As I said, I don't as a rule run or plan so granularly as that. When I say "I know where it is" I mean in a more narrative sense--they need to go to the captain to get it. I might decide whether he keeps it in his house or on his ship, but I'm not going to decide whether it's in his daughter's hope chest or n his duffel or anything so specific until/unless I need to narrate the PCs finding it. I think part of the problem we're having communicating here is that to an extent this isn't a meaningful question in my games.
You've moved the pea, again. You flat out say, here, that the players need to go to the captain to get the book. This is the GM deciding secret fiction, which he may then reveal to the players when the GM feels it appropriate. I'm sure you have some way for the players to learn this fact. Then, you say that you're not going to write down in your notes the exact location of the book, but will determine, in the moment, when the fiction resolves for the players. The players don't resolve the fiction in any binding way, you decide.
Let's look at this another way. Let's say we have some previously established fiction (however established) such that the players are searching the ship for a book. A player declares that the book is in the daughter's hope chest and they are searching for it there. In 5e, the resolution of this is entirely up to the GM. The GM may have notes on the precise location of the book and will tell the player success or failure based on those note. Or, as you indicate, the GM may make such a determination on the fly according to the GM's sense of the dramatic and will indicate success or failure based on this. Or, the GM may allow that it's random and ask for a check to see if the book is in the chest or not. In all of these cases, the GM is deciding how the fiction unfolds from the player's action declaration for their character.
Instead, let's say that the GM does not decide anything at all. Instead, the GM's authority is limited to either accepting the player's assertion, because this isn't terribly interesting, and agreeing it is true -- the book is in the hope chest -- OR the GM may call for a test of the action and be bound by the results of that test. If successful, then the book is in the chest. If not, then the GM may narrate an outcome contrary to the intent of the player, either by introducing complication or outright thwarting the intent.
These are very different ways to play. The latter gives the players authority over the fiction and a way to bind the GM's decision-making authority. This is utterly lacking in 5e. And, if you move past the location of an item and realize the implications of this on a wider scale, you have very different outcomes from play. In the above example, the reason the characters were looking on the ship at all would be because, in prior play, they either succeeded in establishing the book was on the ship or they failed, and the book being on the ship was a complication to a previous action declaration. And so on and so forth. The upshot is that no one knows where the book was until it was resolved.
My point is that it is more flexible in play. The absence of mechanics for the players to establish things in-fiction doesn't mean they're powerless in the face of The Almighty DM, either.
It's not. The GM may be more or less flexible, but the system isn't because the system just says the GM decides. And, players are powerless, here. It's only by social convention and agreement or the GM allowing it that they have any input into action resolution or the fiction of the game. This is easily determined because the rules give authority over outcomes solely to the GM and with almost no constraints. The rules literally start off describing the play loop as player declares PC action and then the GM decides if it succeeds outright, fails outright, or the GM thinks the outcome is uncertain, at which point they call for a check they, the GM, thinks applies and sets the difficulty. Regardless of the path chosen, the GM narrates the outcome. The only input the player has here is to declare an action. The results of that are entirely up to the GM.
Now, that said, there are a number of more or less principled ways to approach this kind of play and make it work well. Primary among them is "don't be a jerk." There's also attempting to adhere to a coherent worldview for GM decision making so players can have some sense of the odds. You could also be up front about stakes as a GM so players are always well informed. But, ultimately, this is the GM sharing power and it's always up to the GM.
So, 5e is flexible in the sense that the GM has a wide variety of genres that can be leveraged. It's flexible in that the GM has a wide latitude on how the GM wants to deal with the secret fiction. It's not flexible if you're going to suggest players have input into the fiction that binds the GM. There are entirely styles of play outright impossible in 5e.
I don't know that I exactly ran Fate based on secret fiction. I do know that I stopped using compels unless I needed the equivalent of a GM Fiat, and let the players spend their Fate Points in the knowledge there'd eventually be a Refresh, and I tended to have things going on in the world that didn't always come into the campaign in the ways the players expected. I know I'm not the kind of antagonistic GM that Fate seems to want if not require. I know that if I were to play Fate, having the GM Compel my character would be blindingly enraging. That's probably less about the game than about me. I do think that running that game, which explicitly engaged (or tried to) the players in worldbuilding and shaping the campaign has left me wanting to be the only voice in the larger picture, but willing to follow the players'/characters' interests as far as where the campaign goes.
Yup, you ran it like a D&D game, but with slightly different rules, and entirely left off the single most interesting part of FATE -- the one that strongly enables player input into the fiction. As I recall, you also had a pretty strong plot thread you started with and then played through rather than letting play go where it will. It's a very GM-has-the-authority way to play, and FATE really does better being less GM centered. Which is where compels come in and your resistance to them and characterization of them very much indicate you haven't yet grokked how they're intended to work and what kinds of play they enable. Which is fine -- I didn't get it for quite some time, either, and the fact I do get it now isn't a matter of smarts or whatever but more dumb luck. An idea stuck and grew.
I guess it seems to me that sometimes when you (and maybe
@pemerton ) talk about "DM-decides play" you mean the DM is deciding on the story elements, not just the resolution of character actions. That's probably not what y'all mean, and it's certainly not how I GM.
Not in this thread, no. It can, as the GM has total authority over that in 5e as well, but here I'm talking only about action resolution and the introduction of fiction through action resolution.
To relate to the OP, the issue the OP is having is that the resolution of actions has led to a point where the GM doesn't know how to reconcile the preconceived plot arc with the outcome of the action. There's a conflict between how the GM thought the story should go and how the GM decided the action resolved. This is incoherent, as the GM has total authority over both in 5e. The solution, at this point, is singular -- alter the way you expected the story to go and incorporate the outcome of the action and move forward. The OP is hesitant here because they fear doing so will encourage the players to derail the plot in the future (specifically one player?). Prior to this happening, however, and in any future events, the OP can exert better control over action outcomes and limit outcomes that cause severe distortions. For instance, here the OP is having an issue because a PC both showed their face to bystanders and used real PC names while trying to calm witnesses to PC actions that would have severe negative consequences with the authorities that be. Okay. The GM has the player intent well in hand -- convince the bystanders that someone else is to blame. Yet, the GM has also decided this is an automatic failure based on face-showing and name-saying. They could have decided it was uncertain, negotiated or fixed by fiat a check and difficulty, and followed the dice. On a failure, you're in the same place, and consequences exist, but at least the player had knowledge that consequences were on the line and a chance to come up with an approach or use a resource to better achieve their goal.
No one's perfect, and I don't fault the OP -- this is hard stuff even for vets. The other side is to adapt the story and deal with these consequences.
Personally, I like oversharing information. When the owner of the boat fled at first, I would have volunteered a recollection that there are many armed guards and the owner was running down the passage calling for them and not let the arrival of guards be a surprise. Should the players guess this outcome? After all, it's logical. Maybe, but then you're in the place of hoping players guess what you think they should. Overshare. You could give the players your notes, unredacted, and they'll probably still screw it up by the numbers. Well, I could, because I don't hinge my challenges on not knowing a bit of information. You can know everything there is to know and it'll still be a challenge. Doing is not the same as knowing.
