GM fiat - an illustration

[pemerton]

I think you are basically just describing it in the most boring and least flattering way possible in order to make a point.

No. I am trying to analyse the play.

You seem to think that it is embarrassing that the players "win" the game by working out what it was that the GM decided, in secret, was the "truth" about the fiction. I don't know why. No one thinks it is embarrassing to describe winning at Clue(do) in terms of working out what is in the envelope. Moldvay wasn't embarrassed by stating that one goal for the players is to create a map that is the same as the GM's map.

And ultimately you can't have it both ways - appeal to the objectivity of the situation because the GM decided, but deny that learning what it is that the GM decided is a key goal of play.

 

[Maxperson]

But... "a world" is still a bounded space. Like, planets have a finite physical area.

But you can still generally go and access the infinite outer and inner planes if you wish. You just have to find/acquire the means to get there.

 

[pemerton]

The notes are a way for the GM to pin down what they have imagined.

Yes. This is what I said.

What they represent are more than just he words on the page. In many instances they are simply prompts for the GM to remember what they have imagined.

That's the general function of words - they refer to things other than themselves. I'm not sure why you need to tell me this.

 

[Maxperson]

Even if all the people who know the answer are dead: there is still an answer. Something happened, and it can be determined by various means

Right. That's why I said that there is often someone who knows the answer. Who was Jack the Ripper is a mystery that no one alive currently knows. We might one day solve it, though. Who killed X three days ago is a mystery to the police, but at the very least the killer would know the answer.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't know that you were one of @Bedrockgames, @Crimson Longinus or @FrogReaver.

My post was about their techniques. I don't know how your run "mysteries".

I have also said it in the past, so I'm qualified to answer.

 

[Maxperson]

On this matter I prefer to adopt the analyses and conclusions of economists, lawyers, policy makers etc - who have thought very hard about the nature of agency and choice in a free market - than the view set out in your post.

What they have done is make sure we have more information, not more agency. And life is full of folks who thought very hard about something and got it wrong. Happens all the time in science.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes. This is what I said.

That's the general function of words - they refer to things other than themselves. I'm not sure why you need to tell me this.

Because I am saying your metaphor of the GM just showing the players their notes is reductive and it misses the fullness of the experience people are talking about. I don't think there is a lot of point going over this. It comes up a lot when we discuss things. But it isn't an explanation I agree with

 

[Bedrockgames]

What they have done is make sure we have more information, not more agency. And life is full of folks who thought very hard about something and got it wrong. Happens all the time in science.

Also we are talking about agency as an RPG term, not an economic one. We don't need to consult experts to discuss the agency of a player in a table top RPG

 

[Bedrockgames]

No. I am trying to analyse the play.

You seem to think that it is embarrassing that the players "win" the game by working out what it was that the GM decided, in secret, was the "truth" about the fiction. I don't know why. No one thinks it is embarrassing to describe winning at Clue(do) in terms of working out what is in the envelope. Moldvay wasn't embarrassed by stating that one goal for the players is to create a map that is the same as the GM's map.

And ultimately you can't have it both ways - appeal to the objectivity of the situation because the GM decided, but deny that learning what it is that the GM decided is a key goal of play.

I didn't say the GM didn't decide. I said very clearly the GM has imagined the mystery. But I have objected to the note pad metaphor because I don't think it is about working out what the GM has in their notes. It is about exploring the mystery and setting around it, as well the characters, that the GM has mapped in their head. The notes are just a tool to help the GM. I also think the notepad explanation misses out on the nuances of how this plays out at the table (it suggests a much more static scenario, where the GM is not responding fluidly when players do unexpected things). I also have an issue with it because in these conversations you have used this explanation to downplay how we often talk about our style of play. I know you don't like poetic language. But I see these scenarios as having life breathed into them and words on a page don't capture what I feel I am going for when I run these types of sessions

 

[pemerton]

Well it certainly isn't in every RPG. I don't do a lot of this kind of mapping in an organized crime campaign. But it isn't unique to D&D either. Lots of RPGs feature this kind of secret architecture. I think even in Call of Cthulhu it has a place. It isn't like Lovecraft never had something analogous to an underground passage or chamber that could be discovered.

But is the best way to resolve secret chambers, in CoC play, via maps and mapping? I don't think so. The could be handled more like, say, finding a book in a library or noticing a scar on a NPC is handled.