no, which is why under the style I am discussing, the GM wouldn’t make that change. And not making the change is crucial in this instance. It is like if the GM has a map and there is a keep to the north and haunted mansion to the south. If the GM sticks to the map he made, when the players go north, that choice matters because it takes place in a real setting with objective geography. If the GM has the haunted mansion whether they go north or south, then the GM is running a setting that is less real than the kind I am talking about
Then I think the only conclusion is that you prefer a GM directed style. If everything is already predetermined and cannot change, then I would propose that your players’ agency is much more limited than you realize.
This is not a bad thing, in and of itself. GM directed play can be fun and engaging. I also won’t miscategorize it as a railroad, because I don’t think they’re the same thing at all. The players are exploring the fictional world you’ve created.
What may be bad is that you seem to have some blindspots about your approach. Or at least, you seem to based on how you’ve described it here.
And positions like this, are why this clearly isn’t just an objective analysis on your side’s part: it is a playstyle debate framed as analysis (as it always is in these discussions). This kind description is dismissive of the style and fails to understand what it is really about
It is not. You have just described your game as consisting of fiction that’s largely determined ahead of time by the GM. You’ve even shot down the idea that a GM could make a change before committing to the fiction as some kind of aberrant method. The players then direct their characters to interact with the GM’s world as they see fit. They are playing to find out what the GM has already determined. For some reason, you see this as player agency, and when you describe it in words that you deem friendly enough, it’s good, but when others use words that are not as flattering, it’s an attack on the style. Even though you’re saying the same thing.
Further, I’d say your assertion that your predetermined approach creates a world that’s “more real” than the one others build through different kinds of play is exactly the kind of value judgment you’re complaining that others are making.
I’d also point out that your example is pretty flawed as it depicts illusionism, which says that you’re either attempting to paint the “other side” negatively or else you’ve failed to understand the style being proposed by them.
I play 5E and a good deal of that game revolves around ideas I have in my head/notes. It doesn’t make my 5E game less enjoyable than my Blades game. I enjoy both for a variety of reasons. But Blades allows for more player agency. The fiction is entirely about the characters the players have chosen to play such that if a different group of players and/or characters were to be involved, the fiction would be entirely different.
