Authenticity in RPGing

[Umbran]

Yeah, there's nothing that would stop you from having a process where, effectively, the PCs construct the mystery as they go and create the solution. It might not be satisfactory to some people, but if the point is to explore the process rather than the mystery itself, its still valid.

So, let me talk about the Fate-based Atomic Robo RPG for a moment.

There isn't a whole lot of light between "solve a mystery" and "solve a science-fiction problem". Characters have to gather information, come to conclusions, realize what's up, and give some pseudoscientific gobbledigook about a solution and roll dice.

In Atomic Robo, they lift the burden of what is actually happening from the GM. The GM says that humongous, building sized ants are rampaging towards Las Vegas! What will we do??!? The GM does not have to know how humongous, building-sized ants work, or what their vulnerabilities are, or lay clues as to how the humongous ants can be defeated. There is, instead, a brainstorming mechanic, in which the sciencey characters get their heads together, spitball some ideas, build on each other's ideas, and come up with a helpful result (in Fate terms, they produce a known Aspect of the thing in question that can be tagged for bonuses).

This works for what it does, because we can be honest and note that even if the GM has a doctorate in entomology, they are going to get something wrong - they have to, because real ants can't get that big for real reasons. The ants are fundamentally inconsistent with the real world, so someone is going to have to wave their hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" or something to make it work. Might as well let the players do that bit, right?

One imagines we could transfer this to mystery solution, but it fundamentally fails on two counts:
1) In super-science nonsense, you do get to wave your hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" to cover for any inconsistencies. Satisfying mysteries need internal consistency.

2) Mysteries, as a genre, are about being clever - both the author and the audience. Just making it all up at the end does not scratch the itch of actually being clever for the GM or the players.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The very first line of Blades in the Dark is, "Blades in the Dark is a game about a group of daring scoundrels building a criminal enterprise on the haunted streets of a fantasy-industrial city."

The first two sentences of Ashen Stars are, "Ashen Stars is a game of mystery and adventure set in a gritty space opera universe. You play freelance law enforcers solving problems for pay in the Bleed, a war-ravaged frontier of colonized space."

It seems to me that both of these give "direction" - in BitD, the PCs are going to do crime. In Ashen Stars, they are going to be solving problems and mysteries for pay. As pemerton noted above, in Dogs in the Vinyard, the PCs are religious enforcers. You expect them to be out there enforcing rules against sin.

In none of these games are you "playing to find out" doing whatever strikes the player's fancy - there is an general direction. Blades in the Dark characters are not going to form a country-western band and take off across country with a talking jackrabbit in a camper-equipped pickup truck they call the "Smystery Smachine"...

So please put a leash on that "play to find out" thing - because the games do so on their first pages.

BitD, page 1: "
We play to find out if the fledgling crew can thrive amidst the teeming threats of
rival gangs, powerful noble families, vengeful ghosts, the Bluecoats of the City
Watch, and the siren song of the scoundrels’ own vices."

So, yes, there is a premise, as you say, and then we play to find out how that premise plays out. This phrase comes up again a few times:

Page 6: "
No one is in charge of the story. The story is what happens as a result of the situation
presented by the GM, the actions the characters take, the outcomes of the mechanics,
and the consequences that result. The story emerges from the unpredictable collision
of all of these elements. You play to find out what the story will be."

So, we see that the story is 'unfixed', there's no 'adventure path' or such, and we will play to find out what story arises. I'd note that on page 2 it is stated that the player's 'core responsibility' is to "[strive] to bring their character to life as an interesting, daring scoundrel who reaches boldly beyond their current safety and means." Assuming the players fulfill this responsibility they will be playing to find out what happens when they act as criminals and take big risks.

The GM is supposed to "Play to find out what happens" (page 187). Subsequent sections describe how this is meant to happen, emphasizing that the nature of the plot and action falls within the game's assigned genre/milieu but that no set events and actions exist, the players are in charge of what they decide to do.

The actual game process and such in BitD is designed to produce this sort of action. Mechanically the characters have vices they need to indulge, and are embedded in a milieu where they have basically few choices except to conduct illicit activities. Their actions and the outcomes of those actions will have impacts on the characters through stress, trauma, and harm, as well as the accumulation of coin, contacts, friends, enemies, alliances, and 'skill' progression. The 'crew' they belong to (and you always have one, which is the other PCs) also has a life of its own where it can get bigger, etc.

So, 'play to find out' isn't about 'play to find out what the premise is', nor is it 'play to find out what the map looks like', its play to find out how the character's, in light of the premise, act and evolve, and what happens to them. Fundamentally this requires that the game in question provide freedom on this axis. All games potentially allow this, but as the Star Trek example showed, specific games in practice don't always do so. We can see from the above that BitD is intended to allow the crew to develop themselves as criminals and carry out 'scores' (which can basically be any sort of criminal action, it doesn't need to be a heist). The crew in the last session (I was behind a bit so I was listening in while I made a PC of my own) got tangled up through some of their contacts with a dispute between the Red Sashes and one of the crew's contacts. The crew are somewhat crazy sounding killers, so they killed! And got paid for it. Clearly they're headed for a life of both short duration and much action... lol.

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but not every game does that thing the same way or with the same challenges, so perhaps a more granular look makes sense.

So, we seem to be talking past each other. I say this liking Gumshoe, and having run multi-year campaigns of it. I know exactly what you are talking about. Yes, we can take your more granular look.

The thing I am objecting to is how this has implicitly been positioned as a counter to what I was saying about reframing. A more granular look at the system will, instead, establish no change in the overall framing of mysteries in Gumshoe games. Gumshoe is, in fact, specifically designed to enable the traditional framing of mysteries in a more satisfying way.

