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="Snoweel" data-source="post: 5044767" data-attributes="member: 4453">Well of course you're right.However "those people" are potentially a majority, especially given the way we (geeks) like to remain especially informed about things.When starting a new game where some of the assumptions of the implied setting have changed, the DM has to state those changes outright or else the discovery that they have changed might become an unintended plot point for the players.For a DM building the world as he goes, those assumptions might not change until the campaign is under way, at which point the DM has to essentially retcon the PCs' prior knowledge of them, which may also ruin any surprise for the players if those changes are integral to any mystery element of the story.Then there's the case of a DM who just plain knows less about the implied setting than one or more of his players. This DM probably isn't even aware of how his setting deviates from the assumptions of the implied setting, which can lead to conflicts of expectation, as well as general confusion and disagreement.I know some here have experienced this exact same problem in games set in established settings like Faerun or Greyhawk. In these cases, the DM assumes room to create his own details, unaware that he is overwriting canon, while a particularly knowledgable player knows all the canon and mistakenly thinks the differences are part of the story. Or worse, wastes a lot of time arguing or clarifying setting details with the DM.I think there needs to be some amount of assumed detail, in order to create that shared experience, as well as for expedience of world-building and conveying that setting to the players. Just my opinion of course.</blockquote>

Verification