Quote from: TJS;1056208I usually treat cosmology this way in D&D games.  If the PCs see three sages they'll receive three different answers about the structure of the multiverse and the true nature of the gods.

Yes, that's how I've been treating it in my Wilderlands

- do the gods exist?  - Are they just harmonic resonances within the Gaea, the World Spirit? What does 'exist' mean, anyway?
- Is Mycr somehow 'more real' than the other Gods?

I've been building a bunch of uncertainty into the default setting of my book.

There are competing religions; The Old Faith (monotheist), the Imperial Church (polytheist), the Astral Court (henotheist) and Bestianism (polytheist) overlaying a general pantheistic folk religion while some arcane scholars argue all these so-called gods are just ancient spells left running so long they gained sapience and point to how ancient magic items also tend to gain sapience by taking on bits and pieces of their past users' personalities.

Similarly, while everyone knows the Cataclysm destroyed civilization 200 years ago, debates rage over who or what caused it and why. The most prevalent theories are a punishment by the gods for man's hubris and/or impiety and/or failure to worship the true gods, an attempt to create a new source of power that ran out of control, a global cold war that suddenly went hot using arcane WMDs, to an ancient conspiracy of demon worshippers unleashing something in an attempt to create a big enough mass sacrifice to breach the Great Barrier that keeps their masters trapped in the Outer Darkness.

Smaller questions include what became of High Priest Malcer (the Mad) after he was overthrown? What is the Black Spire (said to predate even the Demon Empire at the start of recorded history)? Who controls the Hydra River Cartels? Etc.

I have deliberately avoided giving answers to these questions. My section on the default setting in the GM's book provides a list of multiple choice answers to each of these questions (including, "D - something else") so each GM can decide the truth for their particular campaign or even roll randomly for the answer; if it even needs to come up at all. A group whose main goal is clearing out the ruins in a section of the monster haunted Duskwood and building a settlement they can be the lords of, none of those questions is likely to ever need a definitive answer.

Hopefully that's an answer to your question.

Quote from: S'mon;1056151I think that means you're agreeing it's a good thing.

Quote from: S'mon;1056104Uncertainty - where even the GM does not know, has not defined, the truth of the matter.
I find this dramatically very powerful.
For instance, in my Wilderlands, two young lovers, Cassandra the Druidess & Polyachus the Apollo priest, both fairly major NPCs, and Cassandra a very long term NPC from a previous campaign, had taken shelter on a remote island to escape the evil Archmage Oriax. Unfortunately that island was later occupied by evil Skandik pirates, and it was assumed the lovers had met a terrible fate. But when the Skandiks had left, and others arrived on the island, they found only beautiful songbirds, never seen before. The legend grew up that the gods had taken pity on the lovers and transformed them into birds, and the birds now seen on the isle are their offspring.
I have no intention of ever proclaiming - or deciding - a definitive truth of the matter.
I do this with other Big Mysteries of the campaign, such as whether or not the gods really exist. I have my suspicions, but have no intention of forming a definitive answer.
I find this approach makes the campaign world feel much more real to me. I've noticed that some other designers use this sort of ambiguity, eg in the Elder Scrolls CRPGs, as a way to create depth and mystery.
Anyone else do this? Is it a common practice?

I agree, although I also like to know at least roughly what the important truths are that have effects on things, so I can run the game and develop the world in self-consistent ways.

It's also why I don't allow the TFT Trance spell to work as written (it allows the caster to get a yes/no answer to any question) as it clearly flies in the face of this principle.

Moreover, I like to both be generous with telling players what their PCs (think they) know, but also to (mostly) only tell them what their characters know, to increase mystery and make a large element of play be discovering things.

Like world maps - I have the "real" world map and never show it to players, and the players can get or make maps, but they won't be entirely the same.

Are we talking just about setting specifics, or story too? Because "making open situations" instead of pre-written stories is the whole thing with PbtA and it's "Play to find what happens" motto, to which I heartily subscribe.

Some of my most memorable sessions, both as player and as GM, were marked by powerful surprises to everyone involved.

Quote from: Skarg;1056229I agree, although I also like to know at least roughly what the important truths are that have effects on things, so I can run the game and develop the world in self-consistent ways.

I haven't really found this an issue. More the reverse really. If it's established that X is not = Y, later on having X = Y would be inconsistent. If I keep it open there's no inconsistency.

When a player tells me his PC met his goddess when he died and was given a holy mission, I can nod and smile. I don't have to decide if he really met his goddess, if he's imagining it, or something in-between.

Keeping the gods mysterious seems to work much better and create a far more "real" feel than be deciding that yes they literally exist a la most D&D settings. And telling players they don't exist - which I know would happen if I decided that - would destroy most players' ability to play religiously faithful PCs.

Quote from: Itachi;1056231Are we talking just about setting specifics, or story too?

Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Quote from: S'mon;1056232I haven't really found this an issue. More the reverse really. If it's established that X is not = Y, later on having X = Y would be inconsistent. If I keep it open there's no inconsistency.

When a player tells me his PC met his goddess when he died and was given a holy mission, I can nod and smile. I don't have to decide if he really met his goddess, if he's imagining it, or something in-between.

