Authenticity in RPGing

[deleuzian_kernel]

Finally! It took me a while to get through all the replies. I’m gonna respond to those things that really caught my eye and could be good jumping points for me to get into this conversation, and also express my overall opinion as to where I stand in the matter. Fortunately for me, I don’t really have to expand on my position at full because I pretty much agree with all that @hawkeyefan has said and how he sees different the issues. I suspect we have similar training ? I’ll talk a little bit more about why when we talk about railroading.

So, when it comes to the word authenticity I feel like indeed it was perhaps not the best word to describe the general sense of what you are talking about here @pemerton . Heh, it definitely caused a lot of uproar at the beginning of your thread, but I also don’t think this entirely a fault of your particular use of the word.

---

People perceiving the word authenticity as threatening to them and their play style were already approaching the conversation from a tribalistic sense, the same thing they were accusing you of doing.

Instead, I dunno, maybe they could’ve started by expressing genuine curiosity about what you meant and said:

“That’s interesting, I don’t feel particularly inauthentic when I play OD&D, care to say more?” Instead of presupposing an intent with your use of the word authentic, and getting into this useless diatribe of definitions in the positive, use of jargon and inauthenticity, maybe they could’ve been more curious about YOUR experience, YOUR view on the matter, the extent of YOUR use of the word as opposed to fighting to reclaim some sort of “ownership” of the word for themselves to shut you down. Previous beef I suspect? This is the only way I can explain such toxicity from the get-go.
Especially because it took the thread a long while to get out of this useless part of the discussion to really engage in conversation about RPGs which is probably the main objective of this thread (and topic, right?)
Moving on…

---

I really like how you’ve summarized exactly the experience you are attempting to capture in the term you've chosen to use: Genuine choices in play that say something individually and together.

I think this is really at the core of what you mean when you say authenticity...because you said it yourself. People should’ve started debating there. I believe @Umbran did.

I don't know what this really means. It sounds poetic, and seems to take a pseudo-moral stance, but doesn't actually tell me what is happening in these games that is somehow missing in others.

However, as opposed to Umbran, I do recognize this framing because it is, very much so, the ideological pursuit of narrativism as a creative agenda by the people who spoused that idea during the years it was very popular (look at Aside GNS for instance). It is something I experience in my day to day when playing these games, and I feel comfortable in saying it is based on something real and objective that is different from other games. (Not missing, different).

I’d be very happy to provide real accounts of this experience if necessary.

Now, I believe authenticity, can be found in all the discrete elements of the full statement you made. I believe this might be one of the reasons of many of the disagreements in this thread, because it’s hard to identify which aspect is authenticity anyone is referring to at any particular moment.

When we talk about genuine choices, we probably all mean consequential, meaningful choices, yes?
Is this the kind of authenticity we are discussing?

If it is, then I posit that it is not restricted to narrativism, PbtA, FitD, right? People make meaningful and consequential choices in all types of games! “Didn’t pack torches? Too bad for you guys, dark cave, it’s in my notes.” Certain techniques make these more or less authentic in that sense. A blorby, consistent game world promotes (+) authenticity in these choices. The quantum ogre and other forms of illusionism strips (-) authenticity from them. Disagreements anyone?

When we talk about saying something, we mean something human, right? Very frequently in storytelling, this means it’s thematic.
Is this the kind of authenticity we are discussing? Do we need something to be thematic in order for us to say something deep about ourselves (as a society, as individuals)?

For many RPG designers and scholars, theme was the answer on how to make those deep human issues real in play, relying on our capacity as empathy machines to find meaning in thematic storytelling. Certain approaches to gaming might make these more or less authentic in that sense. Playing OSR-style games? Probably not a lot of discussions on deep human issues going around, yes? Playing heavy-trad games like Vampire the Masquerade? Interesting themes floating around, but very poor tools to actually empower players to have something interesting to say about those themes and (in)human issues. Could happen? Sure. Did the game help? Probably not.

Authenticity (+) here could mean that our conversations were deep, thematic, thoughtful, provocative, risky. Authenticity (-) here could mean that there is an absence of these elements, or that they weren't treated with the right kind of contemplation.
Disagreements here?

When we talk about doing it individually and together, we are talking about collaboration, meaning that what people contribute is for real and everyone’s input is taken and listened to. Contributions to the fiction are made in more equal terms.
Is this the kind of authenticity we are discussing?

