Do you use Ret-Cons in gaming?

A Ret-Con is short for retroactive continuity. Its a change to the past 'events' of the game that impacts the current moment of play.


Such as deciding that the combat finished last session didn't leave three party members dead, just badly wounded (or kidnapped by a foe and simulcra bodies left behind)

I'm doing a sort of minor ret-con in a game. I'd wanted to run my teenage high school hero game having them take care of the old tried and true--an egg to represent a baby. But I glossed it over a bit too much and left the final result to a die roll rather than their actions (I blame allergy meds). Now my ret-con is that rather than giving them a C (their eggs had been cooked by contact with a flame powered supervillain) she will on consideration give them a second chance. Its a very minor ret-con all things considered (I also want to play out a date between a PC and an NPC, that skipping ahead kinda messed up--so we'll have a flashback to the date...then move forward to current moment)


I don't usually like ret-cons, but sometimes I feel they are necessary for better gaming...what about you?

It's bad (mm'kay?)

Although when I've heard it it's usually "undoing" something that's already happened in the game -- often a character being killed.  It's usually not something like an NPC having a change of heart, or something like that.  Those sorts of things can be worked into the game without undoing anything.  I'd say the flashback isn't ret-con, and neither is the second chance on the project.

I do it for minor stuff, i.e. changing the name of an NPC or the direction of travel. Mostly because I made an error. Once or twice we changed the settings after the first adventure.

For stuff that's really affecting the players? Nah. If I want to reverse stuff, I try to explain it in game terms. If those seem to ludicrous, a ret-con would be too stupid anyway. I don't want to descend into Klingon-brows-territory...

I only undo rules gaffs and generally only in the session they occur.

Quote from: jrientsI only undo rules gaffs and generally only in the session they occur.

Same here, plus I'll retcon a stupid mistake on my part - i.e. once I mixed up two different well-established NPCs with similar names and confused the heck out of everyone - I retconned that one back to the beginning of the encounter. I will also go to the next session if the gaffe happened at the end of the previous session. I will never retcon a character death unless it was caused by the above. Characters die, life goes on.

-clash

I've often been tempted to retcon a few things in my games, but I've never gone through with it for various reasons.

That said, I may make some major changes to my Trav campaign setting soon.  I'm inexperienced with the game, and my setting doesn't mesh very well in places with the game rules the way I thought it would.  It won't be a big problem this time, as my players have been exposed to very little of the setting thus far.

Quote from: SosthenesI do it for minor stuff, i.e. changing the name of an NPC or the direction of travel. Mostly because I made an error...

Same here.

In fact, I'm more likely to 'fix' setting-related mistakes (NPC names/reactions, locations, etc.) than I am to 'fix' mechanics mistakes.  Unless the latter result in something disastrous (e.g. character death), I tend to simply ignore past rules mistakes and move on.

I usually don't like it, but they happen every now and then. Usually they happen in either 1) free-form D&D games when someone wants to reallocate some feats or skill points because of the shiny new splatbook or 2) a character or party death happened because of a rule not being applied correctly.

Well, I would have to make a very huge mistake to retcon character death. Just being off by a few points on the dice or missing a saving throw doesn't matter. Unless I catch it in the minute afterwards. Between sessions, I'd rather go out of my way to repair the damage in the game. For D&D, that could include a ressurection spell (or divine intervention). Or I just give the player something nice for his next character -- if they noticed. If my blunder wasn't discovered, I won't disturb the waters. Sharks might lurk there...

Quote from: SosthenesIf my blunder wasn't discovered, I won't disturb the waters. Sharks might lurk there...

This would tick me off. I always try to be up front with my players, it's a large part of what lets us trust each other as a group. If I screw something major up I'll admit it and fix it. If I screw something small up I'll compensate by counterbalancing it with something else later.

Quote from: James McMurrayThis would tick me off. I always try to be up front with my players, it's a large part of what lets us trust each other as a group.

So my Blobfargazzer hits the players with his paralysing spell-like ability. His kobold minions take them to the shrine of Hhhrzr'gllz. Soon they have to fight in the Pits of Doom. While they have a discussion, I read up on the Blobfargazzer and discover that elves aren't subject to his paralyzing odors. Rewind, for the sake of truth?

Quote from: SosthenesSo my Blobfargazzer hits the players with his paralysing spell-like ability. His kobold minions take them to the shrine of Hhhrzr'gllz. Soon they have to fight in the Pits of Doom. While they have a discussion, I read up on the Blobfargazzer and discover that elves aren't subject to his paralyzing odors. Rewind, for the sake of truth?

Nah - it's a Blomfargazzer v1.5, with New Elf Paralysis Fumes. That creature catalog is based on out of date info, man! Evolution marches on, and Blomfargazzer v1.0s have gone extinct since they learned to add elves to all the Blomfargazzer hunting parties. Only the Blomfargazzers who could affect elves a bit survived, and they have bred, further strengthening the trait. Either that or the wizard who created them returned to the vats and came up with a better mix.

-clash

Edit: Added - when I said I'll retcon for a GM rules gaffe, I meant rules, not creature descriptions! There's a big difference!

Quote from: SosthenesSo my Blobfargazzer hits the players with his paralysing spell-like ability. His kobold minions take them to the shrine of Hhhrzr'gllz. Soon they have to fight in the Pits of Doom. While they have a discussion, I read up on the Blobfargazzer and discover that elves aren't subject to his paralyzing odors. Rewind, for the sake of truth?

Maybe not rewind, but definitely admit it and do something to fix it or compensate for it. What that would be if rewinding isn't an option depends on the situation. I'd probably say "hey, Joe's elf was immune to that paralysis. Do you guys want to roll back to the fight or move forward and do ____ instead." ____ would be whatever response looks good, such as a one-shot use by Joe's elf of the paralysis ability, +1 to all rolls in the pits, or whatever.

Yep.  I'll do retcons when I need to.  Common reasons would be that the players and I all agree that we've fucked something up and need to rewind, I need to revisit and tweak some minor point to fit continuity, or just because it's been a while since we've touched the campaign in question and in the interrim have decided on some stuff we don't like and want to change.

One thing about the way I've always done it is that I try to keep the un-retconned version of things in mind.  Later, that universe might be drastically different from how the "real" one turned out.  Then I can do a dimensional crossover/time travel type episode and see how the current characters react.

Of course, that has become one of my cliches: alternate dimensions, lots of ringed gas giants for SFX reasons, hawt female techs...

Quote from: James McMurrayMaybe not rewind, but definitely admit it and do something to fix it or compensate for it. What that would be if rewinding isn't an option depends on the situation. I'd probably say "hey, Joe's elf was immune to that paralysis. Do you guys want to roll back to the fight or move forward and do ____ instead." ____ would be whatever response looks good, such as a one-shot use by Joe's elf of the paralysis ability, +1 to all rolls in the pits, or whatever.

Should I change their diapers while I'm at it?

They probably would have ended in the Pits anyway (at least it's a probability), so why interrupt a perfectly good game just to get into rules-lawyering? I might talk to them after the session and reveal that there were only twelve instead of thirteen Barbazu in the warm-up fight as a whoops-sorry-gift.

The game must go on. Interrupting the flow just for some trivial details like that wouldn't be worth it. A character's death would be an exception, of course.