Well, first, there's no use of secret backstory there - the GM has made a decision already about framing. That is to say, when the scene is framed - which in this case consists in, or at least overlaps with, placing the map down on the table, the players can see (from the map) that there's no couch. (Unless invisible furniture is a possiblity. I'm putting that to one side for ease of exposition.)
I disagree that there's no secret backstory. When that map hits the table, it resolves a number of things immediately that, prior to that, only the DM knew. If the player declares they open the door to see what's behind it, and you drop down that encounter map, that's secret backstory the DM is telling to the players because they prompted him to reveal it (to phrase it like you do).
If the player declares that their opening the door to the study (they're announcing they think it's a study, this isn't established yet) and that the door will open on the long axis of the room, but your map has the doors on the short axis... The reason this doesn't catch is because you have a blind spot to the kinds of prep that you feel are allowable because the system requires some pre-game prep, so it's not even noticed at the table -- it's how that is done. Encounter time gets encounter map. It's only when you're shifting to a different detail, one that might be prepped but can be played unprepped, that you're it catches your attention. But this is really a difference in degree -- the map of the study isn't really different than a "map" of the desk drawer in the study. It's only different in scale, not in kind. And, at a certain resolution, you stop accepting that prep is just prep and suddenly it becomes secret DM knowledge. I don't think you can actually define a line or even a real distinction as to what point prep crosses that line.
For further instance, you've previously denied that you engaged in prep in your Marvel game, despite prepping quite a bit. Maybe that prep was fast, but it doesn't change the impact on the game -- essentially you built an encounter map of Washington, DC, and then just moved around that map. And, yes, that was in the open, but as much as an encounter map is in the open once it's introduced into play (and encounter maps may still include many hidden things, like invisible or hiding foes, or traps, etc.).
Now, what's the context for the player wanting his/her PC to interact with a couch?
If the whole logic of the current trajectory of play is to find some particular couch (or any old couch), then authoring the map with out a couch is like stipulating that the map is in the breadbin and not in the study, and telling the players as much. The GM is saying (in effect), "OK, everyone, this scene does not have the big reveal."
That seems to me really to be a pacing decision. Whether it's a good one or a bad one depends entirely on context. And if a player looks around for clues to the couch - "There's an armchair on the map - is it of a style that is famous for coming in matching sets with couches?" - then previous considerations around the map apply. A GM who makes a deliberate decision to delay the big reveal, and then simply refuses to entertain action declarations that might generate momentum/foreshadowing etc seems to me - in the abstract - to be making poor calls. But it's not an instance of relying on secret backstory to adjudicate action declarations. Everyone can see the map on the table, and if there's no furniture on it well there's no furniture on it! (I think this point also responds to your discussion with [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION].)
If the player wants a couch for some more prosaic reason eg because, for whatever reason, s/he wants his/her PC to be able to gain elevation, or to take cover, then the situation is different. Burning Wheel (which doesn't use encounter maps in the D&D/miniatures style) favours "say 'yes'" to this - a player who wants an advantage die, and can set out a plausible context for one, is entitled to it. (There are other reasons in BW, to do with its advancement rules, that mean players don't always scrounge for every die they might be entitled to.)
Cortex+ Heroic makes this an issue of action resolution - the player is trying to establish a Couch For Me To Stand On asset, with the Doom Pool as opposition. If the GM has established that the room is sparsely furnished - eg by way of a Sparsely Furnished Room descriptor - then that can appear in the Doom Pool as part of the opposed roll.
In D&D I think the default approach is that this is up to the GM. D&D is (among other things) a game of resource management. If a player wants an advantage, the GM is entitled, I think - as a convention of D&D play - to say "Find it yourself out of the stuff on your PC sheet plus what I've already given you in my framing." Equally, a GM is entilted to be more generous - "Yes, there's a stool next to the bed that I didn't mark on the map - it will give you about 18" of extra height".
In OGL Conan, one of the resources on a PC sheet can be a fate point, which can be deployed to change the framing. This is direct player authorship which - to very loosely paraphrase the fate point rules - might be used to get some furniture to give you a height advantage, but can't be used to stipulate that the couch you are searching for is in the room.