Here there is a lot of great theoretical conversation with regards to what constitutes true collaboration, and the level of agency and authorship that any given player has in both the events that happen in the play, but more relevant to your general approach, to the themes that emerge from play. Empowerment is a word people have used. Some games empower players contributions to the fiction.

Techniques such as moves being heavily geared towards conflict resolution, a more relaxed stance on backstory and setting authority, kickers, bangs, a clear distribution of authorities ala Ron Edwards, all techniques that promote authenticity (+) in the collaboration. Illusionism, and what Ron calls intuitive continuity (-) bad for this purpose.

I’m immediately reminded of Vincent Baker’s writings on thematic empowered play as well.

Now, when you take your full statement: Genuine choices in play that say something individually and together, it's discrete do take up a cohesive meaning.

Genuine choices with respect to saying something.
individually and together, collaboration, with respect to saying something.

There I see an argument for authenticity with respect to that goal of play, saying something, that does separate it quite profoundly from genuine choices in other games and collaboration in other games, and might be label as authentic under those contingencies.

---

@Bedrockgames and @hawkeyefan…Very interesting conversation between you two. I personally have to side more with @hawkeyefan in that the Alexandrian techniques, are at the end of the day a way for the GM to control the possible outcomes of play, while perhaps being a bit more freeing in how characters may interact with them (Node-based navigation is quite a different transversal than linear or branching adventures) and it’s that control which becomes the “railroading” @hawkeyefan is talking about. It's an infrequent use of the term railroading, as it typically refers to the linearity of a module.

With most of the the Alexandrian techniques of play, the GM remains the primary decision maker of how a scenario gets resolved. Scratch that. The GM is the primary decision maker of the kinds of acceptable ways the scenario could get resolved. They’ve predetermined what the important nodes are, and what the focus of the play is. Play needs to gravitate towards the nodes in order for there to be play at all.

Is it restrictive? Maybe, depends on the game, certainly waymore freeing than the classic linear and branching adventure models.

Authentic? From a meaningful choice perspective, I feel like it promotes authenticity in that the how the resolution of a scenario occurs depends on player choice. From a thematic, player empowered perspective. Not really authentic, it's still the GM who decided what the major pieces of the story were. If there isn't presupposition that this is NOT what's happening here, no harm no foul.

So, the three-clue rule, in my experience, has diddly to do with railroading. It has to do with information flow. The three clue rule can be stated simply as, "The party will typically miss two out of every three clues as to what is going on."

I’m inclined to agree with this, that it is mainly about information flow. I think, though, that it finds its use in making sure that the information is redundant enough to point the players at the points of interest that the GM has predefined to be points of interest. This speaks volumes at the kind of collaboration that inevitably occurs, where the PCs do navigate the scenario authentically (meaningful choice), but are not particularly authentically empowered authors of it (thematically).

Similarly, as per @hawkeyefan's example of his Spire game, building these adventure structures limits the possible range of places the story could go to those that are mostly predefined by the GM. This goes beyond notions of a campaign premise; its discovering through play what kinds of embroilments the PC's organically get embedded in and making the game's aboutness be that.

Look, I'm a GM, not a qualified group counselor. I am not running a game to get the players to "reveal truths". I'm running a game so they can have some entertainment, and maybe a momentary escape from whatever is weighty in their lives. This is true whatever style of game I am running.

Have you run Apocalypse World, Sorcerer, Mountain Witch? Would you say you've run them this way?

And the conditions for friendship, collaboration, and genuine conversation resides in...game mechanics and principles?

Oh, absolutely, a gaming system supplants our normal interactions as people, if a game does not have anything to say about it then it leaves it up to the participants to determine either by consensus or accident. If a gaming system has an opinion about this, it can fabricate the right incentives, duties &c to make it a part of the conceit of the game. If a game leaves it up to chance...well it leaves it up to chance.

 

[pemerton]

I find that it’s a kind of reverse psychology thing… give the players the freedom to make these choices, and they’ll be stricter to themselves than I’d probably be.

