> I think this might be a US vs UK thing myself - Certainly in the
> recent posts on this subject this view appears to have been supported
> by people from across the Atlantic (eg Jeff R.) and opposed by Brits
> (You, Trotsky).
And LC - not sure where he's from? - came up with the most striking example last time we discussed this.
> In Jeff's earlier example, he said, IIRC that he didn't know, or need
> to know if Orklar's bull had genuinely been stolen or just wandered
> off, and it was something that could be determined in play - but here
> I think he is missing the point in a couple of fundamental ways.
He may well be right for that example - but take LC's example from last time. Missing fact from Sky Ship etc - Danar is Kallyr's son. And yes, their relationship and the circumstances of his death will continue to have meta-plot implications. But LC didn't know that. He went with the facts as given - Kallyr and Danar spend a lot of time together, and obviously get on very well. So it was only a matter of luck that he never made them explicitly lovers, since that was the obvious conclusion from the facts as given.
> First, is it an issue about which the Players are (a) likely to be
> concerned and (b) have some way of (relatively) easily being able to
> determine.
I gather that in this case it was both, though I hope LC emerges from his catch-up problems for long enough to comment.
> Now, some players will always come up with some really
> perverse ideas in any situation, or invent outlandish theories to
> explain scenarios, such that no published scenario can possibly hope
> to cover all possible options, but that's not an excuse for not
> attempting to answer any questions...
There is the question of non-infinite page-count, but simple basic facts can always be put in, enough to cover the "standard" range of player variation, as it were. After all, no-one's ever going to end up playing a scenario exactly as written. And obviously there are limits to how much can be fitted in. My problem here is with the idea that this was *deliberately* concealed from the GM, which is the impression we were given. Something to do with "not spoiling the surprise". Well, yes, discovering that your game now veers away from canon despite your best efforts to stay with it will be a surprise, all right.
> Secondly, is it an issue which might have future repurcussions in the
> ongoing campaign (the "metaplot")?
And again, the answer was very much yes.
> and where something has
> metaplot implications, the GM should have sufficient information to
> decide whether they are likely to be deviating widely from it if they
> make a particular choice.
Exactly. The decision is still their own, but it needs to be made in knowledge, not in ignorance. If facts aren't yet known, or there just isn't room for them, well, that's life. But deliberately hiding them? No. That's not on.
Powered by hypermail