And again to respond to your discussion with [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] - none of the above involves relying on pre-authored backstory as a secret element of framing/fictional positioning that feeds into the adjudication of action resolutions. If the encounter map has no couch on it, that's not secret. If the player says (speaking as his/her PC) "I jump up onto the couch", the GM (assuming D&D or another RPG with similar rules and conventions) would be correct to say "But there is no couch." That sort of GMing - ie refusing a player suggestion/request for some minor advantage in the situation - may or may not be too viking-helmeted, depending on the particular group. But the GM is not relying on secret backstory. The player can see from the map that the encounter has been framed without couches present.
The map of the study is secret right up until a player action declaration introduces it by opening the door to the study. Similarly, the map not being present in the study is secret right up until it's introduced in response to a player declaration. You're claiming these are different things (and all of your discussion on couches is interesting, but avoids the point of the question with it's digressions into games that eschew such prep as encounter maps), but they aren't. It may be a matter of scale (degree) but not kind.
To whit, if it is okay to create a map of the study prior to play for the purpose of an encounter, and it is okay to determine that couches play no part in that map, then why is it different to do the same for a map?
Well, I set out a number of principles that I think are relevant - knowability within the scene, which includes salience, and impactfulness of the secret element. As I also said, context is everything when it comes to satisfying those principles, but I think the discussion of the map example with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and others helps show why there are many contexts for the map example where they would not be satisfied (especially the third, which is what triggered my digression to Gumshoe).
Let's address this. An invisible enemy can be knowable in the scene via clues or skill usage, and so can a map. An invisible enemy can be very salient. So can a map. An invisible enemy can be very impactful. So can a map.
These things you're saying may be different in context can be exactly the same as well. And yet, I'm absolutely certain that you're okay with an invisible enemy being in a fight as part of DM notes on the encounter, but you're not okay with a DM's notes discussing the existence of a map. I haven't yet seen you address this difference to any degree.
And that's important because the crux of the discussion is based on what secret notes do. For you, secret notes are good for encounter prep - and the secret is revealed when that encounter happens due to player declarations -- possibly in ways that surprise or disappoint the players. But they aren't good for things like a map being present in a specific room because a player asked after than map in that room. I still don't see a concrete difference between these two things. I understand a position where you want as much of the game as possible to revolve around player declarations and mechanical resolutions of the same, but you also allow this isn't feasible for everything in those games that do require preparation due to mechanical weightiness. So, you already are just fine with a spectrum of results, but still shy away from the far end. And that's perfectly fine -- understand I'm not trying to negate or refute your playstyle at all. I'm asking these questions because you seem to not see this spectrum but instead see a hard line where things become secret backstory and not to your liking. I'm hoping that you can actually define that, because, so far, your arguments about secret backstory really do seem vague and dissociated. Constantly referring to other games where prep isn't a thing to show how those games would handle a question that's based on a prepped map isn't really germane, though. I know there are games that work that way, and I didn't ask about those. I asked about how the amount of prep you're okay with differs
in kind from the prep you seem to dislike. Referring to games without prep or that don't prep to the detail of an encounter map don't explore that question at all.
This is a bit puzzling.
All action declaration has to include some sort of outcome, either expressly or implicitly: I attack the orc (hoping to defeat it). I lookf for secret doors. Etc.
When the action declaration is nothing more than a request for the GM to provide more framing - "I look around the room - what do I see?" - then different games take different approaches. As I've said, that is fairly common in my 4e game ("I cast Object Reading while picking up the book - what do I see?") On the other hand, in BW it's borderline degenerate.
One reason for the difference is that BW is meant to be a harder-driving game than 4e. Another reason is that BW has mechanics in service of this - it has very few player-side fiat abilities, which means that there always needs to be some implicit consequence for failure, which means that there always have to be stakes, and a request simply for more GM exposition doesn't establish any stakes.
So, then, you're okay with action declarations that involve the DM telling more story, so long as the DM didn't write any of that story down beforehand? What if the question is an augury about the study, and your encounter map and notes indicate a dangerous encounter awaits there -- how do you not refer to your notes then?
Again, this seems to only be an issue if the player makes a declaration that is negated by the fictional positioning that is still secret from that player. But, even there, there are exceptions -- invisible or hiding opponents, auguries on prepped material, etc. -- that imply that there are some such things you're fine with but not others. I still don't understand where that line is for you. And it's a challenge to answer the question in the OP against the backdrop of unclear and vague definitions.
Yes.
This is completely routine in all RPGing.