A relatively minor example: in my long 4e D&D campaign, the player f the wizard/invoker had a feat that granted +2 on skill checks for rituals. I think the intended meaning of the feat was that "ritual" meant ritual in the technical game element sense. The player interpreted it to mean any use of a skill that involves performing/manipulating magical rituals, which was broader. Given it didn't seem an overly powerful feat, I was happy for him to run with his interpretation, and to decide for himself what sorts of activities did or didn't count as rituals (sometimes he wasn't sure and we'd discuss it; often he had a very firm view one way or the other). The upshot was we got the player developing this little mini-theory of how magic works in the cosmos, what the parameters are of manipulating it in a ritual fashion, etc.

 

[pemerton]

One wonders how else a mystery-solving scenario can be run.

The very definition of a mystery is that something unexplained either is happening or has happened; and to solve that mystery one has to acquire enough information to explain what was previously unexplained.

Which means yes, if the goal of the game is to solve a mystery the players/PCs do in fact need to acquire the information needed in order to achieve that goal. The three-clue idea is merely one suggested means of presenting that information.

Here are some posts, from a thread last year about Apocalypse World, that explain how else a mystery might be run:

So suppose a player says I leave home and walk across the compound to see if Isle is hanging around (a bit like Marie the Brainer in the "Moves Snowball" example of play). In that example (p 152), the GM tells Marie's player that she finds Isle with Plover and Mill (all NPCs): Baker doesn't tell us what GM move this is, but we can identify it as offering an opportunity. But the GM isn't obliged to make that move. Instead, for instance, the GM could announce offscreen badness:

You stroll over to the car shed where you know Isle hangs out, but the shed's been broken into and the car's not there. Isle's not there either: you can see her cap lying in the dust on the ground; and the tyre marks look like someone drove out of there in a hurry!​

<snip>

in my example the situation is charged because that's what the GM has narrated: the shed's broken into, the car's missing, it looks like Isle's been taken to. If the player has their PC look around the shed, trying to work out what's gone on and what's happened to Isle, they are reading a charged situation and have to make a throw. And if they succeed, they get to ask questions which oblige the GM to introduce more elements of background and framing. As the rulebooks says (p 199),

As MC, sometimes you’ll already know the answers to these and sometimes you won’t. Either way, you do have to commit to the answers when you give them.​

It doesn't matter to the dynamic of the game whether the GM has already made something up (Dremmer's gang broke in and stole the car and kidnapped Isle!) or is making it up now. The GM will always say what their prep demands and what the principles demand (p 109) and the principles will point towards things to say even if there is no prep (it took me only a minute or so to think up my variant on the Isle scenario). And because the GM will always say what honesty demands (p 109), further narration will snowball off those initial answers. And because after every move the GM asks, "What do you do now?" (p 116), the player will declare more actions for their PC and the cycle of creating the fiction will continue.

And suppose the attempt to read a charged situation fails: then the GM can make as hard and direct a move as they like. And the principles govern here, too. Let's respond with f*****y - "As you step into the shed, you're struck from behind and fall unconscious. When you wake up, you're lying tied up in the boot of a car. You can hear Dremmer talking outside and above you." Ie, the GM has captured someone.

If the prep has been light, then the difference between passing and failing on that read a sitch check could be more than just a sore head! The framing is different. The likely action declarations are different. But the backstory might be pretty different too: to me, that failure result looks more likely than the success result to be leading to a revelation that Isle conspired with Dremmer to capture the PC.

suppose that the PC is visiting their savvyhead friend's workshop, and their friend (as established by some prior fiction) isn't home, and the player describes their PC poking around while they wait, and the GM described a few things including the metal box with complicated wiring sitting on the workbench - this is the psychic maelstrom distillation machine that the savvyhead has been working on - and the player of the visiting PC says I stick my head inside the box! The situation isn't charged. The player (as their PC) isn't hoping for anything. The GM hasn't established any hint of threat or adversity. As far as the various sorts of approach to establishing fiction in a RPG are concerned, we're in the freest of free narration. But I think that player has handed the GM the perfect opportunity on a golden plate. If I was GMing that, I think my next move might be to ask the savvyhead's player what happens! And then building on the answer to that, we might have anything from inflicting harm (some combination of electricity and psychic malice) to taking away their stuff (uh oh - the PC's interference with the delicate machinery seems to have shorted out the flux capacitor!) to announcing some offscreen badness that the player (as their PC) really didn't want to be the case (the machine plugs the PC straight into the maelstrom, and they see and hear the "echoes" of Isle's death at the hands of Dremmer's executioner).

