GM fiat - an illustration

[FrogReaver]

You are taking me way too literally. I was using clue as an analogy. But the point is what is contained in the envelope is a real mystery you can solve by opening the envelope. It would be a much different game if that info were rolled on a table at the end or players decided what was in there. Again this isn’t a crazy idea that the players in a game where the GM determines the details of the mystery before hand are really solving a mystery in this approach and that that can matter for agency. Also that takes nothing away from the approaches you are talking about (it is just acknowledging a difference between them)

It’s so different I would hesitate to call them by the same name. One is more like emulating the fiction of solving a mystery. The other is emulating the actual solving of a mystery.

Both methods are going to produce fiction of a mystery being solved, but only one actually was solved by the players.

 

[FrogReaver]

Or to put my thoughts another way. There’s a fundamental difference in an elaborate cooperative process to decide ‘who done it’ in the fiction and players uncovering details about predetermined fiction to ultimately figure out for themselves ‘who done it’

Like one would not say a dm rolling a d8 to determine who killed the Duke was solving a mystery.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When I “solve” a mystery in an RPG, I’ve declared actions for my character that ultimately result in a “solution” to the mystery. I eliminate some information and confirm other information until such a point that the “truth” is revealed.

Yes. And if there was objective information to be learned, to be deduced, then that is solving a mystery.

It’s not nonsense for me to be able to separate what’s happening at the table and what’s happening in the participants’ collective imagination.

It indeed would not be, too bad you seem to be unable to do that. We are talking about difference between a situation where the shared imagination is about solving a mystery but what's happening at the table is collaboratively inventing a story about solving a mystery and a situation where both the collective imagination and what is happening at the table is solving a mystery.

I trust you are actually smart enough to see the difference just fine so I don't know why you're doing this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with this. This action shifts the direction of play and results in a completely different narrative than if they helped the duke.
In one of my campaigns during session -1 where we determine the focus of the next campaign, the players decided not to have any input and have me surprise them. So I set up a demonic invasion storyline that was happening. During the first few sessions when they first started hearing rumors and ran into a very minor demon, their characters basically said, "Screw this. I don't want to mess with demons. Let's go south and become pirates instead." So they did. The entire campaign shifted direction and became pirate focuses, but with the demon invasion happening it he background as rumors and occasionally affecting them tangentially as it ran its course without them.

It seems like the players are deciding the direction of things at a high level. Hard to compare games. It's cool.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are taking me way too literally. I was using clue as an analogy. But the point is what is contained in the envelope is a real mystery you can solve by opening the envelope. It would be a much different game if that info were rolled on a table at the end or players decided what was in there. Again this isn’t a crazy idea that the players in a game where the GM determines the details of the mystery before hand are really solving a mystery in this approach and that that can matter for agency. Also that takes nothing away from the approaches you are talking about (it is just acknowledging a difference between them)

No, what I'm saying is that Clue is no more about solving a real mystery than an RPG is.

Moving a token around a gameboard and making guesses on whodunnit based on the room you're in is not solving a mystery.

Declaring fictional actions for a character to prompt the GM to tell you what he's written down is not solving a mystery.

Declaring fictional actions for a character to allow a game system to generate a "solution" is not solving a mystery.

They are all examples of play that involves pretending to solve a mystery. They all involve things being made up. They are resolved in different ways.

Categorizing any as real and the others as not real is just mistaken.

Yes. And if there was objective information to be learned, to be deduced, then that is solving a mystery.

There may or may not be, depending on the game.

It indeed would not be, too bad you seem to be unable to do that. We are talking about difference between a situation where the shared imagination is about solving a mystery but what's happening at the table is collaboratively inventing a story about solving a mystery and a situation where both the collective imagination and what is happening at the table is solving a mystery.

I trust you are actually smart enough to see the difference just fine so I don't know why you're doing this.

I'm not failing to understand the distinction you're making, I'm explaining why that distinction doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Pedantic]

No, what I'm saying is that Clue is no more about solving a real mystery than an RPG is.

It's certainly real deduction though. Like, Clue's gameplay is certainly weird, and I think you can get better deductive structures in other games, I'd look towards Awful Guests or Mystery Express for similar weight games with better deductive loops, but you are absolutely using systems to learn a specific unknown thing, and getting there faster/slower and being right are measurable things.

There is a specific unknown truth you're trying to solve for. I could see a case that's different from like actual forensic detective work, but I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a "mystery."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's certainly real deduction though. Like, Clue's gameplay is certainly weird, and I think you can get better deductive structures in other games, I'd look towards Awful Guests or Mystery Express for similar weight games with better deductive loops, but you are absolutely using systems to learn a specific unknown thing, and getting there faster/slower and being right are measurable things.

There is a specific unknown truth you're trying to solve for. I could see a case that's different from like actual forensic detective work, but I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a "mystery."

Yes. It is not a real murder. But it is a real mystery.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's certainly real deduction though...

This is the point I am trying to make

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, what I'm saying is that Clue is no more about solving a real mystery than an RPG is.

Moving a token around a gameboard and making guesses on whodunnit based on the room you're in is not solving a mystery.

Declaring fictional actions for a character to prompt the GM to tell you what he's written down is not solving a mystery.

Declaring fictional actions for a character to allow a game system to generate a "solution" is not solving a mystery.

I don't think we are going to persuade one another. At this stage we are both kind of making the same arguments. I may return to your point about declaring fictional actions as I think you are missing some nuance there. But anything else I can say would just be a repeat of this post. So we might just have to agree to disagree about this particular point

 

[Maxperson]

They’re both puzzles to solve.

Yes. A puzzle that is called a mystery.