Keeping the gods mysterious seems to work much better and create a far more "real" feel than be deciding that yes they literally exist a la most D&D settings. And telling players they don't exist - which I know would happen if I decided that - would destroy most players' ability to play religiously faithful PCs.

Good points. I too usually agree to keep gods mysterious, and never "you know gods don't exist", though I've also seen other GM's do a good job with existing (but still mysterious) gods.

What I meant was more like, I like to know at least roughly many of the things going on in my developed game worlds, so I can have things exist and (re)act with some logic to them, as opposed to not knowing lots of things and putting stuff in the world and then at some point wondering how something exists or whatever, because that's what my earlier campaigns were like, and I didn't much like when the players (or I) started running into unconsidered territory and I had to think how to retcon or explain things. Currently I'm looking at my first campaign world (which is huge) and I'm attached to a lot of it but dislike the nonsense and inexplicability or outright nonsense of certain parts of it, and I notice most or all of the awkward nonsense would not exist if I had thought some things out in advance like I did with my later game worlds.

Quote from: S'mon;1056233Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Yep. "The story" doesn't exist except as what happens to happen during play, or something someone says later about the gameplay that happened.

Quote from: Skarg;1056237What I meant was more like, I like to know at least roughly many of the things going on in my developed game worlds, so I can have things exist and (re)act with some logic to them, as opposed to not knowing lots of things and putting stuff in the world and then at some point wondering how something exists or whatever, because that's what my earlier campaigns were like, and I didn't much like when the players (or I) started running into unconsidered territory and I had to think how to retcon or explain things. Currently I'm looking at my first campaign world (which is huge) and I'm attached to a lot of it but dislike the nonsense and inexplicability or outright nonsense of certain parts of it, and I notice most or all of the awkward nonsense would not exist if I had thought some things out in advance like I did with my later game worlds.

Yes - I think the kind of questions I'm considering here don't even arise unless you have a fairly well-considered campaign world.

Quote from: S'mon;1056233Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Hmm I think there are modes of play where predominantly pre-plotted stories are still desirable, if not mandatory. Investigations and heists are good examples (as seen in CoC and Shadowrun respectively), I think.

Quote from: Itachi;1056246Hmm I think there are modes of play where predominantly pre-plotted stories are still desirable, if not mandatory. Investigations and heists are good examples (as seen in CoC and Shadowrun respectively), I think.

I would disagree. I'd want my players to come up with their own heist plan. It just needs a detailed target location. And an investigation only needs a crime plus a bunch of detailed NPCs, maybe a clue generating system - but probably works best with player saying "I look for X" and GM then setting a probability and rolling.

There is never any need for a bunch of pre-written scenes IMO. They pretty well always suck.

Quote from: S'mon;1056251I would disagree. I'd want my players to come up with their own heist plan. It just needs a detailed target location. And an investigation only needs a crime plus a bunch of detailed NPCs, maybe a clue generating system - but probably works best with player saying "I look for X" and GM then setting a probability and rolling.

There is never any need for a bunch of pre-written scenes IMO. They pretty well always suck.

By pre-plotted story I meant predefined "stations". And an investigation by definition must have those. Ie: where the clues lie, what are the connections to the culprit, the very culprit and it's place, etc.

No?

Quote from: Itachi;1056252By pre-plotted story I meant predefined "stations". And an investigation by definition must have those. Ie: where the clues lie, what are the connections to the culprit, the very culprit and it's place, etc.

No?

I think you need a culprit with motivations, other NPCs, and a backstory of what happened. I don't really think a clue-focused approach is a good idea, from what I've seen. Let the players come up with ideas for where clues might lie, based on the initial briefing.

Quote from: S'mon;1056233Well I think "don't put your players through a pre-written story" is the First Rule of GMing. Hopefully by now we can all agree on that.

Yep. Don't force a story onto the players. Just give your NPCs their own goals, and role-play them as if they're in a sandbox that you'll be adding the PCs into. Everything else is character-driven after that. As a Referee, you decide when and what types of task checks will be needed to roll for. The "stories" will reveal themselves at the end of each session.

Quote from: S'mon;1056253I think you need a culprit with motivations, other NPCs, and a backstory of what happened. I don't really think a clue-focused approach is a good idea, from what I've seen. Let the players come up with ideas for where clues might lie, based on the initial briefing.

Emphasis mine. But if you already have those elements settled, isn't the plot of adventure pre-planned in a way?

The idea of letting players find the clues wherever they decide to go is good imo, but I can see it getting old/predictable after a couple times. I'm not the target audience for investigations though, so I can't judge (always found them boring precisely because the inherent linear/scripted nature I perceive).

The alternative is improvising as you go, but is this aceptable for those who like this kind of play? Which begs the question: what's the fun of investigations for those who play them? Is it succeeding in solving the cases? Or are the cases supposedly to always succeed and players are there just for the voyage? And if they can't fail, is it still fun? :confused:

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1056254Yep. Don't force a story onto the players. Just give your NPCs their own goals, and role-play them as if they're in a sandbox that you'll be adding the PCs into. Everything else is character-driven after that. As a Referee, you decide when and what types of task checks will be needed to roll for. The "stories" will reveal themselves at the end of each session.

Yep, nicely put.