Right. I gave the imagined example, upthread, of the PC going to Isle's car shed only to find that she's not there, but her cap is lying on the ground and the car is missing.

Has Isle been kidnappd? Has she eloped? Maybe the GM knows, and has even set up a countdown till the kidnappers kill Isle clock. Maybe the GM doesn't know. It makes no difference to the application of player-side moves. And the only difference it makes to the GM is that instead of simply saying what honesty demands s/he also has to say what prep demands.

<snip>

Vincent Baker calls out most of the moves in his Moves Snowball example of play, but not all of them. Eg when he narrates to Marie's player that she finds Isle and friends sitting on the roof of the car shed, this is offering an opportunity. But the example doesn't call that out. I riffed off this in my own Isle example (post 223) by imaging that the GM move is, instead, to announce offscreen badness by narrating that Isle is not there, the car is gone, and her cap is lying on the ground.

<snip>

everything the GM says is a move, made in accordance with the principles. And that those moves - because they involve concepts like badness and opportunity with a cost and their stuff's downside and consequences but also can be opportunities without a cost - require a value framework. Is it good or bad that Isle should be missing? In @Campbell's example, is Rorik finding the dead body an instance of badness ("there's a killer on the loose") or an opportunity ("cool, now I've got the corpse and recently-living brain I need for my workspace!")? We can't tell what is bad and what is a cost and what is a downside and what is a (meaningful) consequence until we have a framework for evaluation. That framework is provided primarily by the players. Which goes back to @chaochou's remark about the players setting their own agenda.

<snip>

Your questions suggests that you are envisaging play very similar to trad CoC play - the GM has all the backstory worked out (who did what to whom when) and then the players, via their PCs, are identifying clues that will reveal that backstory. But AW does not approach RPGing in that fashion. There is not a single AW principle or move that talks about clues, so we can't use that as an analytic category to explain AW play. But there are moves that talk about announcing badnes, be that future badness or offscreen badness. I showed, in a post above, how that move could be used to frame a situation in response to a player's action declaration that does not trigger a player-side move: ie the player declares that their PC goes to find Isle at the car-shed, and the GM responds by telling the player that Isle's not there but they (ie their PC) can see that the shed has been broken into, the car is missing, and Isle's favourite cap is lying on the ground.

I also explained how, if the player were now to have their PC look around, that would be reading a charged situation and I talked a bit about how the GM might make moves in response to the results of a read-a-sitch roll.

But making any of those moves requires knowing what would be bad, or an opportunity, for this (these) PC(s) in this context. Which is why the play of the game is inherently personal.

So first, how is it being established that one or more people have died? You seem to be envisaging that the GM is making this part of the fiction: what move are they performing? In what context? Is the GM providing information following success on an attempt of a PC to open their brain to the world's psychic maelstrom? Or is this a hard move - the GM, looking through crosshairs, is telling a player that a NPC has died? (In front of them here-and-now? As a vision following a failed opening of the brain? Some other context?) Or is the GM announcing offscreen badness like my example of Isle not being where the PC hoped to meet her?

Next, how does the evidence that the killer murdered the person to rile up the PC get introduced? Is the GM announcing future badness (eg pinned to the body is a half-torn sheet of paper with You're next, Marie! written in blood)? Or is this a case of the GM asking a provocative question and building on the answer: GM: Why do you think they kidnapped Isle? Marie's player: To get at me?

Next, investigation. AW has no when you investigate move. No when you work the streets, putting out the word and pumping your sources move. So what action declarations are you envisaging? To me, the most obvious - as I've already posted - are go aggro and seduce/manipulate. AW is at its core a game of interpersonal interaction and conflict, and these are moves that foreground that. The GM will respond to these action declarations as the rules dictate and in accordance with the principles. Eg if a PC goes aggro on one of Dremmer's thugs and asks where's Isle? while waving a shotgun about, and succeeds, then the GM gets to decide what the thug does from the appropriate list of options. This can include answering the PC's question.

If a player declares actions that don't trigger a move, then - as I've posted upthread - the GM follows the agenda and principles and makes appropriate moves - typically soft, but hard if the PC provides an opportunity on a golden plate. I've given examples upthread already in reply to you.