If we can agree on that, we can go on with that more granular look at how it accomplishes this.

 

[Fenris-77]

So, let me talk about the Fate-based Atomic Robo RPG for a moment.

There isn't a whole lot of light between "solve a mystery" and "solve a science-fiction problem". Characters have to gather information, come to conclusions, realize what's up, and give some pseudoscientific gobbledigook about a solution and roll dice.

In Atomic Robo, they lift the burden of what is actually happening from the GM. The GM says that humongous, building sized ants are rampaging towards Las Vegas! What will we do??!? The GM does not have to know how humongous, building-sized ants work, or what their vulnerabilities are, or lay clues as to how the humongous ants can be defeated. There is, instead, a brainstorming mechanic, in which the sciencey characters get their heads together, spitball some ideas, build on each other's ideas, and come up with a helpful result (in Fate terms, they produce a known Aspect of the thing in question that can be tagged for bonuses).

This works for what it does, because we can be honest and note that even if the GM has a doctorate in entomology, they are going to get something wrong - they have to, because real ants can't get that big for real reasons. The ants are fundamentally inconsistent with the real world, so someone is going to have to wave their hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" or something to make it work. Might as well let the players do that bit, right?

One imagines we could transfer this to mystery solution, but it fundamentally fails on two counts:
1) In super-science nonsense, you do get to wave your hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" to cover for any inconsistencies. Satisfying mysteries need internal consistency.

2) Mysteries, as a genre, are about being clever - both the author and the audience. Just making it all up at the end does not scratch the itch of actually being clever for the GM or the players.

Well, this is essentially the exact approach Brindlewood Bay takes and while it isn't for everyone, as I mentioned, it is awesome and at least in my experience still feels very much like solving a mystery and being clever. I think that last line of yours needs an IMO qualification as it isn't universally true.

 

[Umbran]

So, 'play to find out' isn't about 'play to find out what the premise is', nor is it 'play to find out what the map looks like', its play to find out how the character's, in light of the premise, act and evolve, and what happens to them.

I am aware, having picked up my own copy of BitD, that is in reach from where I type, to get my quote.

However, what seems to be pressed here is the idea that solving a mystery is inconsistent with finding out how the characters act and evolve, and what happens to them. It is not, and I am pushing back on the idea that it is.

 

[Umbran]

Well, this is essentially the exact approach Brindlewood Bay takes and while it isn't for everyone, as I mentioned, it is awesome and at least in my experience still feels very much like solving a mystery and being clever. I think that last line of yours needs an IMO qualification as it isn't universally true.

Oh, it is awesome, for what it does. I love the mechanic in Atomic Robo. What it doesn't do is allow you to cleverly solve a puzzle, because no puzzle exists to solve. It allows you to creatively stipulate a truth - while this can still be clever, it isn't the same thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

One imagines we could transfer this to mystery solution, but it fundamentally fails on two counts:
1) In super-science nonsense, you do get to wave your hands and excitedly say, "But quantum mechanics!" to cover for any inconsistencies. Satisfying mysteries need internal consistency.

2) Mysteries, as a genre, are about being clever - both the author and the audience. Just making it all up at the end does not scratch the itch of actually being clever for the GM or the players.

I'm not so sure there isn't an analogous approach. Obviously internal consistency would be a type of constraint, but the players could still make stuff up within that constraint, and that could be the 'skilled' part of the game, for example. In terms of 'being clever', it seems like 'creating a consistent set of facts and action' could require being clever too. I mean, no, it probably wouldn't involve the players experiencing the mystery in the same way that the characters do, they'd be at least partly more like writers themselves. A game of this sort might involve some interesting mechanics that mediated how the players interact and maybe ties into what the characters do. Anyway, I think you could use a 'brainstorm' kind of mechanic, though it might be flavored a bit differently than the obvious Atomic Robo reference to 1950's SF movies.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, no, it probably wouldn't involve the players experiencing the mystery in the same way that the characters do

Exactly. It becomes one more exercise in creative story-building. The narrative-focused games already have that, in spades. I'm not sure why one needs to do it yet again, when it doesn't present a fundamentally different experience.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am aware, having picked up my own copy of BitD, that is in reach from where I type, to get my quote.

However, what seems to be pressed here is the idea that solving a mystery is inconsistent with finding out how the characters act and evolve, and what happens to them. It is not, and I am pushing back on the idea that it is.

I don't think solving a mystery is necessarily inconsistent with 'play to find out', you're simply not playing to find out the part that is already predetermined (IE the solution to the mystery). A game of this sort would like to have some other dimension to it in which the finding is happening. Maybe how being exposed to these crimes effects the PCs, or any of a bunch of other possibilities (maybe several of them taken as a general area of exploration). Usually this amounts to some sort of character exploration, motives, personality, etc. OTOH that is not strictly necessary. There simply needs to be this 'open' character to that dimension.

 

[Fenris-77]

Oh, it is awesome, for what it does. I love the mechanic in Atomic Robo. What it doesn't do is allow you to cleverly solve a puzzle, because no puzzle exists to solve. It allows you to creatively stipulate a truth - while this can still be clever, it isn't the same thing.

I completely agree, although in my personal experience with Brindlewood Bay it does still feel like solving a puzzle (and BB is specifically a mystery solving game). In Brindlewood that's framed by specific (open ended) questions that help focus the group's broad discussion about how the clues fit together. That said, I know that some people bounce off it hard, so there's that too.