I must be failing really hard at communication here.I keep trying to say that I think it'd be better if we, the authors, didn't know all the facts. Because the more facts we nail down, the less mysterious the setting will seem from our point of view.
I am also trying to say that allowing multiple, independent origins for isolated groups of the same species would be a good thing. Because then someone could, for example, write up a kingdom of people that were transformed from bees into humans a long time ago. Something like that would not be allowed if we'd already decided (for example) that all humans came to the planet through a dimensional wormhole.
- Member of The Campaign Builder's Guild
- My tutorials: How to make a roll of parchment graphic in GIMP
I make use of Wag's mountain brushes.
This is what I was referring to when I asked what the purpose is. How does it help us? How does it help the civilizations or their development? What makes this method better than Ghostman's approach?Originally Posted by Azelor
My bias in this argument is with Ghostman, so that is my default position. Also I pretty much agree with all his arguments so far.
We can decide of the multiple explanations as a group meaning that everyone can participate. Other explanations can be added later for, as you said, isolated groups of people. It will not contradict the rest and in case it does, it could be modified if enough people agree on the changes.
I just want the project to get going/start. I'm willing to make compromises on my top down approach. Both approach have their advantages and disadvantages and I think we should try to work with both at the same time.
It's also possible to make adjustments later.
No you didn't fail, it was quite clear. But for me it was basically a tautology.I must be failing really hard at communication here.
.
The facts an author knows he per definition knows them. And the fact's he doesn't know, he doesn't know them. Besides no author knows all the facts anyway because there is an infinity.
There is always room for an infinity of new, not known facts (e.g mysteries) -, so there is no constraint on anybody but for a small (finite) number of communicated/agreed facts.
So it was neither about facts nor about knowledge.
It was just about what part of his knowledge an author communicates to others and what part he doesn't.
You seem to say that it is better that an author communicates only a (small ?) fraction of what he knows/imagines because what he doesn't communicate can't be "nailed down".
I was saying that he should communicate everything he knows/imagines.
And Azelor was saying basically the same thing like me, adding that the authors can always agree about what will be "nailed down" - probably a sort of voting.
I see what you mean Deadshade. In this case though, there's multiple authors collaborating and the authors themselves form at least partially the audience for their own work, so things are a bit different from the more typical case of a single author presenting a work for a distinct audience. That is why I see value to keeping some elements of the setting undefined even on the level of authorial knowledge.
- Member of The Campaign Builder's Guild
- My tutorials: How to make a roll of parchment graphic in GIMP
I make use of Wag's mountain brushes.
Ok now that we settled this, can we go back to the original topic ?
Again, I don't mean to decide what races lives in each valley and in the back countryside but just about deciding what are the most common races.
Reply With Quote