Having the killer kill again is something the GM might do, as an appropriate move (eg more announcement of offscreen badness), perhaps based on a countdown clock. If the GM has established such a clock, then they can't just act "on a whim" - they must say what that prep demands. And the GM can't just have the killer disappear on a whim, either, without regard to the actual rules and principles that govern the play of the game.a

As you can see, running a mystery in Apocalypse World, or in any system where the same techniques are used, does not require anyone at the table to decide in advance what has happened in the fiction, to provide clues that will permit other participants to infer that, etc.

 

[pemerton]

I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always. Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.

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.

I have used Cthulhu Dark to run mystery scenarios where the outcome was surprising to everyone at the table (ie me the GM and my friends the players). It's easy enough if you follow AW-type principles combined with a bit of "say 'yes' or roll the dice": when the players declare some action for their PCs you (the GM) either call for a check if that seems appropriate, and depending on how that goes tell them something; or else you just tell them something. Just make sure that the something is not "Nothing happens. Full stop."

 

[Bedrockgames]

---

@Bedrockgames and @hawkeyefan…Very interesting conversation between you two. I personally have to side more with @hawkeyefan in that the Alexandrian techniques, are at the end of the day a way for the GM to control the possible outcomes of play, while perhaps being a bit more freeing in how characters may interact with them (Node-based navigation is quite a different transversal than linear or branching adventures) and it’s that control which becomes the “railroading” @hawkeyefan is talking about. It's an infrequent use of the term railroading, as it typically refers to the linearity of a module.

With most of the the Alexandrian techniques of play, the GM remains the primary decision maker of how a scenario gets resolved. Scratch that. The GM is the primary decision maker of the kinds of acceptable ways the scenario could get resolved. They’ve predetermined what the important nodes are, and what the focus of the play is. Play needs to gravitate towards the nodes in order for there to be play at all.

Keep in mind though, three clue rule and node based design are not at all synonymous as I mentioned. The three clues are merely information pointing to conclusions about the events at the heart of the mystery. Now you can apply that to something more structure like node based design, and there is nothing wrong with doing so, it is perfectly valid. It just doesn't naturally follow from three clue rule because that was more about situations than about following trails of clues.

The Alexandrian writes about a wide variety of adventure structures. So I am just limiting my commentary here to the three clue rule. But he covers so many types of adventure structures on his blog. I would be hesitant to pin them all to one thing

What is true is he is writing about games in the Three Clue rule where the GM has the power to decide the background events, to decide through procedure, decision or dice where things go when players present options. But I don't think the fact that the GM has traditional GM authority at all means its railroading. We've had whole threads on plenty of approaches within that style of play that are all about avoiding railroads, and The Alexandrian himself has not been a fan of railroads. Can you give the players different kinds freedom by changing that dynamic? Sure, you can give them the power and freedom to narrate if you want, for example. Or you can have different procedures in place that limit the GM more. I think with a mystery that produces a very different kind of end result. Not a bad one, just different, and certainly one that also prioritizes not railroading.

I ran a mystery using Hillfolk, and that empowered players to essentially write details about the mystery through their dialogue. It was a lot of fun, and it felt like we were all in an episode of a weekly drama on HBO or something. But in that case, we were writing the mystery together, the players weren't solving the mystery as a puzzle. Those are two very different experiences. Both are fine. But I think holding one up as authentic and the other as inauthentic seems odd. If my interest as a player is in solving a murder mystery, the Hillfolk approach isn't allowing me to authentically solve that puzzle, it is doing something else entirely. If on the other hand, I want to help everyone discover and create a mystery together, then Hillfolk would allow me to be authentic as a co-creator of the mystery.

