I don't see these elements as mere backstory. They are also (i) NPC motivations, and (ii) elements for framing encounters.
The elements are for prepping the scenario for the players to interact with. Scene framing doesn't apply. That's the Forge game you're thinking of. That's designed for shared creation of a fiction. Playing D&D is quite the opposite. The exploration of a reality.
Bull. I have to improvise once the campaign begins - all the time. My players don't stand in place waiting for me to have everything that will ever happen in the campaign made up. That way lies lunacy.
Just so everyone's on the same page, could you tell me which of these you think are improvising:
Think of the game Mastermind. The code behind the screen is determined by the referee of that game prior to play. Afterwards it must remain the same. They aren't allowed to change it. What is there is a particular reality. We might interpret it differently, but it's the referee's unchanging interpretation which is being gamed by the player on the other side of the screen.
So you do all of those. I don't do any. There are elements I need to generate on the fly, like rolling Hit Points or NPC Ability Scores, but those results are not created by me. The code for doing so is determined beforehand, but that's so players can engage in gameplay: strategizing, remembering what has happened and extrapolating it 10, 20 moves into the future. Planning for and pragmatically mastering what is existent behind the screen. You can improvise of course, but the DMG, MM, and adventure modules come in separate books from the PHB for a reason. It's why they say "Do not read if you are going to play this game." It's to deal with potential spoilers. Game spoilers, not story spoilers. It's clues to learning how to solve the Rubik's Cube, not knowing the generalities of a sequence before you read it. If you're improvising, you don't have a spoiler problem.
How do the players interact with the scenario? The fictional situation has to be set out; actions for PCs (who are fictional constructs themselves) declared; and those actions resolved. How is the dyrad going to respond when the player of the burly fighter says "I smile warmly at her"? The backstory that Wyatt suggests helps a GM answer that question in an interesting way.
I don't see that either of these have much in common with typical D&D play as I have experienced it over the past 30 years.
They players interact by telling the referee what they attempt to do. The fog of war remains up, but the scenario is still existent. Again, there is no fictional situation as this is a game, not a story. Dryads are like any monster, they respond based upon the rules. Wyatt has some interesting suggestions, what is lacking is converting these into game mechanics, not story or fluff.
It sounds like Moldvay is suggesting improvising. In D&D that situation is covered by the rules every time. I'm not open to discussing what gets to count as D&D. Too much exists under the label for any coherent identity.
I have read a lot of D&D books - the original books, all the 1st ed AD&D books, the B/X books, some 2nd ed books, some 3rd ed books, lots of 4e books.
You may not be open to discussing that, but what you say has clear implications nevertheless - your post implies that Moldvay Basic is not D&D, or at least is recommending techniques that are not part of D&D.
Always happy to oblige!
