Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7331602" data-attributes="member: 16814">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.).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?  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.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.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.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.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.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.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.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?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.</blockquote>

Verification