When you are treating the mystery as a puzzle in a traditional RPG, you can do it as a railroad by forcing the players along. And you can do it in a linear way by having clear paths laid out with clues going from A to B to C. I would argue if these paths are many, and the players can choose all kinds of directions, it isn't a railroad, but it certainly has structures to it. And if you are allowing the players to do whatever they want, even if you have some paths sketched out on a pad, you aren't railroading if the players have total freedom to move around those pathways and find new ones (the paths might just be a set of likely possibilities). But the three clue rule is just about the players awareness of what happened. You do not have to use it to have a trail of clues and Alexander mentions in the article avoiding that and instead prepping situations. So it doesn't even need paths or nodes to work. You can do it by location and scene or node if you want. But you can also do it by clue, and just keep a list of bullets under each clue mentioning who is aware of it, where it might be physically, etc. That doesn't presuppose any pathway on the players part, it just helps you understand where the clue emanates. And if you are using the permissive clue finding caveat (which you are supposed to), those bullets are just likely possibilities, the players might find those clues or even find clues you haven't considered by taking certain actions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As you can see, running a mystery in Apocalypse World, or in any system where the same techniques are used, does not require anyone at the table to decide in advance what has happened in the fiction, to provide clues that will permit other participants to infer that, etc.

And this is fine. But it produces a very different experience than if there is a backstory that has been established by the GM and the players are trying to figure out what happened.

I did this in the hill folk mystery I mentioned. It was a lot of fun. Was it a more authentic experience for me? I wouldn't characterize it that way. Maybe more authentic about certain things. I would say it was highly immersive, it allowed everyone to creatively contribute so we were all equally surprised but the final unveiling of the mystery. And that was a good experience. But I find nothing about trying to solve a mystery that has been established, though a character I am playing, as being less authentic. For one thing, I am tending to use my own logic, intuition and puzzle solving skills to work through it. So there is a very authentic expression of my intellect at the table. Whereas in the Hillfolk example, you almost had to fight your own intellect because it was more about what we were all creatively contributing (which I can also say is a form of authenticity, I just don't see either as a particularly more authentic experience). Hillfolk's approach is an effective way around a railroad. Definitely if you are looking to avoid being railroaded, a system like this can be a good choice.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, as long as you are in the more trad paradigm of a GM supplied scenario where all this is preordained before the start of play. I mean, assuming 'mystery scenario' means strictly that the characters will experience a process of discovery of evidence leading to the solution of a mystery, generally involving a crime but perhaps not always.

Certainly not always. Anything unexplained - a haunting, a strange environmental phenomenon, an unexpected and unexplained disappearacne of someone, etc. - all of these count as mysteries even if no crime is involved.

Given that definition we could have a non-traditional paradigm where the solution is arrived at by some other mechanism than preordained facts, though the CHARACTERS will experience it as discovery of evidence. Obviously, depending on what this paradigm is, the players might or might not find it surprising.

Ideally, though - particularly in a mystery scenario - player knowledge as closely as possible equals character knowledge; thus if the solution is in fact discovered then the players will find it out at the same time as their characters.

 

[Lanefan]

This is assuming that the goal of play is about solving the puzzle. Which is perfectly fine, of course... I play plenty of games that have this or something similar as a goal of some sort... but it's not the goal of all play.

True, but in a mystery scenario the solving of said mystery is highly likely to either be the main goal or a side goal; either freestanding or (more commonly) embedded into something bigger.

 

[Manbearcat]

Everyone always frames “play to find out” (PtFO) in player-side terms and fair enough. But its the GM side perks that draw me in.

I get to be a type of curious audience member (while aggressively opposing player goals while bound by rules-integrity) to both the accreting fiction and the peculiarities of my own cognitive space and reactions that I wouldn’t otherwise have access to (because typically life doesn’t come at you that fast or on all of the converging axes that are part and parcel of GMing these games). I think I called it something of a personal Rorschach Test upthread (or perhaps in the last thread). It’s also a bit of a cognitive crucible/challenge (which I enjoy).

So, since Blades is being discussed, here is a quick tale from Monday night’s first session of Blades in the Dark (a game with PCs played by @AbdulAlhazred , @Blue , @Campbell , @kenada , @niklinna ). I could draw out any number of scenes for immediate and downstream consequences upon play, but this one is pretty illustrative.

Opening Free Play/Info Gathering scene for @niklinna ‘s PC who is a Whisper with Weird fetishs for the supernatural (including happily being possessed for kicks) who apparently stalks haunted areas of Duskvol for prey like a vampire might.

I framed a scene for him in the most haunted place in Duskvol (Six Towers - kind of supernatural White Chapel) in this creepy petrified forest filled with rogue spirits, right off the musty canals that separate Brightstone (noble district) and Charterhall (govt and university district).

