#A Divisive Issue

Whether or not significant retcons are okay is a thing about which people have differing stances. Some people see retroactive changes—ones of which the players weren't informed when the PCs should've spotted the relevant things—to be unacceptable due to depriving agency by way of denying the ability to react to the thing/opportunity/etc.. Others consider all methods fair so long as they make the story interesting. And of course what counts as making things interesting is subjective.

On a superficial level, it may seem that traditional games are more inclined towards a more 'stable' interpretation of the PCs' surroundings, and that indie games are more inclined towards accepting even drastic retcons. This in turn would make it seem that the D20 family of games, as the epitome of traditional games, would lean against retcons. But then again, Quantum Ogres are a D&D meme that is to a fair extent critical of a player who won't accept even a potential covert retcon (i.e. one which cannot be meaningfully proven unless the player is either telepathic or read the GM's notes). So, as they say, all crayons taste different.

#Know Your Players

Either stance can lead to fun campaigns for the right 'target audience'. But it's important to know whether a given audience is in fact the target of a given way of handling such matters. E.g. if some or all of your players happen to want a very objective world where things don't change except as a result of in-setting events or actions of PCs and NPCs, then you may have a problem on your hands when such players notice a retcon.

So it's best to make sure you and the players are on the same page. Before a campaign, or, since you're already GMing, during some chat between sessions, try bringing up the subject and finding out what the players find fun. If your preference and the players' don't match (and both of you have strong preferences), you may need to either find a way to achieve a compromise, or consider a change of roster.

A Divisive Issue

Whether or not significant retcons are okay is a thing about which people have differing stances. Some people see retroactive changes—ones of which the players weren't informed when the PCs should've spotted the relevant things—to be unacceptable due to depriving agency by way of denying the ability to react to the thing/opportunity/etc.. Others consider all methods fair so long as they make the story interesting. And of course what counts as making things interesting is subjective.

On a superficial level, it may seem that traditional games are more inclined towards a more 'stable' interpretation of the PCs' surroundings, and that indie games are more inclined towards accepting even drastic retcons. This in turn would make it seem that the D20 family of games, as the epitome of traditional games, would lean against retcons. But then again, Quantum Ogres are a D&D meme that is to a fair extent critical of a player who won't accept even a potential covert retcon (i.e. one which cannot be meaningfully proven unless the player is either telepathic or read the GM's notes). So, as they say, all crayons taste different.

Know Your Players

Either stance can lead to fun campaigns for the right 'target audience'. But it's important to know whether a given audience is in fact the target of a given way of handling such matters. E.g. if some or all of your players happen to want a very objective world where things don't change except as a result of in-setting events or actions of PCs and NPCs, then you may have a problem on your hands when such players notice a retcon.

So it's best to make sure you and the players are on the same page. Before a campaign, or, since you're already GMing, during some chat between sessions, try bringing up the subject and finding out what the players find fun. If your preference and the players' don't match (and both of you have strong preferences), you may need to either find a way to achieve a compromise, or consider a change of roster.