The orc has been introduced into the fiction. Not the idea of the orc, or its existence, but its actual presence as something that the PC knows is there before him. Here is the orc...I can talk to it, or hide from it, or attack it, or otherwise interact with it.
The map has only been introduced conceptually, but its location has not been established.
I think your distinctions are not genuine ones. They trade on an illusion that "being introduced into the fiction" = "actually present". But it doesn't - fictional things dopn't really exist, and aren't present.
In the real world,
the death of a being is a very different sort of property from
the location of a thing, and likewise
killing a thing is a different process from
finding a thing. But the same is not true when it comes to authorship. Establishing, of an imaginary orc, that it is dead, is no different - as a process of authorship - from establishing, of an imaginary study, that it contains a map. Likewise establishing that
This character kills a previously-mentioned orc is no different - as a process of authorship - from establishing that
this character finds a map in a previously-mentioned study.
To put it another way: introudcing, as a new fictional element, a death - of the previously-mentioned orc - is no different, as a process of authorship, from introducing, as a new fictional element, a discovery of a map in the previously-mentioned study.
To put it yet another way: the metaphysics of authorship does not track the metaphysics of the imaginary events that are being authored. So causal differences that are fundamental
in real life events are not fundamental to
imagining those real life events.
It is possible to introduce an additional constraint on authorship if one wishes: this person, the RPG player, can only participate in processes of authorship where the subject-matter of that authorship is an imagined event (like killing an orc) that does not involve introducing new material into the fiction that was not causally produced, in the fiction, by that player's character.
But a constraint of that sort has no metaphysical backing behind it - its justification has to be aesthetic. [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] has provided that sort of justification in a post not far upthread of yours:
I guess, for me, the hidden backstory provides the 'mystery and adventure' I would desire as a player.
<snip>
The challenge and enjoyment for me is to uncover the mystery AND survive the adventure.
<snip>
Because the one is about the survival of combat (the tactical part of the game) and the other is part of the intrigue, the location to explore, the mystery to unravel the puzzle to solve.
Because we have hit points for combat, but don’t have social points and exploration points for the other pillars. That is not to say I'm not fond of SC mechanic.
Because that is how the game was originally envisioned. And despite the OP which is an attempt to differentiate between old and contemporary style of D&D – it is still roleplayed very much the same rather than different.
Thanks for the reply!
I would want to differentiate social and exploration. In the context of the current discussion social strikes me as the same, in principle, as combat: after all, what's the in principle difference, from the point of view of ingame causal processes, of chopping someone's head off or making them laugh by telling a joke?
And early D&D in fact had a social resolution mechanic - the reaction roll, modified by CHA plus (in Gygax's DMG) a whole host of other modifierrs around racial preference, other allegiances, etc. I can't say I have a lot of experience using this mechanic in AD&D play, but Classic Traveller has a very similar mechanic and so far I'm finding it works quite well in my Classic Traveller game: I let my players roll the dice (to make it feel more like they are resolving their action declaration of "I broadcast such-and-such a message to the other ship"). We apply the appropriate modifiers (which in Traveller are generally more about skills or circumstances than stats) and that establishes the result. And I follow the guidelines for when a new roll is permitted (or required), to see if the initial reaction changes.
As far as exploration is concerned - uncovering the mystery in a module like B10, for instance - what you describe in this and your previous post does sound like the GM establishes the content of the shared fiction, and the players declare moves that will enable them to learn that content, by obliging the GM to tell it to them. The agency of the players, in respect of this aspect of play, seems to consist in affecting the sequence in which that material is learned (and perhaps whether or not it is learned, if they never declare the right moves for their PCs), and in drawing inferences from what the GM has told them.
The difference from, say, reading a novel seems to be that you can't just turn the pages as you wish: rather, you have to declare certain game moves in order to get access to those "pages".
If its just all part of a collaborative creative process amongst players and DM then it is far less mysterious.
<snip>
It seems like the challenge in your adventures (and I do not mean to sound disparaging) is to 'win' on the skill challenge for the story (collaborative narrative) to be true AND survive the adventure. There is no mystery to be discovered, but the 'yes but complications' which need to be overcome. Again, do not mean to insult here.
No insult taken at all, but I think the description is not quite right.
"I search the map for the study" is not an act of collaborative storytelling. It is a declaration of an action for my PC. It can be done purely in the first-person perspective. This is what makes mystery possible. Eg in my Traveller game, there is a bioweapons conspiracy whose originator and motivations are unknown, and which the PCs (and players) are trying to work out. The answers to these mysteries will be generated through a combination of outcomes of skill checks and material introduced as components of framing. No one will have to engage in "collaborative storytelling", any more than they have to to resolve a D&D combat. Just as game rules can tell you whether or not your roll is good enough to kill an orc, they can tell you whether or not your roll is good enough to (eg) locate a supplier of drugs, befriend said supplier, etc.
In Traveller much of the detail of the mystery will have to be provided by free narration, either the GM's framing or as a result of the GM saying "yes" to player action declarations, Classic Traveller's mechanics for things like perception, searching, etc are a bit weak. But it will still flow from action declaration. For instance, an ealier patron encounter (the result of the action declaration "I chill at the bar of the Traveller's Aid Society hoping to meet a patron), and the way that encounter unfolded in the back-and-forth of free roleplaying, has established constraints on the logic of the conspiracy. In the session we played on Sunday the PCs elected to attack the conspirators rather than take a bribe from them. Had they taken the bribe, we would then probably have had to make a further reaction roll when discussions ensued; and (say) a good reaction would impose further constraints on tenable narration of subsequent fiction. Etc.
The only "collaboration" that is necessary is a shared sense of genre and fictional position that supports solid framing, action declartions and narration of consequences. Eg the example that [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] offers makes no sense, as nothing in the fiction makes it remotely plausible that Sauron would be in Rivendell; and even if Boromir could perceive a long way (not absurd - he went to Rivendell in response to a dream, after all) he can't attack at that distance. Similarly, if it's established that the PCs are in a cave, then "I search the study for the map" is not a reasonable action declaration. (Just as with Luke Crane's example: no roll to find beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet.)