I broght in prototyped electroplasmic tech being sold on the black market by a Sparkwright Engineer that might be doing work outside of their typical govt-sponsored duties. I brought in creepy Echo stuff (history repeating itself as ghostly manifestations/projections into this world from the Ghostfield). I brought in the Circle of Flames (high-tier antiquarians and the Crew’s most staunch ally given PC/Crew creation) + a Charterhall Uni Spectrology Admin both witnessing the prototype’s unveiling. Finally I had a Silver Nail mercenary (Enemies of The Circle of Flame) in an overwatch position at the top of a ruined and condensed govt building nearby….staring down the iron sights of his long gun (recon or assassination?).

The scene turned out to be nothing about they stuff due to @niklinna and myself’s subsequent conversation + actions he took + dice results + gear deployed + devils bargains/resistance rolls (taken or not taken). It turned out to be a scene about a notorious serial killer (The Towers Drowner) who plumbed the streets of Six Tower for peer to drown in the canals…died and turned into a feral ghost long long ago. And Skewth’s tango with it (Compel - playbook feature just like it sounds) + the scattering of the secret meeting as a result (we know nothing about what was going on with that tech or the Silver Nails involvement) + Skewth becoming indebted to The Circle of Flame rep who was present. And the resultant-captured feral ghost now in The Charterhall University Archeology Wing…on display…with a notorious reputation for security lapses.

Wildly_different_everything from initial situation framing to final gamestate and fiction based on subsequent conversation and play.

That is quintessential PtFO.

Framing > player focuses on particular thematic stuff > things go sideways > entirely different fiction/downstream setting results > game of spinning plates begins (which would have been very or wholly different than a different set of spinning plates if we played the scene out again with the same opening scene parameters).

We’re not engaged with Sparkwrights or The Silver Nails. No fiction with them. No debts/Faction hits. No prospective Scores. No Setting/Faction Clocks.

As of now all that stuff and those groups are no more than background color…while they, and the tech and whatever was going on there, could have been completely central to immediate and subsequent play.

Now we have in play:

* PC indebted to a powerful ally.

* PC lost a spirit bottle (important part of a Whisper’s Loadout).

* Skewth revealing his haunted proclivities and his Weird (vice) supernatural impulses having a tendency to get him into trouble.

* A Magnitude 2 (Crew it’s Tier 0 to start…so very dangerous) feral serial killer ghost with a short term, one-track memory (that of Skewth escaping as prey and putting him in this predicament) in a porous security wing of an Archeology Exhibit in Charterhall University (will get out if I roll a 6 on my DTA Fortune roll which I will roll every week until it goes boom or something intercedes).

EDIT - We also established this particular Sparkwrights engineer has a penchant for “meddling with kids” (all of the PCs are orphans in one way or another) courtesy of a Devil’s Bargain with Skewth’s “Friend”, a Demon named Setarra.

 

[Lanefan]

Here are some posts, from a thread last year about Apocalypse World, that explain how else a mystery might be run:



As you can see, running a mystery in Apocalypse World, or in any system where the same techniques are used, does not require anyone at the table to decide in advance what has happened in the fiction, to provide clues that will permit other participants to infer that, etc.

That's a lot of text!

I'm not sure how the savvyhead post fits in, in that there doesn't seem to be much mystery there and it's more one player handing a gold-plated opportunity to another player for some good ol' PvP:

Player 1 (paraphrased) "What happens when I stick my head in this wired box?"
Savvyhead "Your brain hurts. Then it melts."

As to the others, there seems a certain Schroedinger-ness to it all in that while there's clues there's no solution; which means there's no way of knowing whether a clue or a conclusion is relevant or a red herring. In the moment of play it probably doesn't matter - the car, Isle, and some other things have all vanished and we need to figure out what happened - but when looked at from a distance and-or in hindsight (e.g. like we're doing now) there doesn't seem to be any glue holding the mystery together: nobody including the GM knows what really did happen and thus nobody can build a consistent and complete set of accurate clues to go along with the red herrings.

And sure, as a hard move you can bop a PC over the head and have them wake up in a car boot; but doing so also presents a possible hole in the logic: if the ground is soft enough to hold tire tracks (which were specifically noted in the narration) it might also be soft enough to hold footprints, meaning there might have been a) more information to be gleaned from the ground had anyone thought to (or been given the opportunity to) ask about such, and b) some warning or clues that someone may still be there.