> I have found that sometimes keeping things deliberately vague as to
> what the underlying issue is actually results in the players
> developing more interesting theories than my own.
Ahh, but here we are dealing with canonical answers. Their interesting theories don't count if you want to maintain canon. And if you want to maintain canon as a GM, you need to know what the canon says actually happened.
> I've had entire
> plot arcs where certain key issues where a mystery from even myself -
> and they worked brilliantly. Did Snorri really steal Orlkar's Bull
> or did it just wander away?
But hardly a case where you come up against Canon. (I've done the same. I often find out that throw away NPCs are really involved in major things because the players like them and want them to be involved in major things.)
> That can certainly be worked out in play. The key issue is that the
> heroquests, rites and ceremonies fail.
But unless you know the canon, you can not have the players learn anything about what is going on. Which can be frustrating. Not even having the option (because if you make a choice, you will probably be wrong and then have to ret-con it to fit canon) means you have to have the players fail outright, and not even get some hint as to what is going on.
(In many ways, this is the same discussion we all had about what's his name in Gathering Thunder.)
LC
Powered by hypermail