The player (speaking as his/her PC) says "I want to kill the orc." Currently, it is established that the orc is alive, that the PC is in the vicinity of the orc, and that the PC has some means (eg a loaded crossbow) that is apt to kill the orc.
The GM says, "OK - make an attack roll". The player rolls to hit, rolls for damage, the GM deducts the damage number from the orc's hit point number, that latter number drops to zero or less, and the GM declares "OK, the orc's dead!
At the start of that resolution process, the fiction was live orc near PC. Now it's dead orc near PC. (Plus, perhaps, one less bolt in PC's quiver, if the game has ammo tracking. Maybe other stuff too.)
Or, the player (speaking as his/her PC) says "I want to ask around town, at the usual inns and stuff, if anyone has seen that bandit who ran off before we could capture her around the place." The GM calls for a Streetwise or Gather Information or similar check, and depending on the result narrates some stuff. At the start of that resolution process, the fiction was PC in town; town has inns and similar places where information might be obtained; a bandit escaped and may have come to town; people may have seen her and be willing to speak about it; those people might be at the inss and like places, or have spoken to people who are there and are willing to pass on what they heard. At the end of the resolution process, there may be something additional like Jake the farmer saw the bandit near his haystack, and told the innkeeper about it when he came into town to sell some eggs.
In a typical moment of D&D play, the parameters of the orc example are tighter than those of the rumour example. The framing fiction in the rumour example is much more implicit. But both are, at heart, the player using action resolution to change the state of the fiction: from live orc to dead orc; from ignorant PC to knowledgable PC.
Neither involves the player outright authoring the fiction (contrast the player, in writing PC backstory, talking about his PC's ruined tower, abandoned mace, etc - that's outright authorship): the player expresses a desire about the state of the fiction, and the action resolution rules then determine whether or not that desire becomes true. In conventional D&D play, I think the GM is expected to exercise a fairly strong mediating role in narrating the outcome even on a successful check (eg the GM probably decides whether or not the crossbow bolt shot the orc in the head or the chest). In BW, by contrast, the GM is permitted only to add embellishments (so if the player says, "I shoot the orc in the head", and the dice deliver a success, well that's what happened).
The player asking "Is the map in the study" and then - on a good roll - fiding it there is strictly analogous to the player "introducing" (by way of successful action resolution) that the orc is dead.
I think there's a hugely important difference: the orc is established in the scene, the map's presence in the scene is being introduced by the player. The orc is manipulated, the map is created.
Now, if it's controversial that RPGing should include players expressing desires as to the content of the fiction, which then become true if action resolution works out a certain way - well, we're back at what I talked about with [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], namely, player action declarations as, at best, suggestions to the GM as to possible narrations of furure states of the fiction.
I think this is so for all games that have a GM, and many that don't (like Fiasco). If the player asks for a map in the study and succeeds, that's a suggestion to the GM as to possible narrations -- either the DM says yes, that's exactly how it happens, or he narrates the success in a way that advances the scene. If the player's check fails, then that's back to the GM as a suggestion on how to narrate that: a flat failure, denying the player's intent, a middle ground where the map exists but there's a complication, or even to escalate the scene -- as you look for the map, a demon appears stating that you will never see that map because you will be dead! In that last, the map may still be found if the escalation is dealt with.
So, in all cases, as I understand it, all player action declarations are, at best, suggestions to the GM as to possible narrations of future states of the fiction.
Well, this takes me back to the two contrasting cases, both of Circles checks that I've seen occur in BW play:
(1) "Jabal the Red is leader of my cabal. I reach out to him to see if he can help us." That is direct authorship of fiction - the cabal is led by Jabal the Red. Then there is a statement of desire - the player wants the fiction to include Jabal helps the PC who has reached out to him.
(2) "I wonder if any knights of my order are living around here. As we travel, I keep an eye out for any signs of them." That is a statement of desire - the player wants the fiction to include As I travel through this area, I see signs of the presence of knights of my order. But there is no direct authorship of fiction.
There are (at least) two sorts of
no map yet established as existing or salient in the context of play example.
The first: the player says "There's a map. We're going to find it. Is it in the study?" That is like (1) just above. In D&D it would be highly atypical, I think. (Contrast Circles in BW, which expressly permits a player to specify that sort of stuff about friends and contacts, should s/he want to.)
The second: the player says "A map would really help us. Are there any maps in the study?" That is like my (2) above, or like the Streetwise rumour-gathering example a bit further above. RPG players are always hoping to find stuff for their PCs, that is, to change the state of the fiction in some desired fashion. It's no different in resolution structure from the orc example.
