimulates me, it will probably do the same for my players. I find the "text book" style less stimulating.
Cheers
Many years ago, when I created a science-fiction rpg (which can now be found on my website at http://www.thewhitetower.co.uk/starguild/ (plug)) the group of "blind-testers" who just picked up the rules and used them as-is really liked the multitude of plot hooks which I had built in - vague elements, unanswered questions and rumours.
One of the things which is least interesting about FR to me is the apparent process of nailing down all the history and events. As a DM I want mystery in settings which I run. If it excites and stimulates me, it will probably do the same for my players. I find the "text book" style less stimulating.
Cheers
Kugar
First Post
I like rumors and such so there is never a really "printed" version of all the nuances of the campaign, but it really would be nice if authors indicated which rumors will turn into full adventures down the line. I hate when new "cannon" comes out and blatently contradicts what I just ran. It is a sure way not to sell ne the book.
Kugar
Kugar
Some really interesting results here... quite surprising. For the people who like seperate supplements, how would you feel about a sourcebook that used icons to indicate which sections were player friendly and which were GM friendly? Would that be useful or would they be ignored? Seems like, regardless, people want less of a complete approach and more ambiguity.
Khorod
First Post
GM needs absolute information, definitely, so he can know what the writer's intended. The GM can create rumors, and myths, and so on, but under the heading of 'reducing the GM's workload', stories should be included also, perhaps doubling as flavor text.
I am working on a homebrew that I want to be able to understand after months or years of not thinking about it, so I do both, direct writing that points out the vague parts so I remember what I was thinking, and myths so I don't need to work on the setting at all if I want to run a pick-up adventure.
I am working on a homebrew that I want to be able to understand after months or years of not thinking about it, so I do both, direct writing that points out the vague parts so I remember what I was thinking, and myths so I don't need to work on the setting at all if I want to run a pick-up adventure.
Last edited:
Humanophile
First Post
If the question is past history, I don't see why the two have to necessarily compete. According to the Judeo-Christian mythos, the world was created in six days exactly as Genesis outlined. According to science, you had the big bang, creation of the stars and elements, seperation, astro- and geophysics, and the world coaleced out of a cloud of dust surrounding the early sun. As far as either tradition holds, these are taught as The Truth. It's best to state it that way, but with enough wiggle room, questions, and unknowns that if the DM really wants it to have been created by cosmic, multidimensional mice, he can slide that plot in without grievously disagreeing with later canon.
Similarly with recent events. Tell things the way the average person knows them, tell things that are just guesswork as guesswork. Everyone knows that Bush won the election, that's a given, but the whys shouldn't come out that easily. Was it just because he was the more charasmatic guy? Infernal pacts? Did Gore know too much about the Bavarian Illuminati and he had to be shuttled out of the spotlight? Unless there's some overwhelming need to know, (or unless Gore starts crusading publicly about the symbology inherent in the $1 bill,) the average person (and by extension, the average character) would just know who won. And the setting would leave the fine details to the DM's twisted imagination.
Similarly with recent events. Tell things the way the average person knows them, tell things that are just guesswork as guesswork. Everyone knows that Bush won the election, that's a given, but the whys shouldn't come out that easily. Was it just because he was the more charasmatic guy? Infernal pacts? Did Gore know too much about the Bavarian Illuminati and he had to be shuttled out of the spotlight? Unless there's some overwhelming need to know, (or unless Gore starts crusading publicly about the symbology inherent in the $1 bill,) the average person (and by extension, the average character) would just know who won. And the setting would leave the fine details to the DM's twisted imagination.
BiggusGeekus
That's Latin for "cool"
Core books? Vauge is good. But when I buy a sourcebook I want some questions answered. If even more questions are raised than answers are given, that's fine with me! But I definately want to have a better idea of what's going on behind the scenes.
Khorod
First Post
I don't need absolute truth, but I want a 'core reality' to be easily seen. Its harder to manipulate myths, so they are added bonuses rather than solid expositions.
But from a player, or novel-reader perspective, the myth is far more important, myth makes a world live much more than its encyclopedic entries.
But from a player, or novel-reader perspective, the myth is far more important, myth makes a world live much more than its encyclopedic entries.
