Why not? I mean, I get not wanting to have arguments over what is or is not canon during a game, but why does this guy cling so strongly to a video game?
Official-ism, I suppose.
In any case, I ceased having to worry about any of this about 2007 when that campaign ended; the one since has been a completely-homebrew setting (with which, as an aside, I've found myself unexpectedly pleased as time has gone on) and thus there ain't no canon arguments as there ain't no official canon from any external source.
Now - as per below - I just have to make damn sure I'm consistent with my internal canon.
There is a map of the city, but it only details some major areas. There are maps you can find online that have much more specific detail (down to naming each street and canal and many of the buildings), but the game intentionally leaves these kinds of details up to the group.
So when the need arises for a specific location, the GM can pick a spot for it, and there it is. There’s no reason they can’t also label the map so that that location is set.
OK, so there is a map. That's something.
This is what I’m talking about when it comes to prep. There’s no need, nor really any benefit other than preference, to determining all these locations so specifically ahead of time. Not when you can absolutely do that in play if that level of detail is needed.
Were it me I'd just assume that level of detail is needed, if not right away then at some point durng the campaign; and to avoid wasting game time filling it all in I'd get it done up front.
It’s hard to engage this half-sketched example. Why would you allow an error on the GM’s part to stand in such a way? Just amend the detail in play and don’t have the PC die because of the mistake. Why go through it all and then retcon it afterward? Just pause, acknowledge the situation, and say something like “Okay, so you had decided to make a run for it expecting the wall to be much shorter because that’s how I described it. My bad. We’ll go with the shorter distance, and you make it around the corner before the arrows hit. Sorry about that.”
If it's in the very moment it's not so bad - it's still egg on the GM's face, but that's about it. I'm talking about a situation where the PC dies, the game goes on, and sometime during the week - or next session when someone looks more carefully at the map - a player comes to me and points out the mistake.
Seriously, I feel like you’re inventing concerns that simply aren’t much of an issue, nor are they any more prevalent than they would be in prepped play.
As a counter point, I’ll bring up running Tomb of Annihilation in my 5E campaign again. Running prepped material was far more prone to errors....room sizes and positioning and all that kind of stuff matter much more in a traditional dungeoncrawl. I made a lot of minor descriptive errors, either because the room descriptions were tricky or (more often) taking what was in the book and translating it to players just allowed for minor errors or omissions.
If your players weren't mapping it you could probably get away with some minor errors. But we map, and thus if I'm just guessing at room sizes and hallway lengths it's inevitable I'm going to unfairly mess them up. (and in the fiction it's not like the PCs can't pace off the distances or even measure using lengths of string, assuming they have the time)
In this sense, I can see how you feel that details of this kind are a requirement...it’s all potentially relevant when the trap goes off and so on.
But it’s not necessary if you’re not playing in a manner that requires it. If the system or the playstyle isn't really worried about the exact location of each PC when the trap goes off....if there’s another way to handle it than D&D style grid maps and area of effects....then you don’t need that stuff.
Hmmm...I'd say distance and spatiality are important no matter what. Sure there's non-grid ways of determining who happens to be where when something goes boom; but you also need distances when it comes to things like speed and move rates, visibility (as in who can see what in fog or dim light), spell or missile ranges, and so forth.
There were far less errors once I realized the issues we were having with Tomb of Annihilation, and I adjusted. Once I wasn’t as concerned with adhering to the prepped material, our play became much more smooth and enjoyable. It was likely more cinematic and less simulationist than what you’re proposing, but there were far fewer errors of the kind you’re concerned about.
I mean, look at the example of the 800 or 600 foot wall. The conflict comes from you having one written down and then saying the other to the players. If you don't have one written down ahead of time, there’s no conflict....the “truth” is simply what you’ve told the players.
If I only ever told them 800' where my map (or my mind) says 600 then it's on me to adjust things as best I can to suit what I said to them. The players still only hear one consistent thing.
The conflict comes when I tell them 600' one time and 800' the next, and that difference somehow affects play.
The conflict also comes when I tell them a building is 70x70' on the outside then once they're inside I end up giving them 90x70' worth of room descriptions that don't fit into the 70x70 square they've drawn on the map, because I'm making it all up on the fly and due to three intervening combats over several hours I've already forgotten it's supposed to only be 70x70. I've done this in the past, much to my shame.
* - and this is exactly the sort of notes I'm awful at taking during play.
