Firstly, I'm now assuming that my summation of your position at the start of my post is agreed to. You didn't respond to that, but chose to selectively respond to portions of the rest of my post that assumes that to be true, so I'm given to assuming you have no issues with my summation -- ie, that your issue is DM fiat in ruling player action declarations are invalid due to information only known to the DM.
I agree that different systems call for different amounts of prep. 4e is very prep-heavy, for instance, and so I don't run it without my Monster Manuals and other tools handy.
But this sort of prep is (or, at least, can be) distinguished from pre-authoring the setting. Intricate maps create more pressure in that respect, I agree - but (speaking just from my own experience) this is where tried-and-true methods like prepping between sessions come in handy! (Eg the players have their PCs enter the Underdark - now you draw up your Underdark encounter map.)
How can it be distiinguished? You make this statement that there's a difference between creating an encounter map and pre-authoring setting details but don't actually provide an argument for the difference. To me, the only difference would be degree, not kind. For instance, if my pre-authored setting is Washington, DC, then play may occur anywhere within DC, including, possibly, the Monument. Play won't occur in, say, Timbuktu. If I build an encounter map of the Monument, though, then I'm saying play will occur in and around the Monument to the extent of my map and not, say, on Peachtree Avenue in Atlanta, GA. Both are acts of constraining the play and limiting fictional positioning prior to play. They only really differ in degree.
Or, are you referencing something else and trying to say that making an encounter map of the study, which concretely places walls, floors, furniture, etc., but not okay to place or not place a map in that study prior to play? In which case I must again ask, what's the difference? If I have an encounter map that has no couch, and my player wants to interact with a couch... is this not the same kind of pre-authoring a lack of a couch prior to play as the existence of a map in the study? If not, what's the difference, in your eyes?
OK. As per my reply just upthread to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I can see that this is a thing but I'm not clear why it's a good thing? (Which is not to say it's a bad thing.)
Actually, that phrasing is akin to saying that if I cannot show it to be a good thing, then I'm left with only it being a thing or a bad thing. This is the kind of phrasing that makes people assume a negative outlook on your behalf.
If you accept that this is a thing, and a thing that people enjoy, what's the purpose of your question? Either you do not accept that this is a thing people enjoy, or you think this thing must be further justified to be a good thing. I reject that further justification is necessary.
Now, if you want me to prove to you that you should think it's a good thing, prepare to be disappointed.
How is "I search the study for the map - is it there?"
authoring fiction as part of an action declaration?
Even if one looks at a mechanic like Circles in Burning Wheel, it can work in different ways, eg:
(1) "The head of my sorcerous cabal is Jabal the Red. I reach out to hin to see what he has to say." - fiction is authored in the action declaration.
(2) "Are there any knights of my order in these parts? I'm looking for signs of them as we travel." - no fiction is authored in the action declaration.
This is why I take the view that the issue of player authorship of content, and the issue of "secret backstory" as a factor in resolution, are (in general) orthogonal.
Well, that depends, and forces us to expand the question. This really boils down into two cases: the existence of a map has
not been previously introduced in play and the existence of a map
has been previously introduced in play.
1) hasn't been introduced: in this case, this is creation of content. It's postulating anew that a map may exist. In this case, under secret backstory, the DM would reference notes and either validate that, yes, a map exists here or no, a map doesn't exist here based on those notes and any successful checks required. but, no fiction is authored by the player.
Under no secret backstory conditions, the player has now signaled that they wish to introduce a map, and the DM has to engage this hook and say yes or roll the dice. If the dice are rolled and successful, then the player has now introduced fiction. If the dice are unsuccessful, depending on how the DM chooses to use that failure, the map may still be introduced but with a complication, or it may not exist, or even it may exist but be destroyed by the looking. In most of those cases, the player will author fiction by asking for the map.
2) If the map has been previously introduced, then the only check is if it's in the study. In the secret backstory version, the GM checks notes and calls for checks almost exactly like before, with the answer determined exactly like before. But no fiction is authored by the player.
Under no secret backstory conditions, the DM either says yes or rolls the dice. Again, if yes or successful roll, the player has introduced that the map is, in fact, in the study. With a failure, it's up to the DM's choice whether the map exists in the study or not, so the player may still introduce fiction.
Unless I badly misunderstand your style of play, players are expected to include an outcome in their action declaration -- in effect, they provide the fiction to be added in case of a successful action declaration. This is, as I understand and have experienced, what you're
playing to find out.
Given all of that, I find your question to be very confusing.
