I think so, if the issue were less "and then the narrative informed the world it was So" and more "and then the characters were convinced that it was so".
Does that difference make sense? It's sort of a matter of perspective. American Gods as an example: we are told by the narrative how this universe works. People make gods. No question, no mystery, no nothing. This is the rule of this fictional universe, and if you want to work in it, you have to accept that rule or go totally counter-canon.
Conversely if everything is rooted in the characters' perceptions, it becomes about what they choose to believe or don't choose to believe. And you can also definitely reveal a power that's a source of the particular conflict they're dealing with without . . . setting in stone the workings of the universe.
(And, of course: you don't have to write to please me! It's just a thing I have. *wry!* I'm sure there are people out there who have the opposite issue and hate any kind of fuzziness.)
no subject
Does that difference make sense? It's sort of a matter of perspective. American Gods as an example: we are told by the narrative how this universe works. People make gods. No question, no mystery, no nothing. This is the rule of this fictional universe, and if you want to work in it, you have to accept that rule or go totally counter-canon.
Conversely if everything is rooted in the characters' perceptions, it becomes about what they choose to believe or don't choose to believe. And you can also definitely reveal a power that's a source of the particular conflict they're dealing with without . . . setting in stone the workings of the universe.
(And, of course: you don't have to write to please me! It's just a thing I have. *wry!* I'm sure there are people out there who have the opposite issue and hate any kind of fuzziness.)