Well, I've been assuming the latter. Ie it's established that the PCs are hunting for the map. (Perhaps the map doesn't
really exist - it's like the gold at the end of the rainbow - but at a minimum that hasn't been estabished yet, and the players have reason to think their PCs have some hope of finding it.)
But the examples of (2) above, and of gathering rumours, show thats it's not radically different that it has or hasn't been established. Just as in the rumour example the main thing is not that the GM has already said "There are rumours", but rather than it's implicit in the situation that there may be helpful rumours; so likewise in (2) above it's implicit in the situation that there may be knights of the order about (the adventure isn't happening on the 3rd layer of Carceri) and in the analogous map example, it's implicit in the situation that the study might have maps in it.
This is the difference from the possible existence of beam weaponry in the duke's toilet, which is not implicit in the situation.
The problem with implicit is that it differs between people's understanding of the situation. Basing your definition of 'okay declarations' as being implicit to the scene runs into the issue of being implicit to whom's interpretation of that scene.
And, this is a point for secret backstory -- if run fairly, it's not implied, it is or isn't. A map isn't implied in the study, it is or isn't in the study. This kind of framing doesn't require implicit understanding of what might be acceptable to do here. A good group can navigate this implicit landscape pretty well, but then a good group can navigate secret backstory pretty well. A game played well is player well and enjoyable, no matter the conventions in use by the players.
Here's one way: say "yes", which means (when they are hoping for no invisible person) assuring them taht there is no invisible person.
And if you misunderstood the player and the really did want there to be an invisible opponent (it's happened before in my games)? Given I actually intended the question to be a player asking for an invisible enemy to be present, this isn't conjecture to throw off your answer.
Here's another: invite a check, and if it is not very good say "None that you can see." This is standard GM taunting. In Cortex+ Heroic, th GM has to spend resources (ie Doom Pool dice) to introduce new elements into an alread-framed encounter/situation. Not so in 4e, and so that sort of taunting (ie leaving it open whether or not new elements are going to be introudced that are adverse to the PCs) I regard as legitimate. In more prosaic terms, it factors into resource management in the scope of an encounter (eg one of my players likes to try and hold back one big gun because he thinks I always have something else up my sleeve and he wants not to be caught short by it).
And, again, you respond with "this system over here that addresses this kind of thing does it this way". It's interesting that you answer questions from the point of view of whichever system provides you the most pat answer.
How would you do this in 4e, as that was the context of that question. It's even explicit in the portion you quoted.
Here's two more, one where the player didn't want to see something (but was going to be excited if he did), and one where he did want to:
Your first example is... well, to be blunt, it rings all kinds of alarm bells for me. It's a gotcha, to begin with, with you as DM describing a chasm and then prompting the players for action declarations for how they would cross it. While not directly declaring player actions for them, that's strongly leading into your hidden beholder. And that beholder was hidden, I'm assuming, because you did not describe it in the initial framing, and, in fact, only showed it as the players were declaring their prompted actions to cross the chasm. So, there's secret backstory being introduced to complicate player actions without their ability to detect or know about it. I thought that's what you've been saying isn't a good thing?
Secondly in that first encounter, it seems to me you perverted the intent of a successful check by a player. The player was suspicious that a stalagmite might be a roper and didn't want to be caught by it so took the time to see if they could determine if the stalagmite was a roper. They succeeded, and, in response, you added a roper. So, a player succeeds in a check to avoid danger, and you reward that by adding danger and then declaring this is good because you let the player see the newly added danger?! It would seem to me that adding a complication to a successful check is not what you're supposed to do. As a further aside, 4e encounter math wasn't very forgiving, so adding another threat of similar level to the party was a major change to that encounter, and not something I'd be comfortable doing even on a failed check, much less a successful one. This is one of the reasons games like D&D usually need encounter prep.
In the second example, how is the duergar not secret DM knowledge in that situation?
It's not about being able to show it to be a good thing. But you might say a sentence or two about why you find it good or fun, in RPGing, for the GM to trick you into thinking stuff was preauthored that really wasn't.
The better way to phrase that question would be to ask what people like about prep, not ask why prep is a good thing. Examples:
"Why is the existence of Burning Wheel a good thing?" vs "What is it you like about Burning Wheel?" There are implicit things in there.