This is why I take the view that the issue of player authorship of content, and the issue of "secret backstory" as a factor in resolution, are (in general) orthogonal.
How can you say their orthogonal while arguing that secret backstory effectively precludes player authorship of content? You've said multiple times that secret backstory is used to cause player declarations to fail by fiat. That's very much impactful to player authorship of fiction, not orthogonal.
Not all player authorship, perhaps, but the introduction of content in play is not orthogonal to the existence of secret backstory, by your own arguments, much less mine.
A case that illustrates the contrast (and I'm basing this claim in experience) is the use of divination, knowledge skils etc. Consider "I cast object reading: what do I see?" This is a fairly common action declaration in my 4e game. It requires me to make stuff up to tell the players. (To relate this to the idea of prep - the idea that the GM has object reading notes for every item that comes up in the course of play seems absurd to me, and any player who doesn't work out that the GM is making this stuff up must be kidding him-/herself!)
In BW, that's not really a permissible action declaration, or at least is on the borderline - the player really needs at least to signal something about why s/he (as the PC) cares, or what s/he might be hoping to learn. But that's a feature of BW that depends upon its approach to backstory, but goes beyond what is merely part of that approach.
I don't see the contrast you're claiming. Neither of your examples seem to use secret backstory. This seems an example of content you, as DM, generate in play in response to player declarations and not anything you're checking your notes for.
Obviuosly the map example is an example that serves as a simple illustration and a place holder. In real life the context of actual play is everything.
I agree with you that the scope of the scene is important - one way of trying to characterise Gygaxian play would be that the whole dungeon is the scene. (I don't know that that sheds much light, but if one is determined to analyse Gygaxian play in scene-framing terms, that would be one way to do it.) Upthread I posted the following thoughts about secret backstory and resulting "fiat" failure as an aspect of scene scope:
I think when the whole mansion is the scene, and the map is hidden in the bread-bin in the kitchen, there may well be a real risk of (ii) failing - both because the breadbins may have no inherent salience to the players as potential map repositories, and because the players are very dependent on the GM presenting the mansion to them by way of narration, and that narration may fail to engender the right sort of salience of breadbins in the kitchen (especially if the GM is worried that drawing attention to the bread bins may give away what s/he is hoping will be a puzzle).
I think there are also risks around (iii) - assuming that this map matters for whatever purpose, then failing to find it may be a "rocks fall"-type roadblock. (As [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION] alluded to in his most recent post.)
One way of thinking about the Gumshoe system is that it's really an attempt to circumvent (iii), by making sure that at least the basic clues are handed out automatically once the fictional positioining is more-or-less adequate. Which then removes a lot of the burden of (ii); but obviously also gives the game very much the flavour of "following the GM's story", I think.
You establish that fictional positioning for some things, like an invisible opponent, is okay to have not meet the player's perception but other things, like the presence of a map, aren't not. This seems like special pleading, because those two things are actually very analogous. They only seem different because you're presenting them in opposite ways -- that the player is looking for a map that isn't there vs the player not looking for an invisible opponent that is. If we reverse the framing there, then we can have a case were a player is surprised by an map that they weren't looking for and be looking for an invisible opponent that isn't there. Certainly, if we frame a scene where there's a map on the wall, then there's no issue with the player looking at it. On the other hand, what do you do with the player that intentionally searches for an invisible opponent that isn't part of your encounter prep? Do you ask for a check and then provide another opponent?
I'm now actually very interested in how you would deal with a player declaring they're looking for an invisible opponent that you didn't prep for your 4e game. This seems directly relatable to the issue of the map in the study, and I'm curious if the answer is the same.
On a personal note, much of this is based on the fact that I do use secret backstory, but not in the way you present. For instance, I'd never put a map in a breadbox and not make that clear to the players. What the map shows is what is secret to me, it being in the breadbox and the players guessing where I put it is not something I'd do. I'd use the map to drive the play, as the players find out there's a map that will help them on whatever their current objective is, but they'll also find out it's in a breadbox, in the study, which belongs to the Dread Invisible Wizard Bob and guarded by DIW Bob's henchthugs. To me, guessing where to search for a map isn't fun -- it's pixelbitching at the table -- and something I avoid at all costs. When I build a scenario, I build it with challenging elements and a goal, but not a path to success. If something is important to move forward, then it's obvious but might be very hard to get to. Guessing what to do next sucks, but knowing you need to get to that breadbox in DIW Bob's study is cool; it's a challenge you can plan for and engage. Or, like my players most often do, stock up on healing potions and kick in the door and see what happens.
